Should Ireland play Test cricket?
Outgoing ICC chairman Greg Barclay recently questioned the financial wisdom of Irish Test cricket. Was he right?
“Why are Ireland playing Test cricket?”
Greg Barclay, the outgoing ICC chairman, made sure to lob a grenade on his way out the door. This wasn’t some crank on Twitter lamenting the money spent on a format which Ireland barely plays. No, this was the former figurehead of global cricket questioning the very red ball existence of a small, but proud cricketing island.
Has the veneer been lifted? Was this the ICC saying the quiet bit out loud? Was Barclay, now free of the constraints of keeping up political appearances, offering a brief, yet concerning window into how the game’s governing body views little old Ireland?
It’s impossible to say for sure.
For context, this wasn’t just a cheap-shot. One of the game’s leading figures wasn’t simply punching down on the financially poorest full member. Zimbabwe came in for mention, too, alongside the West Indies. The whole sport was criticised. In an interview with the Telegraph published last week, Barclay warned that cricket is stuck in a financial model which is “10 years out of date.”
“There's some structural change that probably needs to be contemplated,” he said. “Some countries are trying to play Test cricket that maybe shouldn't. Why are Ireland playing Test cricket? Whatever money they've got surely they should be investing into grass roots to try and grow their numbers.
“The only way to get kids to play the game is in short form. They’re not going to turn up and play red ball all day Saturday, all day Sunday. That’s not going to happen. Every time they’re playing a Test, they lose an enormous amount of money. Again, why would you do that? It makes no sense. Why is Zimbabwe playing Test cricket? They lose money on the broadcast deal, so it makes no sense at all.”
Barclay didn’t expand beyond this. But if he did, in an Irish context, one would suspect his argument runs something along the lines of this:
Ireland can’t afford to uphold its current FTP commitments. They played a home Test last year against Zimbabwe (at a loss) but cancelled Australia’s white ball tour. The crowds at that Test in Belfast were disappointing. Apart from appeasing a handful of traditionalists, what was the benefit? Did this Test match lead to any financial reward? No. Did it introduce new, younger audiences to the sport? Unlikely.
What, then, is Irish cricket’s response?
Cricket Ireland, the national governing body, did not respond initially to Barclay’s comments. When subsequently asked by this publication, they released a detailed statement. You can scroll to the bottom of this to read the whole thing, if so inclined, but the headline quotes are as follows:
“It is important to start by noting that these were personal remarks made by the now former ICC chair rather than an official ICC statement,” said a CI spokesman.
“The ICC’s stated position is that it is committed to maintaining the three formats of the game and we know the new chair is a strong advocate for Test cricket and finding solutions that make it viable for all full members.
“We are fiercely proud to have been elevated to full membership status and to be granted the privilege of playing Test cricket. However, it is important to recognise that we have taken an extremely prudent approach to the longest format for the very reason of achieving greater self-sustainability, which Mr Barclay’s comments perhaps do not reflect accurately.
“For Mr Barclay to point to greater self-sustainability, we can only agree with his point. However, for Mr Barclay to pick out our participation in Test cricket as a negative is counter to the evidence. Test cricket is a format that will continue to be part of our programme, albeit on a prudent and sustainable level.”
TL;DR: Cricket Ireland strongly disagrees with Barclay’s comments. The reasons for Ireland playing Test cricket go beyond the financial, because, in terms of money alone, Barclay is not wrong. Irish Test cricket is not a prudent financial exercise in and of itself. Therefore, what is the point, for which CI would stringently argue?
Players and fans want it, for starters. Irish fans travelled in significant enough number for the 2023 Test against England at Lord’s. Nowhere near as many got on the boat for the ‘home’ ODI series against Bangladesh in Chelmsford earlier that year. Speak to the players themselves, they want the prestige of Test match runs and wickets. In terms of pure gravitas, the old format still has value.
Of all the factors, though, this is the least influential. If player and fan sentiment was the key, Ireland wouldn’t have endured a four-year gap between Test matches. There comes a point where finances dictate all.
That said, that bleak monetary picture has improved. Other factors can enter the thought process once a certain financial benchmark has been met. Ireland gets more ICC funding now than it did in recent years.
CI also believes that red ball produces better cricketers. Basic techniques are stronger when raised on a diet of either defending against or bowling with the moving ball. Cricket Ireland’s high performance staff wants to play red ball for this very reason.
