India’s monopoly will lead cricket to eventual ruin

Break Point Column, by Morgan Bolton

I learnt pretty early on, that controlling the blue properties in Monopoly – although prestigious – was not the best strategy, and that rather the brown and light blue squares was where the money was at.

After swooping up those properties, “manipulating” the game became rather easy, especially when in control of the bank, and with trusting siblings across the table. 

Monopoly aficionados will tell you that, in fact, the best properties to control on the board are the orange and red squares; and then realising that the most likely roll of the dice are statistically between six and eight. Buying subsequent properties should, therefore, be spaced out in that fashion for maximum control.

Monopoly, the great family divider, the friendship breaker, the grudge machine of our generation but also, a truly terrifying real-world phenomenon that has resulted in some horrific immoral acts.

On the more devastating side, the monopoly of the Dutch East Indian Company (VOC) on nutmeg resulted in the massacre and enslavement of the Bandanese – a population of 15 000 people crushed down to 1 000 survivors.

While governing the Cape Colony, the VOC shipped in 25 000 slaves from Sri Lanka, Malaysia and Madagascar to maintain their hold on the shipping lane between Europe and the Far East, committing egregious atrocities and institutionalising race-based systems that South Africa still grapples with today.

More recently, De Beers held a near perfect monopoly on the diamond trade, controlling up to 85% of distribution. During the 2000s, the company was found guilty of price fixing and manipulation. 

Throughout their history, De Beers would flood, withhold and stockpile diamonds within the markets of competitors to cripple any opposition. In Botswana, they have been accused of genocide, while allegations of trading in blood diamonds were fuelling wars in Africa abound. 

For most of the 20th century, De Beers controlled those orange and red squares, so to speak, and was the bank, dictating the play and any underhanded transactions and tactics.

Now think on the decline in quality of TV shows due to the streaming monopoly enjoyed by Netflix, and the immense power Disney has over the entertainment industry. Or the lack of access to sport, unless you have a DStv subscription. We have less choices but pay more.

Some might argue that sport cannot be a monopoly in the purest sense, but then I look at Indian cricket and my understanding of the term, and that both certainly align. According to statistics, cricket will generate $3.84 billion in revenue in 2025, of which Indian cricket will account for about $2.38bn.

Makes sense. They are by far the largest consumers of the sport.

But that’s about 62% of all revenue, a similar market share that De Beers enjoyed while it was winding down in the Noughties. That market share is expected to only grow in the coming years. The IPL, meanwhile, is valued at $11bn, while they control interests in the SA20, America’s Major League Cricket, the Caribbean Premier League and the less prestigious International League T20. 

Most recently, in England, the owners of the Super Giants bought a 70% stake in Manchester Originals – a team that plays in the Hundred – for a reported £81m, bringing their investment into that league to £950m.

Is it surprising then that India believes it can roughshod their way through the cricket community, acting with impunity regarding their interests?

It is clear, armed with this unequalled financial power, that the Board of Control for Cricket in India are the masters of the ICC and enjoy a mighty degree of favouritism.

That has certainly been the case during this ICC Champions Trophy, which will see Pakistan host India and New Zealand in the final of their tournament in Dubai, because India refuse to play in the host nation, due to geo-political reasons.

Last year, at the T20 World Cup, while other nations had to travel between the US and the Caribbean, India enjoyed the sights and sounds of New York. They were also the only team to have prior knowledge of that ground’s idiosyncrasies. 

The problem with monopolies, however, is that it is ultimately bad for consumers. Higher prices, lower quality and fewer choices will hamper the growth of the game, while the barriers to entry and power dynamics will make it impossible to introduce new leagues, new ideas, new supporters.

So, while the on-pitch advantage India are currently exploiting right now is beyond cynical and borders on cheating, cricket faces a much more pressing problem. The Spirit of Cricket, if such a thing ever existed, won’t be crushed on-the-field, but rather by the terrible weight of one body controlling it all.