We did a podcast that asks this question, which I think might be one of the most interesting marketing stories in British sport currently.

I grew up in a deeply unfashionable bit of north west London. Cricket was our thing and Lords was our Disneyland. So I love Lords but I've always assumed it was unrequited. The MCC stands for many things, not many of them related to the 21st century. But it now owns a Hundred franchise. Which is a festival of inclusion.

I put it to Katie Maier, CMO of the MCC, that there's another brand route. To forego social inclusivity, which is a crowded fight that MCC won't win. Instead they could own the privilege, here and abroad. Expensive, exclusive, patrician. You're Lord's ffs, don't fight it.

Her answer is brilliant. And quite revealing.

A big bit of the answer is on Jonny Bairstow's shirt. Barclays wouldn't pay to be associated with the men-only MCC of Plum Warner.

Use them as a proxy for banks and other big spending categories, and you get a weird dynamic. It's the banks that want to push sport's organisations to be more progressive. The Woke Bank. Why? 2008, the financial crisis. In their marketing at least, the banks have been apologising ever since. Bastard bankers and their bonuses etc.

Jonny Bairstow with cups of tea in the Long Room, pairing Nike's new London Spirit shirt with a pair of work trousers for no apparent reason that I can discern. Is it a formal, informal juxtaposition thing, juggling legacy and modernity? Or is he working from home? Did he not realise the photographer was going to include the trousers, like a newsreader wearing shorts beneath the desk. As a chubby fella myself, I've never loved that angle tbh. I can see why he's a bit grump.

The podcast is here: