The Grumbler's County Cricket Newsletter

Hi there, The Grumbler here.

I am on enemy territory. My heart lies at Chelmsford. But just thought I'd sign up, say hi and direct you to the County Cricket Newsletter I write. Weekly during the season, fortnightly outside.

Have a look here at this week's. Just type "county cricket newsletter" into google
And sign up if you feel so inclined. It's free forever.

If there are any stories, especially fan blogs, I am missing then let me know

Cheers Grumbler will have a look.

Thanks Mate.I always enjoy reading your newsletter.

Love your take on the IPL.


I am writing this intro on a Sunday afternoon in front of the television. The IPL was on when I started.

Bash, bash, advert, bash, slide, hype, advert, bash, dancing, advert, hype, wicket, advert, bash, bash, tactical timeout for adverts, bash, bash, advert, slide, dancing, hype, advert, bash, bash…

Thanks. Appreciate it

Badges wrote:Thanks Mate.I always enjoy reading your newsletter.

That line has been quoted back to me a few times. It obviously hit home

I actually switched over to the Agatha Christie movie

Thanks for the support

Badges wrote:Love your take on the IPL.


I am writing this intro on a Sunday afternoon in front of the television. The IPL was on when I started.

Bash, bash, advert, bash, slide, hype, advert, bash, dancing, advert, hype, wicket, advert, bash, bash, tactical timeout for adverts, bash, bash, advert, slide, dancing, hype, advert, bash, bash…

I read one of these articles. By crikey this bloke is as deluded as Nasser Hussain. Some of his ideas are simply stupid and his views on women’s cricket total nonsense. This fool claims women cricketers are underpaid!!! For goodness sake why are some people this naive, nee bonkers?!

Actually agree with SWC. But for me anyone who uses Twitter (X) and promotes that evil Tik Tok.... well I turn off immediately. Won't be subscribing.

Well, that is a lovely warm welcome isn't it? Clearly I am in the wrong place. I'll be off now, won't be back. But at least I tried.

Bye

PS The point I made is about the women's H*ndred and the engagement metrics. Pretty clear that women are underpaid compared the men given the interest. The biz case for women's sport has always held it back. Clearly that has changed. But don't let facts get in the way of your prejudice

Sir Winston Churchill wrote:I read one of these articles. By crikey this bloke is as deluded as Nasser Hussain. Some of his ideas are simply stupid and his views on women’s cricket total nonsense. This fool claims women cricketers are underpaid!!! For goodness sake why are some people this naive, nee bonkers?!

The Grumbler wrote:Well, that is a lovely warm welcome isn't it? Clearly I am in the wrong place. I'll be off now, won't be back. But at least I tried.

Bye

PS The point I made is about the women's H*ndred and the engagement metrics. Pretty clear that women are underpaid compared the men given the interest. The biz case for women's sport has always held it back. Clearly that has changed. But don't let facts get in the way of your prejudice

Sir Winston Churchill wrote:I read one of these articles. By crikey this bloke is as deluded as Nasser Hussain. Some of his ideas are simply stupid and his views on women’s cricket total nonsense. This fool claims women cricketers are underpaid!!! For goodness sake why are some people this naive, nee bonkers?!

Predudice? Come on. The interest in women's cricket largely resolves around the 100, mainly because they play double headers. i.e. if they were stand alone not many would turn up. Too be frank they never should have ditched the ladies T2O for the dreaded hundred. I'm happy the ladies play cricket as well as any one else, but you can't seriously expect the same pay ( based on that dubious "equality" and "diversity" banner). And just look at the England T20 team...

I didn't take the article to imply that women cricketers should be paid the same as men, just that the divergence between what they are paid and what the economics of the game say they should/could be is greater for women than for men. I've no idea whether that argument stands up in terms of the numbers but it's not an argument for mathematically equal pay and I don't think it's meant to be.

Interest in the womens' game has certainly increased as a result of the Hundred (and in particular the double headers that for the most part only came about because of Covid). What I suppose we don't know is the extent to which the interest generated by exposure would just melt away again if the womens' game was standing on its own. It might be all illusory, or it might, just might, be the start of a virtuous circle in which more women (not just ladies) are inspired to play, the standard improves, more come to matches, the pay improves and so on. Which is what we have seen to some extent in football and rugby.

The Grumbler wrote:Well, that is a lovely warm welcome isn't it? Clearly I am in the wrong place. I'll be off now, won't be back. But at least I tried.

Bye

PS The point I made is about the women's H*ndred and the engagement metrics. Pretty clear that women are underpaid compared the men given the interest. The biz case for women's sport has always held it back. Clearly that has changed. But don't let facts get in the way of your prejudice

Sir Winston Churchill wrote:I read one of these articles. By crikey this bloke is as deluded as Nasser Hussain. Some of his ideas are simply stupid and his views on women’s cricket total nonsense. This fool claims women cricketers are underpaid!!! For goodness sake why are some people this naive, nee bonkers?!

don’t leave so soon, they haven’t even started yelling ‘woke!’ yet at every point you make, at least get the full experience!

Benmug wrote:
don’t leave so soon, they haven’t even started yelling ‘woke!’ yet at every point you make, at least get the full experience!

Now there's a thought. The site could generate income by marketing it as an immersive experience. A bit like that Apprentice episode where paying customers were shouted at as prisoners in Shrewsbury Gaol. Which apparently they loved.

