Reebok Invests in the Future of U.S. Cricket

Additional Note: I was asked to pull this from my blog while comments were vetted by corporate PR. That was more th a month ago. With no response to my initial query, nor to any of my several follow-ups, I have decided to go ahead and re-post. I doubt anyone will get in trouble for their comments; obviously this small fry is below corporate PR’s radar!
Note: This is not an advertisement. I have received nothing from either Reebok or USYCA in return for featuring Reebok in this story—I simply felt like it was an interesting enough topic to cover, and just the sort of thing we need to see more of!
The recent announcement that the United States Youth Cricket Association has secured sponsorship funding from Reebok strikes me as a very positive step in the advancement of cricket in the United States. There are a couple of reasons for this, and they have little or nothing to do with my opinion of the USYCA (very high) and its grassroots approach (also very high).

First of all, it struck me as important because it is a sign that a major sporting brand believes U.S. Cricket actually HAS a future; and, secondly, it is a sign that there is money and support out there to go along with the desire to promote the game in the States.

The story of Reebok’s support of the USYCA (from the Reebok side) starts with an IT guy. Yes, you read right. The man behind Reebok’s interest in developing cricket in the United States is an IT guy.

Sai Vajha’s story sounds typically of many people with whom I have spoken about cricket in the U.S. He worked a day job—in, as I said, IT—and played cricket on the weekends—for Vajha that meant playing in the Massachusetts Cricket League.

“One of the challenges is the availability of quality equipment for people in the U.S. to play cricket,” according to Vajha, who set about trying to come up with a way to make quality cricket gear more readily available. Particularly, of course, gear from Reebok.

“Reebok is a leader in the cricket equipment sales in the subcontinent and because I worked at Reebok I thought that it made sense to have something here.”

Vajha started gathering information—the number of leagues which exist in the United States, what kind of player base there is and of course what kind of fan base. He used his research to create a story to help Reebok understand the American cricket segment. The company was impressed enough to say OK, but there were conditions.

“They said we can give it a try, but only if you want to run this, because we don’t want you to leave IT. We have no expertise, no knowledge base here for doing this kind of thing.” In other words, Vajha says, start small and see what happens. “So, we started to get some equipment that was already developed by Reebok India and start exposing those products to the North American base.”
US Youth Cricket Association sponsorshipNow we come to Reebok’s decision to put some money into developing the sport in the United States. According to Vajha, 2012-2013 is the time frame in which Reebok sees the possibility of some realistic sales and growth in the States. In other words, this is crunch time for determining whether or not Reebok can make cricket a viable business in the United States, so Vajha and Reebok are looking for ways to grow the sport, and thus grow the business.

“One of the better organizations in the North American continent is the US Youth Cricket Association,” according to Vajha, who says he was impressed by the structure developed by Jamie Harrison. In the roughly two years or so since he started USYCA, Harrison has been able to reach out to 700 schools so far, with plans to reach 1,000 more schools. And that, according to Vajha, is where Reebok sees the value—the grass roots program.

“Unless you get into schools and colleges, it will be very difficult for cricket to be a sustainable sport, because expats dominate the sport,” Vajha admits. “Basically what we are trying to do is create some kind of support and also have the Reebok product available to the schools and kids community … cricket uniforms, that sort of thing.”

Cricket: Is it Time?As I said earlier in this piece, Reebok sees this year as when the company can expect to begin seeing to realistic cricket gear sales in the United States market. But can it? Is it finally time for cricket to start making an impact on the American sporting consciousness? And what will that take? One thing that needs to happen is an uptick in the overall skills of cricketers in the United States. That means overall, not any particular cricketer or cricketers.

“I see a lot of talent here definitely,” Vajha says, adding that there needs to be a plan to bring Test and First Class players from other countries into U.S. leagues—quality players who can start adding value to the existing players, and raise the value of the game here. From that standpoint, Vajha sees the plan by the United States of America Cricket Association to work with the New Zealand Cricket Board—known to American cricket followers as Cricket Holdings America—to get New Zealand’s First Class players available to play in USA as a good step.

“You get the best players from a Test-playing nation to come in and partner with local clubs, be part of them play with them and help raise the standards.”

