An argument for One Player, One T20 Team policy

Picture an alternate reality, in a hypothetical 12th dimension, where the El Clásico is underway and Lionel Messi charges down the field, dribbles past one defender, nutmegs Ramos, rounds Keylor Navas and calmly slots the ball into an empty net, to seal an injury time winner.

What is more, it is the final game of the season and with the win, Barcelona secures yet another LaLiga title. What scenes! Messi and his Barcelona team-mates are dancing with the trophy, while Ramos sulks somewhere in a corner of the dressing room.

A few days later, Messi and Ramos are team-mates at Manchester City, in the EPL, which kicked off after the LaLiga finished, and they take on West Ham United, who have of a few of Messi's team-mates from a month ago in their playing XI and also Keylor Navas in goal.

It paints a completely nonsensical picture, doesn't it? And yet, this is the reality of what essentially happens in the largely uncontrolled circus of domestic T20 competitions around the globe.

I think we will all agree that in the hypothetical football scenario, winning the LaLiga would be considered far less noteworthy than it actually is.

How will a large and loyal fan base for a team ever be formed, if teammates in one league become rivals in another at short notice and if the fans can't identify with a player as their own and only their own?

The exclusive nature of the relationship between the players and their clubs is one of the primary reasons why football fans have been able to build near unbreakable bonds even with clubs based on the other side of the world from where they live, and the absence of such an exclusive bond between players and cricket clubs, is one of the reasons why even the most ardent cricket fans will struggle to even name all the teams that play in most domestic T20 league besides that of their own country.

The point is not to say Barcelona or Manchester United have millions of fans around the world, how many do CSK or RCB or Perth Scorchers have? There is little point in comparing fan bases built over 100 years with those built over a decade in terms of numbers. The aim is not to highlight the number of fans, but rather what kind of a relationship they are building with the clubs.

The nature of the bond that the fans are forming with their cricket T20 teams is inherently flimsy from the very outset. For years WI fans tuned in to watch Chris Gayle play for RCB, but when Chris Gayle joined KXIP, those fans started to watch KXIP instead of RCB. If Chris Gayle is not selected in the auction, many of those fans will not care as much for the IPL without Gayle.

Even though the viewers are tuning in, they are not making as meaningful a connection with the teams as they would in football or other sports, which is hindering the formation of a devoted fan base outside the country where the league is based.

Besides the issue of T20 teams failing to retain fans, there is also an inherent absurdity of the whole situation in general. You ask a football fan, which team does Messi play for - Barcelona. You ask a cricket fan, which domestic T20 team does Chris Gayle play for - confusion abounds.

There is no organised sports league around the world, besides cricket, where the answer to the question which team does X play for, depends on the time of the year when the question is posed, because depending on the time, X could be playing for a team in the IPL, or the PSL, or the CPL. This is not how a sport is supposed to work.

No sport has such muddled up basics as the domestic leagues in cricket's shortest format. In basketball fans know LeBron James plays for the Los Angeles Lakers, Steph Curry plays for the Golden State Warriors, in NFL Tom Brady plays for the New England Patriots. There is no confusion.

Chris Gayle is one of the most iconic T20 players the game has ever seen. How many cricket lovers outside of Bangladesh can name what team Chris Gayle played for in the BPL?

Can you picture a situation where an ardent football fan will struggle to name the team Messi plays for?

Currently, cricket T20 leagues around the world feel less like organised sports leagues and more like monthly drama company tours where the cricketers are like actors playing their parts in a play. The company moves to a new city every month, putting on a new play in every city as they go along.

A player's relationship with his team across all sports is sacrosanct, but it doesn't seem to be the case with T20 cricket, and thus, T20 leagues around the world lack the feel of being genuine high-level sports competitions and feel more like glorified friendlies.

ICC must work towards bringing more structure to T20 leagues. The financial success of T20 leagues is unquestionable. However, there needs to be more context, more loyalty, and exclusivity if these leagues intend to be more meaningful than mere money printing machines, and help the expansion of the sport to new and more involved viewers.

There is no question that T20 leagues have done a lot to attract new audiences to the game, but think how much more the fans could be invested in the sport if cricket went about doing it the right way like all other sports.

ICC must explore the option of providing one window in which all boards must hold their T20 leagues. This way, if all leagues run simultaneously, then players won't have the option of playing for multiple teams in the same year.

Even if for whatever various reasons, all the leagues cannot actually run simultaneously, they must be deemed to be running simultaneously in principle.

There would, of course, have to be room to allow player movement between leagues by way of transfer or trades, but those should be the only ways in which players would be allowed to switch teams.

For instance, let us assume that X is a leg spinner who is not playing much for his team in the CPL, and a team in the BPL needs a leg spinner. Then the BPL team should be able to pay for or trade for the transfer of X to their team in the BPL.

This rule should apply to even those teams who share a common owner, like Kolkata Knight Riders and Trinbago Knight Riders. For all practical purposes, they should be treated as two different teams and the same rules about player transfer shall apply to them when transferring players between their two teams.

This is how players switch teams in football or the NBA or the NFL and Cricket should look at implementing a similar setup.

Objection from the weaker boards, who will miss out on the top players, is naturally to be expected. For instance, David Warner and Steve Smith played in the BPL recently. If Smith and Warner could only play for one team, then it is unlikely that BPL would be a very attractive option for them.

Will the BPL ever be able to attract someone like David Warner if he has to restrict himself to only 1 team?

I go back to the football analogy on this. The top players mostly play in the English or the Spanish leagues, but that doesn't mean that a Norwegian Football league doesn't exist.

Limiting the number of teams that a player could play will also help expand the player pool. If teams in the BPL miss out on a Warner or a Smith they will then have to look at alternatives in other nations. This could even open a window for players from associate nations. This will increase the number of cricketers finding employment in the various leagues around the world.

Not every professional footballer plays for Manchester United after all. But there is no dearth of clubs for talented footballers of the world. There however is a dearth of clubs for talented cricketers outside the test playing nation, because the same group of touring T20 cricketers fills up spots in every league.

If Chris Gayle, takes a spot on a team in the IPL, then takes a spot on a team in the BPL, then in the BBL, then in the PSL, then where is the roster spot left for other cricketers?

If the same 100 people worked at Burger King, and the same 100 people worked at McDonald's and the same 100 people worked at Domino's and so on, then, where will the rest of the people find employment?

Currently, the same group of cricketers is hogging a lot of roster space in every T20 league, leaving no room for new faces to find the space to shine. If more players are able to find a place in these lucrative leagues, then it will encourage more kids to take up the sport as a profession.

There are other issues with the structure that is being suggested. One of those is the new 100 ball competition that the ECB is planning to bring in. How will simultaneous leagues work, if not everyone is playing the same format of cricket?

However, even so, the sport will truly benefit from having one window for all domestic leagues. It will open up opportunities for new faces, including those from the non-test playing nations, to play and strut their talent and help the game expand to new viewers around the globe.

Follow Sportskeeda for all the updates on IPL live score, purple cap, points table, schedule, news, orange cap and fantasy tips.