Decision to raise match fee a tangible shift

The BCCI’s decision to raise Test match fees to Rs 15 lakh (from Rs 7 lakh) must be applauded. It shows a tangible shift from mere lip service to the 5-day format.

Even the Justice R M Lodha panel, currently in the mood to override whatever the Board does, is unlikely to raise a red flag.

Argument that love for the sport and pride of playing for the country cannot be equated with money is churlish. Let’s turn this around on its head: can a player sustain love for Tests and fuel national pride if the format itself is being undermined?

The rise of limited overs cricket diluted the importance of the Test cricketer to some extent, but the arrival of T20 — and especially the cash rich leagues — threatens to marginalise him completely. When there is greater attention and infinitely more money paid for limited overs matches, what’s the incentive to be a Test specialist.

That the best players in the modern game are those who excel is all formats is a truism with limited applicability if the objective is to revive Test cricket. What about the player who prioritises the longest format? Or, for some obscure reason, is not in great demand for the shorter versions.

Consider Cheteshwar Pujara, who has been offloaded from the IPL, does not figure in limited overs internationals, but is a high quality, highly prolific Test player. Where does he stand vis-a-vis say the high earning T20 specialist who may be a fairly mediocre Test player: if indeed he is selected?

Sure, the financial dynamics that rule T20 leagues and Test cricket are vastly different. One can’t argue against T20 specialists being paid less than what franchises are willing to pay. But one can argue for lifting the pay scale — and esteem — of the Test cricketer.

Improving the emoluments and profile of the Test player will have a three-fold effect. One, it will incentivize him to work harder, do better. The feeling of being an also-ran will be mitigated. He may be in the team intermittently in a season, but it will be accompanied with heightened importance. Two, if the stock of the Test cricketer increases, other fast class players and budding cricketers already in the system will not be clamouring (sometimes by hook or by crook!) to be part of the IPL. This will make for a more congenial and healthy playing environment in domestic cricket.

Third, this will send out a strong message to kids being introduced to the sport that the Test format is alive and kicking: that it is coveted not just by spouting homilies and niceties, but also when it comes to rewards, financial and otherwise.

As things were, the Test specialist was rapidly becoming a poor cousin of the ‘star’ limited overs player, particularly in Indian cricket. This was being felt strongly within the fraternity too, and the BCCI has been mulling over revising the Test fee for some while. I’d say the decision was long overdue.

Of course, raising match fee is only one aspect in arresting the decline of Test cricket in India. Improving the engagement quotient’ of the paying spectator is critical. In this respect, the BCCI has been a laggard when, given its clout and money muscle, it should be in the vanguard. Comfort levels for fans at most stadia are poor.

Some measures are afoot undoubtedly. At the Eden Gardens where I am for the second Test against New Zealand, CAB president Sourav Ganguly, has installed a bell (a la Lord’s) which is rung to initiate play each day. This may be part gimmick, but necessary nonetheless to improve the delight of the fan.

That Test cricket is under duress is widely acknowledged by cricket Boards all over the world. Attempts are made, but in fits and bursts, to make it more appealing, day-night matches with a pink ball the most radical. As it happened, the Indian cricket establishment still dithers over what is really a no-brainer. And over which the Justice Lodha panel could have had no objection whatsoever!