Ultimately, Vajha feels, that approach can help cricket develop a success story similar to the American soccer story. Of course, successes on the pitch that could result from raising standards of play wouldn’t hurt.

“If the USA gets to a certain stage where it can be represented on the bigger platform—where they can play with those top 10-12 cricket playing nations, maybe in one of the World Cups, that is where I see the turnaround happening.”

Throw in programs like the USYCA and the possibility of the new Cricket Premier League, and Vajha feels like you have the start of something.

“There are so many ingredients that are being cooked that the end result has to happen. Certainly we are moving in the right direction. The next 2-3 years it will completely turn into a significant game here I think.”

Cricket, Cricket Everywhere But not a Game to Watch?Vajha is quick to point out there is a cricket fan base here—one only need look at the numbers as far as players and purchases of pay-per-view cricket matches to see that. But, as is often pointed out, a lot of that support comes from South Asian expats. Getting other American communities involved in the sport is necessary for cricket to grow into a nationally recognized American sport or pastime. One thing Vajha thinks will draw in other American fans is the development of the planned premier league.

“Fans don’t know where they can associate and support a team. Once the premier league starts it will create that momentum. Once it comes on a media major television channel things will start to improve a lot.”

But what matches to play and to show? What form of the game should take precedence as it is developed and moved into the mainstream? Even though Americans will watch days and days of golf coverage, or spend all day watching several games of the same sport being played, they seem to balk at the idea of watching a four day cricket match. So, Vajha says, the shorter versions of cricket are the future in America.
“Even the one day international may be tough. I think the T20, which takes three hours or less, is the only way to introduce the sport and have it survive here.

My Kingdom for a United States Cricket ShirtOne sore spot with some American cricket fans is the lack of replica U.S. kit available for purchase. But for a national team that is lucky just to have the name of its country on its shirts, that is going to be a tough sell to any athletic apparel and equipment manufacturer. Reebok has outfitted and equipped the members of Team USA; the company does not have the right to sell “official” gear to the public.

Right now we are trying to get the fan base what they want,” according to Vajha. “The lifestyle t-shirt, the cool headgear. We’re just introducing the related stuff for the fans and players to establish ourselves as the leading cricket brand here.”

But even if there is a licensing agreement in place sometime soon for Reebok (or anyone else, for that matter), that is no guarantee official U.S. gear and replica kit will be immediately available. That availability is a question of demand. And right now there isn’t enough demand, because people do not have the awareness.

“But once they create some difference and hit the headlines consistently I think we will try and look for those kinds of things.”

For more information on Reebok Cricket North America, here are some links:
www.facebook.com/pages/Reebok-Cricket-North-America/245266768831127
www.reebokcricket.com
blog.reebokcricket.com

For more information on the United States Youth Cricket Association, visit www.usyca.org.

I feel the heat of the World’s Judging Glare, or Why DON’T Americans Like/Play/Follow Cricket? Corrected

CORRECTED VERSION

This is a corrected version. I apologize for earlier mistakenly uploading an early draft. For a really interesting comment, though, see the comments section of the earlier draft, which I have left up.

                                                

As an American who is a fan of cricket, and who participates in social media as a way to help promote the sport in my own small way, one question I hear from cricket fans from around the globe is: “Why don’t Americans like Cricket?”

That, it would appear, and with apologies to Wink Martindale and countless other game show hosts, is the $64 thousand question. After failed attempts to get a professional league going, get a national team to have some consistent success or to raise the profile of the game outside communities of immigrants from traditional cricket-playing countries, it really does seem to be that Americans don’t like cricket. SO the obvious solution is to make them like it.

But is that the correct question?

I think I’d like to reframe the question. Instead of saying “Why don’t Americans like cricket?’ let’s make the question “What is keeping cricket from becoming a mainstream sport in American culture?”

Among many Americans (both naturalized and native born) who already love and follow cricket, the answer is education. To others the answer is T20, a shorter format that Americans can handle because it is about the length of a baseball game. To still others the answer is to get rid of or work without the United States of America Cricket Association, which has been variously described as corrupt, incompetent or both.

While there are elements of truth in all of these answers, as with most other things involving Americans the real situation is more complicated, I think. In this post, I will look at this issue of why cricket isn’t more popular in the United States, and what is keeping it from growing into a mainstream sport in American culture. Of course, this is based on my own limited experiences and views, but if people named Kardashian get to say what they think on subjects about which they’ve no idea, then so do I! LOL, as the kids say.

