THE current series between England and India is one of two to be played over five matches, the other being the Ashes. When you consider tradition, economic potential and the contemporary strength of the sides, it represents the closest thing we have to a superpower struggle in cricket. 

Yet, in all reality, the present contest represents a nation on the rise and one in decline — if not freefall — and as the once dominant economic power was able to assert its blueprint of cricket on those who played the sport, the usurper now sits in a position to heavily influence its future direction.

If Lord’s is still considered by sentimentalists as the spiritual home of cricket, it is no longer regarded so by pragmatists as the administrative centre. 

In 2005, the international governing body relocated to Dubai on tax grounds, but also to a location much closer to the economic hub of the sport in South Asia. A couple of years later the Indian Board (BCCI) overtook its English counterpart as the most prosperous national body and since then the difference has ever-widened.

The rise of cricket’s power base in the subcontinent should not be too surprising. The South Asian Test-playing countries have a combined population of 1.5 billion, compared to Britain, Australia and New Zealand’s 90 million. 

India enjoys a 21st century economic growth rate averaging 7 per cent and in 2017 it notably overtook Great Britain to become the world’s sixth largest economy. 

While cricket must compete, most often unfavourably, with other sports elsewhere, it enjoys a near-monopoly of popularity on the subcontinent. Nearly 80 per cent of Indians under the age of 25 are said to follow the sport. 

These fans provide a TV audience for a major one day international that rarely dips below 200 million and can be as high as 400 million. 

Academic Amit Gupta uses globalisation to explain the shift of cricket to India. 

At 16 million, the Indian diaspora is estimated to be the largest in the world. When the BCCI organise a tournament in North America, say, it is drawing attention to a form of globalisation by localising Indian influence and identity in these regions.

This is enhanced with technological advances that not only enable live coverage of matches on a global scale but also the easier dissemination of ideas about the sport.

Then there is the IPL, increasingly seen as a global sports event. In the opinion of some commentators its rise heralds an era where cricket has completely globalised — that is, it is now governed by global corporations, corporate sponsorships, migration and information technology.

For most sports, globalisation has typically followed the same patterns — control of wealth, technology and commercial concerns lead to the dominance of the “West.”

Cricket is different. The writer Gideon Haigh argues that, rather than talk about globalisation, cricket has become “Indianised.” Emphasis has shifted from taking the sport to new countries, to spreading the sphere of BCCI influence.

India, therefore, adopts the position of a superpower. 

A superpower refers to a state with the ability to influence events and project itself on a global scale in a number of areas. 

In India’s case, its cultural influence underlines its claim as a rising world power within the cricket community — a claim based on the strength of its team, its dominant economic position within the sport and its ability to shift the focus away from Tests and the traditional spirit of the game to T20 and one-day cricket and its commercial potential.

Alongside a cultural influence, a superpower will be expected to assert itself in political and economic terms as well. The IPL brand has itself become political, with the ability to affect political landscapes. This is most evident in the wider India-Pakistan relationship. 

Following a terrorist attack on Mumbai in 2008 by Pakistan-based Islamic fundamentalists, none of the 10 Pakistani players taking part in the IPL were asked to return for the second tournament or for any since. 

Alongside this political clout, the superpower has to enjoy economic prowess. 

Eighty per cent of ICC earnings are now said to come from India. Domestic boards make more money from a series against India than against anyone else and this includes Ashes matches. 

Where once the English emphasised the moral qualities involved in sport, the Indians have focused on a commercial approach to promoting cricket. 

IPL franchises exist to maximise revenue and its ethos is unashamedly that of free enterprise. Its founder Lalit Modi declared: “I believe in free markets deciding everything. Let people decide. In certain cases, you might lose. In certain cases, you might win.”

The virtues of the IPL are those of a neoliberal India and the possibilities for the private sector. This is capitalism Indian style, a country where just 100 of the 1.2 billion population own 25 per cent of the GDP while 800 million live on less than $2 per day.

The international community can only watch defenceless as those who pull the strings behind the IPL threaten to construct a new world order. It is argued that, if cricket becomes a product to be marketed, auctioned and slogged to satisfy interests that are beyond the merely cricketing, then it loses something. 

Yet look close enough and economic domination tends to be the remit of the superpower. English concerns today may well stem from the changing roles of the two antagonists engaged in this summer’s offering.

Jon Gemmell’s latest book Cricket’s Changing Ethos: Nobles, Nationalists and the IPL is published by Palgrave Macmillan Books