Cricket at the Olympics – The Game Changer?

So after much wrangling, cricket is set to be included at the 2028 Olympic Games in Los Angeles. This has been widely celebrated among the cricket fan community but there remain a number of reasons to be sceptical.

In a piece written a few months ago for Inside The Games, ICC chair Greg Barclay argued that this was a “win-win-win”.

“For cricket, the benefits of inclusion into LA28 are clear. Being part of the greatest event in the world will enable us to showcase cricket to new audiences, to attract new players and fans of all ages, and open new commercial opportunities, all while giving our star players the ultimate platform to shine.”

“The United States in particular is a key pillar of our Global Growth Strategy, making this iteration of the Olympics – in LA – especially exciting for us.”

Perhaps the most bizarre part of this quote is the literal head of the International Cricket Council admitting that their own World Cup is not the “ultimate platform” for the sport. (Can you imagine Gianni Infantino saying that the FIFA World Cup wasn’t the “ultimate platform” for football?)

It is also a little optimistic to imagine that cricket’s inclusion in a multi-sports event where it will, at the very best, play third-fiddle behind Track & Field and Gymnastics (the blue-riband Olympic events) will do very much for its profile. If you think that just being an Olympic sport increases your profile, then I challenge you to tell me everything you know about handball, which has been an Olympic event for nearly 50 years, with no noticeable increase in profile outside its heartlands.

Barclay also argues that because the US is seen by the ICC as a key growth market, that LA is a good place for cricket to start (or technically, re-start, as it was played in 1900) its Olympic journey. But is it? There are some good reasons to think it might actually not be.

First, LA is 12½ hours time difference to Mumbai – it is going to be impossible to schedule the games in a way that will please Indian broadcasters, meaning any revenue projections from TV income are likely well wide of the mark.

Second, the games take place in August, in the heart of the English season, meaning they will rain all over The Hundred (or whatever has replaced it by 2028). This is a massive problem for the ECB, who will need to make some very hard choices.

Third, specialist press (of whom there are next-to-none locally) won’t be able to cover the games in-person. LA is one of the most expensive cities in the world, even when there isn’t an Olympics going on – there is no way the specialist media will be able to afford to be there; and specialist broadcasters such as TMS may face similar issues. (Will the BBC be able to afford to send the TMS team to cover the matches? And if so, what will they cut to find the six-figure sum it would cost?)

Finally, an argument Barclay doesn’t make, but which we’ve seen from fans, is that this will help cricket in the “Associate” countries by giving them access to Olympic funding. But… will it? So-called “Olympic funding” actually comes from governments, who are under no obligation to fund one sport over another, and are much more likely to divert money to sports their country actually has a chance to at least qualify in.

There is zero chance of any associate country qualifying for a 6-team Olympic event, even if we pretend that the qualification will really be genuinely meritocratic. Which… it won’t be! (Does anyone really believe that if (somehow) India slipped into 7th place behind the Netherlands in the T20 rankings that the ICC (who after all control the rankings through a conveniently unpublished algorithm) wouldn’t just… change the algorithm? Of course they would!) So why would the Netherlands Olympic funding committee prioritise cricket over all the other sports that are clutching at their purse-strings?

None of this means that cricket at LA ’28 won’t potentially be a fun ride for anyone lucky enough to be involved. But if the ICC is really relying on this to be the “game changer”… they are going to be sorely disappointed.