OPINION: The ECB’s Overhaul of Women’s Domestic Cricket – Sorting The Contenders From The Pretenders

By Mary Neale-Smith

The next stage in the evolution of women’s cricket in England and Wales has been outlined in an invitation to tender titled ‘Evolving Together’ shared with 18 first-class counties (FCC) and the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) earlier this month. The England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) has announced plans for a three-tiered domestic structure and a transformation in the ownership model that underscores the women’s game as the counties will bid to become one of the eight new ‘Tier 1’ clubs. 

This planned overhaul of the women’s game follows the long-awaited report published by the Independent Commission for Equity in Cricket (ICEC) last June. The 317-page report, titled ‘Holding Up A Mirror To Cricket’, showed that systematic discrimination on the grounds of race, class and gender has plagued the game.

The commission, established in March 2021 in response to the murder of George Floyd in police custody in the USA and the Black Lives Matter movement which sparked numerous claims of institutional racism within English cricket, described how the women’s game remains ‘the poor relation of its male counterpart in English and Welsh cricket.’ 

The ICEC recommended achieving equal pay and prize money for women’s domestic players by 2029 and called for equality in working conditions and representation in governance to ensure fair decision-making. Additionally, the commission advocated for increased investment in women’s cricket infrastructure.

In the foreword of the invitation to tender which seeks to address the ICEC recommendations, Beth Barrett-Wild, Director of Women’s Professional Game at the ECB, made an interesting observation about how ‘transform’ has become a buzzword in women’s cricket. Barrett-Wild further elaborates that the phrase is ‘not without substance,’ highlighting the evident pace and nature of change witnessed over the last five years. Yet, it does make you wonder about the effectiveness of past transformations if another overhaul is deemed necessary this year.

The proposed restructure aims to be effective through changing the ownership model and governance of the women’s game, to drive accountability and elevate the status of women’s cricket in England and Wales.

The 18 first class counties and MCC will have to bid to become a Tier 1 club. Following the application process for Tier 1, it’s expected that the counties which were unsuccessful, or perhaps did not submit a bid, will be invited to determine the structure of Tier 2 and Tier 3 teams as a part of the expanded three-tier women’s pyramid.

The eight successful women’s Tier 1 clubs will receive a minimum investment of £1.3m annually from the ECB. To secure one of the eight places, the county’s submission will be evaluated by a panel judging the bids against a set of eleven evaluation criteria. These criteria are aligned with the objectives of the overhaul. However, while further details on the evaluation criteria and their weightings have been shared with the counties, for reasons unknown, the ECB has not made them public.

In addition, the counties will be required to showcase their overarching vision for the women’s game as the panel will evaluate the depth of feeling and ambition of the applicants to become a Tier 1 club. The ECB will also be looking to understand the projected levels of investment that the counties are looking to make if successful and applicants will be asked to outline their budget plans.

The new structure will look to support the development and retention of more talented female players through more layers of competition, greater access to training and playing opportunities, as well as widening the geographical spread of the women’s teams. In addition, Tier 1, 2 and 3 teams will be designated a catchment area and will collaborate to coordinate and deliver a talent pathway comprising an academy, an emerging player program and a county age group (CAG) program.

In terms of the impact on England’s aspiration for international competitiveness in the women’s game, the evolution of the playing depth of the women’s domestic game is a step in the right direction. A year-round high-performance environment and structure for players, coaches, and support staff should raise the standard of domestic cricket, channelling more quality and higher numbers of players into the national teams.

But where does The Hundred fit into this picture? The invitation to tender only briefly acknowledges the competition, hailed by Richard Gould, Chief Executive, for generating unparalleled visibility. For county teams hosting a Hundred team, what extra advantages come with Tier 1 club status? Conversely, for counties less tied to The Hundred, being part of the top level of domestic cricket could be much more advantageous.

Whilst promising that the ECB is willing to invest significantly into the women’s game and promoting ownership and accountability (and share of revenue) is more likely to drive growth and professionalism, first-class counties are ultimately businesses and many have struggled financially. The ECB believes they are offering the chance for counties ‘to access rights and own an asset in the fastest growing market and audience growth space for cricket: the women’s game’, but counties must weigh this against their financial constraints before making a decision to apply.

Whether the ‘Evolving Together’ initiative is the final transformation we will see in women’s cricket is undecided. Only time will tell if these changes in the ownership, governance, and investment in the women’s game will truly reshape the landscape of women’s cricket.

OPINION: Promotion and Relegation in English Domestic Cricket – A Deeply Flawed Concept

By Andy Frombolton

The ECB has recently sent an Invitation To Tender (ITT) to all 18 men’s First Class Counties (FCC) plus MCC seeking expressions of interest in becoming one of 8 proposed Tier 1 (premier) women’s cricket counties.

In several places, the ITT refers to the idea of there being relegation and promotion after the initial 4-year period.

This article explains how it would be almost unworkable in practice and disastrous in reality; requiring teams to prioritise survival over talent development, pushing talent towards the teams deemed safest from relegation, and potentially deterring FCCs from bidding for Tier 1 status.