This seems a flawed point since the merits of only doing so at the top level can certainly be argued. By the time a player plays in a Test for Ireland, they are of an age where only so much improvement can be found. These players would become better cricketers by playing years of domestic First Class cricket before they reach the top level. Instead, they have to run before they can walk.
Even if international players could drastically improve techniques on the job, Ireland doesn’t play Test cricket frequently enough to allow for this. Playing Test matches without domestic red ball makes little sense from a performance angle. The latest indications are that a regular First Class competition won’t be on the cards in 2025. Instead, it appears likely that red ball games will be on a needs-must basis to prepare for upcoming Test matches, should the FTP commitment to host Afghanistan for a multi-day game be upheld. CI has stated publicly its goal of returning to a provincial First Class structure by 2027.
The main reason for pursuing the longest format is political. On two fronts. Firstly, Ireland is, after all, an ICC full member, a status for which we all begged for years. Fans wanted Test matches, Cricket Ireland wanted this and the subsequent boost to its coffers (the full member funding hike only really came seven years after Test status was obtained). CI can’t come out and publicly say that the money interested them more than the whites - even if the green woolly jumpers are the nicest in Test cricket - but rest assured, it did.
After yearning for this status, it is politically difficult to shun the game’s most expensive format. You can’t simply take the money and run. CI has already had political difficulties within the last 12 months. When they were denied the early release of ICC broadcast funding earlier this year, this came with a strong rebuke of CI’s inability thus far to independently fund its full member commitments.
There is another argument, which is made by CI, that by turning Stormont into a Test venue and bestowing on it the requisite prestige, CI bought themselves some political capital at a national level. Michelle O’Neill and Emma Pengelly, First and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, attended the match against Zimbabwe. Was this a useful opening of the political door into Stormont? CI has every intention of using the Belfast venue for the 2030 T20 World Cup, but they will need local political support to do so. There were positive murmurings that this would be forthcoming, thanks in part to manoeuvres made at the Test match.
To what end, time will tell. So far at least, not enough political strings were pulled to get a recent funding application for the redevelopment of Stormont over the line. The multi-sport project to upgrade the whole complex, including the cricket pavilion, was last month denied access to money released by a peace funding programme in Northern Ireland.
That said, for all the non financial arguments which can be made, Ireland’s desire to play Tests only matters somewhat. If, as CI argues, Barclay’s views render him an outlier, perhaps we can breathe a sigh of relief. Clearly, given Ireland are scheduled to play Tests up until the end of the FTP in 2027, there is no current, official ICC policy against Ireland playing Test cricket. Jay Shah, the former head of the BCCI and now Barclay’s replacement, is said to be pro everyone playing Test cricket. He has spoken of introducing minimum match fees to encourage players to choose Test matches over franchise leagues. While the morals behind this move are admirable, this won’t affect Ireland greatly since they are not battling franchises for their players in the same way the West Indies are.
Current attitudes towards smaller nations are not what will govern Ireland’s Test future. Which perhaps is no bad thing in the medium term. While they are certainly more receptive to helping CI than in previous years, all indications are that the England Cricket Board were not satisfied with the standard of competition Ireland provided last year in what was a warm-up Test for the Bazballers ahead of the Ashes. Albeit in hindsight, there have been questions asked in the ECB offices of the wisdom of inviting Ireland to play a Test when their players play no First Class cricket. Richard Gould, head of the ECB, seems to be in a generous mood when offering Test touring fees to smaller nations such as Zimbabwe. That generosity may have its limits.
The events which will govern the number of Tests Ireland play beyond 2027, irrespective of how many they actually win, are beyond their control. The Indian broadcast market has just seen a merger between two big players, Disney and Reliance. This will dramatically reduce the amount of competition for ICC TV rights in Asia, the main source of the revenue which is then spread out to countries such as Ireland.
Less competition means lower prices. CI already struggles to host Test cricket even with the funding hike which came this year. If that annual cash injection drops, what then? In a way, the ICC and all nations involved, including Ireland, are desperate for other heavy hitters, perhaps streamers who have dabbled in other sports such as Amazon and Netflix, to enter the fray and drive up prices.
