0:00
/0:25

Summary

Pete Fitzboydon, former CEO of Sussex County Cricket Club, reveals the stark financial realities facing non-Test hosting counties. With only 7 out of 50-60 annual playing days generating profit, counties survive primarily on ECB funding - approximately £3m of a £5-10m turnover. The conversation explores The Hundred's transformative impact, marketing challenges, and the future shape of English domestic cricket.

Hear the full conversation here:

Key Themes

Financial Reality: The 7-Day Problem

  • Non-Test hosting counties play 50-60 days of cricket annually
  • Only ~7 days make money (primarily T20 Blast fixtures)
  • County Championship crowds increased 50% at Sussex but generated minimal revenue - most attendees are already-paid members
  • Break-even attendance for Championship cricket: 1,500-2,000 people
  • Average spend per person: £10, with only 20% sticking after costs

ECB Dependency: The Survival Model

  • ECB funding represents 30-50%+ of non-host county revenue
  • £1.3m annual Hundred payment "keeps us alive" - critical to survival
  • Distribution justified by counties' R&D role in player development
  • System works as "Cricket PLC" - counties develop talent, ECB monetizes through media rights
  • ~80% of ECB income from Sky deal and global media rights
  • High-risk model dependent on successful media negotiations

The Hundred Windfall: £24m Opportunity

  • Non-host counties received ~£24m each from franchise sale (£1bn total valuation)
  • Money held in ECB-managed fund requiring business case approval
  • Designed to prevent wage inflation and ensure sustainable investment
  • Suggested uses: Padel courts ("golden goose" - one-year payback), gyms, hotels, year-round attractions
  • Already seeing 10-20% player wage inflation despite restrictions
  • No financial incentive to win Championship (£400-500k prize mostly absorbed by bonuses)

The Hundred Paradox: Members vs Reality

  • Many members won't even name it ("the 16.4" - referring to overs)
  • "Without The Hundred, we'd be bankrupt" - but hostility remains
  • Format almost identical to T20 beyond decimal scoring and franchise branding
  • Successfully attracting new/younger audiences
  • Double-headers with women's cricket proved accidental but effective USP

Marketing Challenge: Content Over Stats

  • Somerset as exemplar: 1m+ social media followers through personality-driven content
  • "168 for three" updates insufficient - fans want behind-the-scenes access
  • Women's players "phenomenal" at TikTok challenges and engagement
  • Problem: batters wear helmets - fans don't know what they look like
  • Need emotional connection through player stories, backgrounds, personalities
  • County Championship needs "shot in arm" - appointment-to-view branding like football

Overseas Talent Erosion

  • Historical model (Viv Richards/Joel Garner full seasons) completely gone
  • Global franchise cricket + crowded calendar = 4-5 game stints maximum
  • Price inflation for shorter availability periods
  • Some ECB funding contingent on playing English players
  • Overseas stars now primarily use counties as warm-up for The Hundred

Women's Cricket Economics

  • Returned to counties 2024: 8 fully professional (£1.5m ECB funding), 10 amateur (£250k)
  • Revolutionary professionalization: full-time coaches, sport science, infrastructure
  • "Lower price, family-focused entry-level product"
  • Not commercially viable yet, but different audience opportunity
  • Hundred franchise owners committed to women's teams (contractual + strategic)

Schedule Chaos

  • "Complete mess" - confusing for fans and operators alike
  • 18 different opinions on ideal structure
  • FitzBoyden advocates: clear blocks, appointment-to-view branding, Championship playoffs
  • August anomaly: best weather, kids on holiday, minimal Championship cricket
  • Need Super Saturday/Monday Night Football equivalent for cricket
  • Rugby-style playoffs rejected but would increase mainstream visibility

Club Governance Reality

  • Most counties still member-owned in "commercial world of sport"
  • Democratic structure: all 18 counties equal vote, 2/3 majority for change
  • "Collaborative not them vs us" - but each has different business model
  • Urban vs rural, host vs non-host, member demographics all vary
  • Members won't accept profit over performance - winning matters culturally
  • CEO role splits: 6 months "all hands" during season, 6 months everything else

Ground Utilization Challenge

  • Large spaces used 50-60 days annually - 300+ days dormant
  • Sussex's sixties-themed bar: 30,000 visitors annually (comparable to cricket attendance)
  • 30% female, younger demographic, data capture opportunity
  • Target: get people through gates year-round for non-cricket activities
  • Some counties could sit on £24m windfall earning 5-10% rather than invest

Strategic Tensions

The R&D Dilemma: Counties develop England players who then disappear into central contracts - the value extraction happens elsewhere in the system

The Marketing Paradox: Championship crowds up 50% but revenue barely moves - already-paid members attending

The Format Wars: T20 Blast still popular/profitable but increasingly "second tier" perception vs The Hundred

The Member Problem: Traditional fans hate The Hundred but it funds their club's existence

The Incentive Gap: No financial reward for Championship success prevents unsustainable spending but reduces competitive drama