Starting with the basics, what would be the methodology for determining the Tier 1 team to be relegated? Very easy if the same team came bottom of both competitions, but what if the same team won the T20 competition and came last in the 50-over competition? What if a team’s results had been significantly impacted by injuries to key players or England call-ups or even by weather? (Remembering the 2021 Men’s T20 Blast where Sussex had 5 games rained off whereas no northern team lost more than 1 game to weather.) Relegation wouldn’t be like going from Division 1 to Division 2 in the Men’s County Championship, it would be brutal and binary (going from professional to amateur).

Obviously, the same question applies in respect of the team to be promoted. With 10 (or possibly 11) FCCs playing in Tier 2 it’s even less likely that the same team would win most competitions.

But let’s imagine that a methodology was developed to determine the teams to be relegated and promoted …

At the macro level, the geographic spread of Tier 1 teams (which the ITT stresses will be an overarching goal in the initial selection of successful bidders) could swiftly be distorted or rapidly dismantled. To illustrate the point, imagine the first team to be relegated was the North East / ‘Yorkshire’ team and the promoted county was located in the South East. The following year, the North West / ‘Lancashire’ team is relegated and, again, the promoted team is from the South East. Suddenly, there’s no Tier 1 cricket north of the Midlands, and a huge concentration of Tier 1 counties in the South East.

The situation is even messier at the micro level …

The relegated team would need to release all its contracted players (paying compensation to those in the middle of multi-year contracts) as well as associated coaching and support staff. Players with local commitments, mortgages, etc. might not be able to move and could swiftly run into financial difficulties. The relegated club may also have developed resources or facilities for the women’s team which they can no longer afford or which are now surplus to requirements. To mitigate this financial risk, counties would be forced to only offer 1 year rolling contracts to their players and staff – which is hardly conducive to persuading women that good careers exist in cricket and certainly not allowing them to plan their futures with any confidence.

And, if the audience and demand for the women’s game has grown as hoped, the relegated team will have played its part in this success (both in terms of providing an entertaining product and investing their own money in the team). Their reward? Expulsion at the very time when the game should be moving to a sustainable footing and some of their sunk costs might be recovered?

For the promoted team, the reward for most, and possibly all, of the amateur players who were responsible for securing the promotion would be to lose their county places, since the newly-promoted team will need to rapidly migrate to a fully-professional squad ready to compete the following season. A few of the victors might pick up professional contracts on the back of their performances, but the rest would need to move to another Tier 2 county (or perhaps might just choose to leave the game). (This is a serious issue – the ITT would create a situation where the most talented amateur players in 10 counties would be denied the chance to play for their county.)

The promoted club would then have the off-season to negotiate a funding agreement (assuming acceptable terms can be agreed) and sign a venue agreement with the ECB, wherafter it would need to recruit a full squad and support staff from scratch. A wholesale novation of staff from the relegated club isn’t realistic – the promoted team might not want (or might not be able to afford) certain players or support staff, and conversely the impacted players and staff might not want (or be able) to move to a new location. The only other source of players would be the county’s existing amateurs (who may not aspire to be professional cricketers) and out-of-contract or released players; collectively this might allow you to assemble a team, but not necessarily one with a good chance of not being relegated at the end of the following season.

These issues might easily be enough to deter possible bidders, but if they didn’t, they would certainly promote short-termism in player recruitment and a disincentive to invest in developing young talent. If the primary motivation becomes survival, a team’s outlook becomes myopic.

Within the chosen Tier 1 counties, it is almost certain that there will be significant differences in their respective spending power. Many of the best players would gravitate towards the richer counties, which could offer them more in the way of support and facilities (and perhaps better out-of-season overseas opportunities if their coaches are well connected). So, although money isn’t a guarantee of on-field success, it makes it more likely that the battle to avoid relegation wouldn’t be an 8-way battle but one fought out between the 3-4 smaller clubs.

For all these reasons, the idea of promotion and relegation needs to be abandoned. 

Players could then commit to teams with confidence and counties could afford to take a longer-term view towards the time when the women’s game achieves a self-sufficient and sustainable basis. 

The ECB could still reserve the right to terminate a county’s Tier 1 status if it failed to meet specified metrics in terms of player support, delivery of pathway programmes or required support to adjacent counties; much like a school being put in special measures, either installing their own management and staff, or (where this was viable) finding an adjacent FCC willing to take on the role.

And, Tier 2 teams which consistently produce a disproportionate number of players who go on to secure Tier 1 contracts could be rewarded with a bigger share of the funds provided to this level, thereby allowing them to invest in their local pathway and be well placed to make a bid for Tier 1 status if the number of clubs was ever increased.

The CRICKETher Weekly – Episode 205

This week we’re previewing WPL 2024:

  • Can Mumbai Indians retain their title?
  • Will Alice Capsey get on the field for Delhi Capitals?
  • Are Gujarat Giants destined to be the perennial losers?
  • What does success look like for the competition in Year Two?

The CRICKETher Weekly – Episode 204

This week:

  • Sutherland stars for Australia v South Africa
  • Is captaincy affecting Laura Wolvaardt?
  • Are Australia still favourites for the 2024 World Cup?
  • Financial woes for the English counties: what does this mean for the new women’s structure?

The CRICKETher Weekly – Episode 203

This week:

  • South Africa go toe-to-toe with Australia
  • Some odd selections by Australia ahead of the WACA Test
  • The new 3-day red-ball fixture in Australia
  • Dane van Niekerk to return to international cricket?
  • Worcestershire opt out of Project Darwin Tier 1