Cliff Notes – Hundred windfall will enable counties to plan for ‘cricket, not finance’
- Sussex head coach Paul Farbrace advocates for a restructuring of the men’s county game, emphasising a focus on cricketing needs rather than financial pressures, following a significant financial boost from the Hundred.
- The ECB’s recent £500 million investment from the Hundred franchises presents a unique opportunity for counties to redesign their schedules, potentially enhancing player development and fan engagement.
Paul Farbrace: Hundred windfall will enable counties to plan for ‘cricket, not finance’
Sussex head coach, Paul Farbrace, believes English cricket has a golden opportunity to overhaul the structure of the men’s county game with a blueprint that is “right for cricket and not right for finance”, in the wake of the ECB securing an unprecedented windfall from its sale of equity in the Hundred.
The process to attract outside investment in the eight Hundred franchises ended last month, with around £500 million in line to be distributed once exclusivity agreements are reached. Non-host counties such as Sussex could receive in the region of £25-30 million, with the expectation that a substantial one-off dividend can help “recapitalise the county game for the next 20-25 years”, in the words of ECB chief executive, Richard Gould.
Farbrace, who previously held the role of director of cricket at Warwickshire and has coached at Yorkshire and Kent as well as England Men, suggested that the extra financial security should enable cricket’s decision-makers – in particular the county chairs and chief executives who would be required to vote through change – to grasp the nettle and redesign the county schedule so that it produces the best players for England and the best spectacle for fans.
Paul Farbrace is supervising a Sussex upturn
“We’ve never had a better opportunity in the game, with the money that’s coming from the Hundred, to actually have a county plan for the summer that absolutely is right for cricket and not right for finance,” he said. “One of the challenges we’ve always had, you’ve got your directors of cricket and coaches who want less cricket, more preparation time; you’ve got your majority of chairman of clubs who are voted in by the members who want Championship cricket; and then you’ve got your chief executive who wants T20 because they want to make money. If you’ve got that within your own county, it’s very difficult within the game [as a whole].
“We’re now in a position where the money that’s coming in means that, actually, every county should be able to say, ‘this is what we want in terms of county cricket’. What is best for English cricket? How are we going to produce players to play for England? How are we going to have the best spectacle? So when you have your games, you want your best players available.
We’ve never had a better time to do it. The money that’s coming from the Hundred should set aside any financial concerns about we need to play lots of T20 to make money. It should now be about what’s the best structure for the game of cricket in this country going forward.
“I think all the people that are going to get around the table – our chair, Jon Filby, and others – they’re going to make good decisions based on what’s right for the game, as opposed to balancing books. I’d say that this Hundred money has absolutely come at the right time for the game.”
The ECB is set to embark on its latest attempt to restructure the domestic season, almost three years after the recommendations of Andrew Strauss’ high-performance review – which called for a cut in the number of Championship and T20 Blast fixtures – were rejected the counties. Since then, issues with the fixture list have only increased, amid concerns about player welfare and the rise in T20 franchise competitions taking place during the English summer.
Editor’s Picks
The failure of England Men at each of the last two ICC ODI tournaments has also led to questions about the sidelining of 50-over cricket, which is currently played in the shadow of the Hundred. Farbrace is among those who advocate shifting the List A competition to the start of the season, alongside an overall reduction in first-class and T20 cricket.
“I think we need to be playing a minimum of 12 Championship games,” he said. “I think that’s the ideal. I would play 10 T20 games, because I think we would all far rather have five home games that we can really make a big fuss of in the Blast. And then 50-over cricket, we either take it seriously and we treat it properly, or we carry on doing what we do at the moment, which is effectively a second XI competition.
“It’s no good us kicking the England team about 50-over cricket performances if we don’t play 50-over cricket. So I think that the best way to do it would be to start a bit later in April, play 50-over cricket for that last two weeks of April into May, and then play Championship cricket, 12 games, 10 games in the Blast. Then we just need to find something to do in August when the Hundred is going on. That’s where my super plan falls down a little bit, because I’m not quite sure what we’re doing then – whether we play a bit more 50-over, or why don’t we have a second division of the Hundred?
“But I think 50-over cricket, if we’re going to play it, we need to play it properly and get the best players involved. It seems to be the back end of April [is] the best time. And I would suggest you can probably produce better one-day pitches than you can four-day pitches at that time of the year.”
Tymal Mills, Sussex’s T20 captain, was in agreement about reducing the number of Blast games, suggesting that it could help alleviate players’ concerns around travel and playing back-to-back fixtures, as well as enabling the ECB to stage Finals Day closer to the end of the group stage – rather than with a six-week gap, as was the case in 2024 and will be again in 2025.
“I think 14 games is too long,” Mills said. “The IPL is the only other competition in the world that plays a 14-game group stage. The Blast, obviously, we play the seven home games because the counties need the money and I completely understand that. But from a cricketing point of view, it does tend to drag on a little bit, and you lose that quality a little bit over the course of 14 games.
Whereas if you had 10, as Farby said, each game has that bit more on it, each night is a bit more special and carries a bit more weight, whereas in the current format you can lose six games and still maybe go through to quarter-finals. Also then, if you are able to reduce it to 10 games, you hopefully can get it done in in one block.”
