Why English cricket needs a transfer system
Stuart Broad's Ashes heroics were made in Leicestershire, but they received no compensation when he left for Notts
The ECB have decided to set up a working party to investigate the need, or otherwise, for a transfer system within county cricket. This comes as an increasing number of players are being developed by the smaller counties and then lost to those with more money on offer – think Steven Davies’ move from Worcestershire to Surrey, from which Worcestershire received nothing in compensation.
The problem they will encounter is that of EU regulations regarding restraint of trade, much the same as football has had to adapt to the Bosman ruling. Currently sportsmen and women are not considered to be any different to any other employee in any other field. Which, in many ways, is as it should be.
However, the example of someone like Stuart Broad highlights the difference – Broad came through the age-groups at Leicestershire starting with the under-11s. Leicestershire had, in effect, provided Broad’s entire cricketing education.
Imagine if FTSE100 firms started signing up promising kids at the age of 9 or 10 and then provided their secondary and university educations themselves. And not just by paying the fees – by providing their own tutors, mentors and a customised curriculum to suit each individual.
That is essentially what counties like Leicestershire have done for the likes of Broad. Then, just as they start to see a return on their investment, the player ups and leaves to a firm offering higher wages. Any FTSE100 firm in that situation would no doubt demand that the investment they made be compensated.
Under Bosman system in football, players under the age of 24 can move at the end of their contracts, but not without compensation being paid to the club that developed their talents. This protects smaller clubs when their best young players are courted by the big-guns.
Cricket needs to recognise that since the introduction of two divisions, the counties are no longer on a level playing field. Whilst a wealthy county such as Surrey are not immune from falling into the lower division, they at least have the resources to attract top players such as Davies. The likes of Leicestershire, Derbyshire and so on do not have that luxury.
The introduction of Twenty20 money through the Champions League is likely to accelerate that trend. The advent of Twenty20 and the IPL have already led to plenty of speculation and suggestion about the future of the lesser counties and whether the ECB should cut the number of 1st Class teams.
So it is time to introduce a system that properly protects the Worcestershires from the Surreys of this world. The ECB currently pays a subsidy to Leicestershire, for instance, for each England appearance that Broad makes. This is not enough – for every good young player who makes it to international level, there are many more who do not. Compensation should be paid directly from county to county as part of their playing budget in the same way as football clubs do under the Bosman ruling.
The ECB is likely to meet resistance from the bigger counties who benefit from the status quo, but this is one issue where the administrators need to recognise the greater good rather than bowing to their member’s preferences as they usually do.
Comments:
2