Survey Says!

The difficulty of convincing people about cricket, at least short-term, was brought home to me in recent weeks as I attempted to set up a lunchtime cricket league in my workplace. We have a small field on which to play, a time set aside to do it, company support and about 500 employees. Surely 15-20 people would be interested enough to learn about cricket and play a few overs once or twice a week? Alas, only six people signed up, so the idea never got off the ground.

So, I thought, why this lack of interest? In personal conversations things like time and unfamiliarity with the sport were mentioned. To learn even more, I put together a short survey and e-mailed it to co-workers, and also made it available via my Twitter and Facebook feeds.

Thirty-two people responded. Of those, 17 said they don’t follow cricket, three do and the rest didn’t answer. For those who don’t follow cricket, several reasons were given:

             -Complete ignorance of the sport, players or teams;

-Games are often played in vastly different time zones, when Americans are asleep;

-It is not visible in major media;

-The sport is not commonly supported or promoted in the U.S.;

-There is nowhere to follow it;

-It is boring and confusing; and

-The respondent has never been exposed to it;

Notice a common thread there? The majority of respondents say no exposure or publicity is why they don’t follow the sport. And that seems to be backed up by responses to the question, “What would it take for you to give cricket a try, either as a spectator, a recreational player or a TV watcher?”

             -More knowledge of the sport and its rules;

-More widespread television coverage and more U.S. teams;

-Availability on television at a time when I normally watch; and

-Games organized for young kids, so I could watch my grandchildren play.

True, two people answered it would take “leg irons and a strait jacket” or “medication,” and one respondent joked that “if there was some bizarre scandal making headlines, I might tune in out of morbid curiosity.” But I think those answers came from a couple of friends (and I know who you are).

Based on those comments, the answer must be more media coverage, plus short and easier-to-understand cricket such as T20, right? Interestingly, those who answered this tiny survey seem to go a bit against that conventional wisdom. Fifteen were unfamiliar with short form cricket such as T20. Twenty-one believed they definitely would or might watch cricket matches in person or on television if they had some understanding of the game. Only 10 tied that willingness to the availability of short format cricket.

So that is how Americans (32 at least) answered when put on the spot about cricket. And there are some lessons—some very obvious lessons—in there. But those answers don’t provide the entire picture. We need to know how to take those answers and develop a plan of action.

But how do we use this information?

First of all, there are some things already being done to address the needs brought up in the survey. The United States Youth Cricket Association is taking the game directly to kids in schools, getting them exposure and experience. They are also helping to get the game out into communities, where parents and grandparents can go watch the kids play.

The need for teams and leagues is really basic. There are leagues out there, and the planned T20 pro league will hopefully be a major plus. But it has to be handled properly, and there needs to be infrastructure in place. In Indiana, high school basketball was king for decades. Something like 18 of the world’s largest high school basketball gymnasiums are located in Indiana. If you’ve ever seen the movie “Hoosiers,” then you know what high school basketball fans were like. High school basketball was wildly popular and inspirational to fans because the sport was obviously community-based, so there was personal investment in the teams. Also, communities wanted to host tournament games and intimidate opponents, so they built those bigger and bigger gyms to win those important tourney games. I live in New Castle, home of the world’s largest high school basketball gym. It seats nearly 10,000 people in a town of maybe 15,000.

Of course there’s more to it than just being an important part of the community. How did the NBA go from something some people liked to a hugely successful commercial and sporting enterprise? Free-to-air television. The NBA (and perhaps NFL as well?) grew because networks in need of cheap weekend programming started airing games. So, there is a need not just for media coverage and availability—that coverage/availability needs to be FREE (or very cheap). Americans love free stuff.

Earlier, I mentioned that several respondents to this minor survey didn’t tie their willingness to give cricket a try to the availability of short format/T20 cricket. Realistically, though, I believe that short format cricket is the way to start. And there needs to be a coordinated public relations effort to obtain big-time and consistent publicity. How about members of the national team going on Letterman and playing cricket on the roof of the Ed Sullivan Theater? Or having Ellen DeGeneres face a couple of overs? Or giving an exhibition on Rockefeller Plaza during the Today Show? Or putting together a national high school or college championship and getting it on free TV? Another idea: Put together a barnstorming tour of State Fairs or other venues where the public can see the sport for free and learn about it.