The other implication of fewer Indian broadcasters is the growing influence of those who remain. Figures involved in discussions have reported how some television executives asked the ICC to focus primarily on T20 cricket, at the expense of Tests. There is no indication that the exhortations came from Disney or Reliance, but if these TV figures are still standing as capitalist competition dwindles, can the ICC, for all the supposed goodwill of new chairman Shah, keep saying no?
In some ways, the viability of Irish Test cricket comes down to so much more than finances. In others, it’s all about the Benjamins. CI is the smallest dog at the ICC full member bowl. They won’t have much of a say in what happens in television boardrooms in Mumbai, but they will have to deal with the ramifications.
Shah and co may well have all the best intentions of preserving nations like Ireland. Given the pride he takes in turning the BCCI into the behemoth it is today, Shah will no doubt want to avoid the black mark of seeing Test cricket die outside India, Australia and England on his watch. But if the broadcasting cards don’t fall his way, what choice will he have?
The next ICC funding cycle starts after 2027. A lot can happen in three years and there are plenty of suits being paid handsomely to figure all this out. However, if faced with the demands of countless national boards who would say they are underfunded, should ICC revenue fall instead of rise ahead of the next funding cycle, where will Irish Test cricket fall on the list of priorities?
You don’t need to be a genius to figure that one out. We may need one, though, to preserve Ireland’s Test future should Mr Bezos or Lady Luck fail to intervene.
Full Cricket Ireland statement in response to Greg Barclay’s comments:
“Regarding Greg Barclay’s quoted comments, it is important to start by noting that these were personal remarks made by the now former ICC chair rather than an official ICC statement.
“The ICC’s stated position is that it is committed to maintaining the three formats of the game and we know the new chair is a strong advocate for Test cricket and finding solutions that make it viable for all full members. Finding a viable model for all full members to support this ambition is going to be a challenge for the ICC, but Ireland is not unique in having to face some challenges in that perspective.
“As to Mr Barclay’s comments, the issues raised are much wider than just about the specific reference to Test cricket. The context of Mr Barclay’s comments were that they were part of a larger point he was making about financial sustainability and growth of the grass roots across the global game.
“These were not new observations for us, as the former ICC chair had already made clear to us that we need to seek greater self-sustainability given the variability over ICC funding – particularly coming to the next funding cycle.
“To that end, we have in recent years taken a number of steps to ensure greater self-sustainability, including:
We negotiated a record broadcast rights deal to improve our revenue streams from international cricket
We set out the case and successfully advocated for the Irish Government to build the national cricket centre
We have increased sponsorship revenue through attracting long-term sponsors for both our men’s and women’s teams
We continue to pursue the establishment of a franchise league, that will achieve benefits to both our performance pathway and commercial objectives
We were part of a successful joint-bid that has been awarded the ICC Men’s T20 World Cup 2030
We have developed a new facilities strategy to identify and prioritise the needs of the sport
“Specifically regarding support for the grassroots:
We have invested heavily in the provincial unions in order to grow and sustain grassroots cricket
We have launched a number of national programmes for kids and women to grow the game
We have developed a new equality, diversity and inclusion strategy to support clubs attract and retain participants
We have reintroduced the club fund
We have directly supported clubs with government grant applications, which this year saw almost €490,000 in new funding injected into the game
“Finally, on the point of Test cricket, we are fiercely proud to have been elevated to full membership status and to be granted the privilege of playing Test cricket. However, it is important to recognise that we have taken an extremely prudent approach to the longest format for the very reason of achieving greater self-sustainability, which Mr Barclay’s comments perhaps do not reflect accurately.
“However, just as relevant to financial considerations of playing Test cricket, there are a range of other important considerations that guide our approach, including:
High performance: our HP staff and players are clear on the benefits of multi-day cricket in terms of skill development
Visibility: being a Test nation puts us in the shop window in a different way to non-Test playing nations
Political: for example hosting a Test match at Stormont will hopefully pay dividends in the long-term politically for us
“Finally, there is an aspect of scale that needs to be acknowledged. Since being granted full membership in 2017, we have only played nine men’s Tests – just two of these have been at home. For Mr Barclay to point to greater self-sustainability, we can only agree with his point. However, for Mr Barclay to pick out our participation in Test cricket as a negative is counter to the evidence. Test cricket is a format that will continue to be part of our programme, albeit on a prudent and sustainable level.”