Congratulations to the posters who so politely gave their opinions.
Perhaps a little courtesy could be brought back to this forum unless you want Marcus to start another one.
The Grumbler has merely invited people to look at his newsletter and respond.
Surely any differing views could have been expressed without rudeness.

The Grumbler's County Cricket Newsletter has always gone down well on the County Cricket Matters site on Facebook.Some astonishing responses in here!

Grumbler says "...(its) Pretty clear that women are underpaid compared the men given the interest. The biz case for women's sport has always held it back. Clearly that has changed. But don't let facts get in the way of your prejudice".

What utter cobblers. Much as I hate the hundred I would bet that if a mens match was played without an adjoining women's match beforehand, that the hosting ground would get exactly the same amount of attendees, and at the same price.

However if say the women's game were to be played separately the next day I am cast iron certain that the crowd would be no more than 25% of that at the men's game and indeed would need to charge substantially less to get any interest going.

Grumble can play the "pretty clear" card all he likes. What I am saying is FACT. The women's game is indeed  heavily subsidised by the men's game and therefore the women are in fact over paid. Just because they piggyback a men's match, it does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that women's cricket is a money making, supporter heavy product by itself.

Ive no problem with women playing cricket. I say, as I have always done, is that we should cast them free, let them earn their own keep, and let them get paid from the receipts they receive from their own gate money, merchandise, TV rights etc etc. It will not take the accountants very long at the end of the season to produce the annual profit and loss account, I can assure you!!!!

Nice to see SWC taking the advice to comment politely to heart.

Just think of all the sports at which mens' and womens' events are mixed in with other. Athletics, swimming, rowing, the bigger tennis tournaments. No doubt there were people a hundred years ago saying the standard of the women was awful and they should be cast free to stand on their own two feet. The reason why such an argument is never heard these days for these sports is surely precisely because they were not cast free. Of course some sports were amateur so pay didn't (or should not have) enter into it but quite likely women's participation in those days was effectively being subsidised. Cut womens' cricket free (adrift might be a better word) and if SWC's numbers are correct the prospect of developing the womens' game may disappear - which may be what some want.

"If SWC's numbers are correct". He is cast iron certain about them and therefore they are FACTS. I don't have access to any relevant numbers and I doubt that he does either, so they aren't what I would call facts. They could be right though. Even so, I can see a case for subsidy if it acts as seed corn investment to produce future revenue streams. Opening up new markets is usually considered a good thing, not a retrograde step.

I broadly agree with SWC's analysis on the equal pay issue.

Sport operates commercially. If women are clearly not (yet) attracting the same amount of money as men, either through ticket sales or TV revenue, there is no commercial case for paying them equal money. By all means promote the women's game, invest in development programmes and encourage girls to learn to love to play as well as watch the game. But until there is evidence it is something that lots of people want to pay to watch, they can't expect to get paid the same.

The issue with tennis is rather different, ie women play fewer sets than men. They should of course receive equal rates of pay (per hour), but the overall prize money should reflect that they are on court for less time.

I must say that this is about the only issue where I would take issue with "Grumbler". He is one of the good guys, and on the side of proper cricket. Let's show him respect.

Succinctly put Jackers.

Jackers - You are arguing against something that nobody else on the thread, including Grumbler, has proposed, namely equal pay.

What is being suggested is that IF the womens' game is becoming more commercially successful, for whatever reason, the gap between mens' and womens' salaries should get narrower. Plenty of room for argument about whether the IF actually holds but if it does, what is the argument against?

But he does actually say women "are underpaid" so by default he is surely saying they should get equal pay? But then Jackers point is that as yet there is no commercial case for doing so, unless we are going down the diversity, equality and inclusion route which has always seemed to me the main reason behind equal pay. That's not predudice, or necessarily woke, it's an opinion.

Chinaman and all

Interesting difference in interpretation. I wonder what Grumbler would say if he had got a friendlier initial reaction and stayed around?

If someone says male Premiership footballers are overpaid, surely nobody would interpret that as meaning their pay should be reduced to that seen at the top of the women's game? Or to that of League Two players for that matter? So it seems strange to me to interpret the default for Grumbler's words as calling for equal pay, which would be a massive change, rather than my interpretation, which for want of a better phrase would be incremental change.

I entirely agree that it is a matter of opinion whether there is a commercial case for (any) change. Opinion, not FACT!

I should be able to assume that you are not seriously arguing that it was OK to pay men and women different pay rates just because of gender. But I never quite know with you!

The FACT is an easy one: look at the number of spectators. It's ok to pay different pay rates based on commercial value and probably ability.  I don't have a hang up with gender at all, but it shouldn't be used to justify anyone being "under paid" or justifying equality quotas instead of abilty.

Yes, it is pretty obviously the case that womens' cricket brings in a lot less revenue per player, so it make sense that they are paid less. Nobody is seriously disputing that.

But it is not a choice between retaining the existing differentials for ever and going for equal pay now. The question is whether the relative commercial positions have changed enough to allow a narrowing of the gap. If they have, what's the problem?

The top paid women in this years 100 will get £50,000, with the minimum being £8,000. For goodness sake this is fantastic income for one months work. Indeed for a man with much high commercial value it would be marvellous money, but for women its incredible.

How can they possibly complain. They will also earn from the womens Big Bash, the womens IPL plus county, international fees, and other international T20 tournaments.

This just shows how out of hand this is getting and how massively above their station the women are getting.

For goodness sake ladies, be grateful and enjoy the huge rewards for doing something that you are supposed to love.