Or try something smaller and more grassroots. Develop some traveling exhibits on the history of cricket in the United States and on the current sport, and send these exhibits around the country to small museums, big museums, fairs or any other venue one can think of. Promote the sport by providing free equipment and instructional materials to corporate wellness programs. Choose a member of the national team through a reality show—or get one of the team members to appear on one. Can you imagine the residents of the Big Brother house (is Big Brother still on, by the way?) playing the national team in a short game of cricket on national TV (heavily edited of course)?

In addition, the materials and approaches frankly need to be slicker and more professional. The governing body needs a MUCH better Web presence, a Twitter feed that isn’t a joke and simple, glossy how-to information that is free to the public and easy to access.

Finally, a word on governance. As someone (and I think I know who) said, if there is a bizarre scandal, then people will pay attention to the sport. With all the problems we’ve had in U.S. cricket in recent years, we already have that going for us! But, seriously, there is no easy answer here. There are problems and nobody—not the ICC, not players, not leagues—seems to be able to solve them. But it is time to leave behind people who appear to have no interest in cricket other than being in charge of it. They aren’t carrying cricket forward, so it must be up to the rest of us. Cricket will carry them along until they get tired and their fingers uncurl and they drop away. Maybe then cricket can rise.

Of course these are one person’s thoughts on the dilemma. One person’s stab at a few answers to the question with which I started this rather lengthy post. What are your thoughts?

I feel the heat of the World’s Judging Glare, or Why DON’T Americans Like/Play/Follow Cricket?

As an American who is a fan of cricket, and who participates in social media as a way to help promote the sport in my own small way, one question I hear from (very few I admit) cricket fans from around the globe is: “Why don’t other Americans like Cricket?

That, it would appear, and with apologies to Wink Martindale and countless other game show hosts, is the $64 thousand question. After failed attempts to get a professional league going, get a national team have some consistent success, or even raise the profile of the game outside communities of immigrants from traditional cricket-playing countries, it really does seem to be that Americans don’t like cricket, and so we need to figure out a way to make them like it.

But is that the correct question?

I think I’d like to reframe the question. Instead of saying “Why don’t Americans like cricket?’ let’s make the question “What is keeping cricket from becoming a mainstream sport in American culture?”

Among many Americans (both naturalized and native born) who already love and follow cricket, the answer is education. To others the answer is T20, a shorter format that Americans can handle because it is about the length of a baseball game. To still others the answer is to get rid of or work without the United States of America Cricket Association, which has been variously described as corrupt, incompetent or both.

While there are elements of truth in all of these answers, as with most other things involving Americans the real situation is more complicated, I think. In this post, I will try and look at this issue of why cricket isn’t more popular in the United States, and what is keeping it from growing into a mainstream sport in American culture. Of course, this is based on my own limited experiences and views, but if people named Kardashian get to say what they think of things about which they’ve no idea, then so do I! LOL, as the kids say.

Survey Says!

The difficulty of convincing people about cricket, at least short-term, was brought home to me in recent weeks as I attempted to set up a lunchtime cricket league in my workplace. We have a small field on which to play, the time to do it and about 500 employees from which to pull players. Surely 15-20 people would be interested enough to learn about cricket and play a few overs once or twice a week? Alas, only six people signed up, so the idea never got off the ground.

So, I thought, why the lack of interest? In personal conversations things like time and unfamiliarity with the sport were mentioned. To learn even more, I put together a short survey and e-mailed it to co-workers, and also made it available via my Twitter and Facebook feeds.

Thirty-two people responded. Of those, 17 said they don’t follow cricket, three do and the rest didn’t answer. For those who don’t follow cricket, several reasons were given:

               -Complete ignorance of the sport, players or teams;

-Games are often played in vastly different time zones, when Americans are asleep;

-It is not visible in major media;

-The sport is not commonly supported or promoted in the U.S.;

-There is nowhere to follow it;

-It is boring and confusing; and

-The respondent has never been exposed to it;

Notice a common thread there? The majority of respondents say no exposure or publicity is why they personally don’t follow the sport. And seems to be backed up by their responses to the question, “What would it take for you to give cricket a try, either as a spectator, a recreational player or a TV watcher?”

