If cricket needed another red-light warning for the game to tread warily, it came with the simple announcement of the IPL’s entry into the English game.

It was explained that the GMR group - co owners of the IPL’s Delhi Capitals - was bidding to acquire the Hampshire County Cricket Club. With bidding soon to begin on the purchase of a large share of teams in the Hundred, this was never going to be the last splurge from an IPL conglomerate.

None of this is surprising as county teams are desperate for money and the IPL owners are extremely rich.

However, it’s worth recalling that back in the mid-1990s Kerry Packer, the former boss of World Series Cricket, uttered the immortal words “Don’t let a [media] company run your sport.”

The trend of successful companies having a greater say in the running of the game is increasing rapidly as IPL owners already own large stakes in T20 teams playing in the UAE, USA, South Africa, and the Caribbean. The shrewd owners are also starting to sign top-rated players to longer contracts and that should be a warning to cricket administrations.

The better players could become beholden to an IPL owner rather than their own cricket board. That is when conflict of interest becomes a divisive issue.

This isn’t a surprise as the game in most countries desperately needs money and the IPL owners are financially flush.

Cricket administrators must accept the blame for not producing a long-term blueprint for the game a couple of decades ago. That way they could at least have had a viable plan for the game to deal with this issue. That is unless cricket administrators worldwide are convinced the future is purely the T20 game run by rich franchises.

The weaknesses in this theory are more than just “Is this good for cricket?”

Most successful businesspeople don’t achieve their prominent positions by being philanthropists.

Will sufficient funds be channelled back into the game or will a large proportion end up as shareholder bonuses awarded by rich business conglomerates? Do shrewd businesspeople necessarily make good cricket team owners? Will the businesspeople want to have a large say in the on-field product? Are the many unpaid people who serve the game still going to willingly provide their services?

It’s my experience that businesspeople either don’t understand or don’t care about the important difference between laws and rules.

Businesspeople are prone to manipulating matters their own way. The master statistician Irving Rosenwater stated years ago: cricket has laws that are not meant to be broken.

When the administrators warmly welcomed the T20 craze they had no idea how much power they were acceding to the players.

The better players now have both wealth and choice, which is ironic when you consider that for many years they had neither. Former successful Australian opening batter Arthur Morris summed that up best when in retirement he was asked what he gained from cricket. His succinct answer was: “Poverty”.

One of the biggest failings in cricket administration is the lack of utilisation of former top players’ knowledge of the game at the highest level. In Australia this has been a blatant omission.

Cricket administration is a difficult and challenging job with many wide-ranging aspects - so difficult, it’s impossible to satisfy every fan’s wishes. However, the job is made even more difficult by the game not having a visible plan for the future that includes financial security for players, mixed with playing satisfaction. Cricket’s future needs to be a partnership planned by a combination of players and administrators.

I’m no financial or company expert, but it’ll be a sad day if a young player is not able to experience the challenges of long-form cricket. If a player chooses not to play long-form cricket that’s their prerogative, but it would be really sad if that choice is not available. –cricinfo