               -More knowledge of the sport and its rules;

-More widespread television coverage and more U.S. teams;

-Available on television at a time when I normally watch; and

-If the game was organized for young kids, I would watch my grandchildren play.

True, two people answered it would take “leg irons and a strait jacket” or “medication,” and one respondent joked that “if there was some bizarre scandal making headlines, I might tune in out of morbid curiosity.” But I think those answers came from a couple of friends I know.

Based on those comments, the answer must be not only more media coverage, but shorter and easier-to-understand cricket such as T20, right? Interestingly, those who answered this tiny survey seem to go a bit against that conventional wisdom. Fifteen were unfamiliar with short form cricket such as T20. Twenty-one believed they definitely would or might watch cricket matches in person or on television if they had some understanding of the game, but only 10 tied that willingness to the availability of short format cricket.

So that is how Americans (32 at least) answered when put on the spot about cricket. And there are some lessons—some very obvious lessons—in there. But those answers don’t provide the entire picture. We need to know how to take those answers and develop a plan of action.

But how do we use this information?

First of all, there are some things already being done to address the needs brought up in the survey. The United States Youth Cricket Association is taking the game directly to kids, getting them exposure and experience. They are also helping to get the game out into communities, where parents and grandparents can go watch the kids play.

The need for teams and leagues is really basic. There are leagues out there, and the planned T20 pro league will hopefully be a major plus. But it has to be handled properly, and there needs to be infrstructure. In Indiana, high school basketball was king for decades. Something like 18 of the world’s largest high school basketball gymnasiums are located in Indiana. If you’ve ever seen the movie “Hoosiers,” then you know what high school basketball fans were like. High school basketball was wildly popular and inspirational to fans because the sport was obviously community-based, so there was personal investment in the teams. Also, communities wanted to host tournament games and intimidate opponents, so they built those bigger and bigger gyms to win those important tourney games.

Of course there’s more to it than just being an important part of the community. How did the NBA go from something some people liked to a hugely successful commercial and sporting enterprise? Free-to-air television. The NBA (and perhaps NFL as well?) grew because networks in need of cheap weekend programming started airing games. SO, there is a need not just for media coverage and availability—that coverage/availability needs to be FREE. Or very cheap. Americans love free stuff.

Earlier, I mentioned that several respondents to this minor survey didn’t tie their willingness to give cricket a try to the availability of short format/T20 cricket. Realistically, though, I believe that short format cricket is the way to start. And there needs to be a coordinated public relations effort to obtain big-time and consistent publicity. How about members of the national team go on Letterman and play cricket on the roof of the Ed Sullivan Theater? Or have Ellen DeGeneres face a couple of overs? Or give an exhibition on Rockefeller Plaza during the Today Show? Put together a barnstorming tour of State Fairs or other venues where the public can see the sport for free and learn about it.

Or try something smaller and more grassroots. Plan a national high school or college championship and get it on free TV. Develop some traveling exhibits on the history of cricket in the United States and on the current sport, and send these exhibits around the country to small museums, big museums, fairs or any other venue one can think of. Promote the sport by providing free equipment and instructional materials to corporate wellness programs.

In addition, the materials and approaches frankly need to be slicker and more professional. The governing body needs a MUCH better Web presence, a Twitter feed that isn’t a joke and simple, glossy how-to information that is free to the public and easy to access.

Finally, a word on governance. As someone (and I think I know who) said, if there is a bizarre scandal, then people will pay attention to the sport. With all the problems we’ve had in U.S. cricket in recent years, we already have that going for us! But, seriously, there is no easy answer here. There are problems and nobody—not the ICC, not players, not leagues—seems to be able to solve them. But it is time to leave behind these people who seem to have no interest in cricket other than being in charge of it. They aren’t carrying cricket forward, so it must be up to the rest of us. Cricket will carry them along until they get tired and their fingers hopefully uncurl and they drop away. Maybe then cricket can rise.

Of course these are one person’s thoughts on the dilemma. One person’s stab at a few answers to the question with which I started this rather lengthy post. What are your thoughts?