Al-Ahli crowned SAFF Women’s Cup champions in thriller at Kingdom Arena

The 18th edition of the Indian Premier League begins on Sunday, March 23, with the final scheduled for May 25. This year, the Pakistan Super League will overlap with the IPL, because it had to make way for Pakistan’s hosting of the ICC Champions Trophy.

Compared with the IPL’s 74 matches, the 10th edition of the PSL will feature 44, opening on April 8 and ending on May 19. As further evidence of the expansion of T20 franchise cricket, this number is set to change in 2026.

The Pakistan Cricket Board hopes to expand the PSL from six teams to eight. The existing franchises operate under a 10-year agreement which ends after this season. Expansion outside of the current four cities — Lahore, Karachi, Rawalpindi and Multan — is under consideration whilst media and sponsorship rights will be up for sale with the aim of strengthening the PSL’s commercial appeal and competitiveness.

A part of this recalibration will need to focus on the optimal time to hold an expanded tournament. The previous window in January to February now faces competition from SA20 in South Africa and ILT20 in the UAE. In addition, an increasingly intense battle for the top overseas players is a corollary of expanded franchise leagues.

It remains the case that the IPL attracts the best of those players. It has shown its strength by imposing penalties on any overseas player who, having been picked for a franchise, withdraws before the start of the season for other than medical or family reasons. England’s Harry Brook, who has just done so, faces a ban from participating in the IPL for two seasons. The decision may have something to do with him being touted as England’s next white ball captain.

Despite having separate windows in previous years, there are few players who have participated in both the IPL and PSL in the same season. Indeed, there have been few who have played in both leagues in different seasons. Fears that a clash of dates for the first time might lead to some acrimony over player choices were not realized until this week. Then, South African all-rounder Corbin Bosch withdrew from the Peshawar Zalmi squad in the PSL to join the Mumbai Indians in the IPL to replace an injury withdrawal. Subsequently, the PCB has served Bosch with a legal notice for breaching his contractual obligations.

Pakistan’s poor showing in the Champions Trophy has reinforced concerns its players and administrators are being left behind in cricket’s ever-changing landscape. These have led to the non-selection of Pakistan players for The Hundred, which occupies August in England and Wales. Fifty of them — 45 men and five women — registered for the draft. It is the first time no Pakistani players have been selected. The purchase of equity in four of the franchises by Indian investors has prompted murmurings of a possible “soft ban.” Pakistan players have not played in the IPL since 2008 and the global spread of Indian franchise ownership has led to suspicions of tacit discrimination.

As far as The Hundred is concerned the reality is likely to be more prosaic, as the Pakistani players have overlapping international commitments. Pakistan is scheduled to play ODIs and T20Is in the West Indies from late July to mid-August and may play a T20I series against Afghanistan before the Asia Cup begins mid-September. Franchises are also likely to be worried about the PCB’s stance towards releasing players with domestically contracted obligations. There are already tensions. 

Another concern is the value which Pakistan’s players currently bring to the franchise. Recent performances have been disappointing and they may be caught in a vicious circle of not being able to improve because they are not getting picked. Additionally, they are not being exposed to the latest developments, coaching and analytical tools.

It is easy to assume franchise cricket is all about money; it is, to a large extent. Players cannot be blamed for cashing in, investors and sponsors require a return on their investments, whilst some administrators have regarded it as a lifesaving device for ailing domestic structures. However, the leagues should be more than that, acting as a platform to promote those structures and develop better talent. ILT20 in the UAE has been criticized for having too many overseas players but its long-term objective is to develop domestic cricket.

National boards have been able act unilaterally in setting up leagues, only requiring sanction from the ICC, which rarely refuses. Outside this largely unregulated market a new entrant is rumored to be at its gates. Cricket’s media machine is rife with the story that a new league is being discussed with the potential to produce a seismic twist to the game’s landscape.

The rumor appears to have emanated from Australia. It focuses on competitions for both men and women modelled on tennis and its Grand Slams, with eight new teams which assemble and play matches in four different locations during the year. Neither the proposed identity and composition of the teams, nor the times of year when the matches could be played, have been revealed. There are few vacant windows in an already crowded calendar. This has led to immediate pushback from several national boards, keen to protect their domestic franchises.

Currently, the cricket economy is based largely on income received from broadcasters and distributions from ICC events. It is weighted heavily in favor of India, followed by Australia and England. Smaller nations struggle financially, a situation which will worsen if sales of broadcasting rights in the next cycle generate less than the current one, a possibility given concerns over value provided during the 2024 World Cup. Boards may be attracted by an alternative revenue source.

If the rumors are true, a major backer of the proposed league — to the tune of $500m — could be SRJ Sports Investments, a subsidiary of the Public Investment Fund. Clearly, there is much that needs to be fleshed out — not least player availability, especially those from India; the economic model to be adopted; and the impact on existing structures, both spatial and temporal. It is questionable if those structures can cope with even more pressure.

LOS ANGELES: Luka Doncic had 31 points, nine rebounds and seven assists in just three quarters of work, and the Los Angeles Lakers routed the Denver Nuggets 120-108 on Wednesday night in a matchup of injury-depleted Western Conference contenders.
Nikola Jokic (elbow) and Jamal Murray (ankle) missed their second straight games for Denver, while LeBron James (hamstring) and Rui Hachimura (knee) continued their longer-term absences for Los Angeles.
Austin Reaves had 22 points and eight assists for the Lakers, who have won nine consecutive home games and three straight since finishing their 0-4 road trip last Friday with a loss at Denver.
Aaron Gordon scored 26 points for the Nuggets.
The Lakers scored a season-high 46 points in the first quarter led by Doncic, who scorched Denver for 21 points in his highest-scoring quarter of the season. He missed the Lakers’ 131-126 loss to Denver last Friday, when the Lakers nearly won without him and James.
Los Angeles led by 28 after three quarters, allowing Doncic to get extra rest amid five home games in seven days.
Bronny James played the final 3:58.
Takeaways
Nuggets: Even without Jokic and Murray, offense wasn’t the problem. Los Angeles made 60 percent of its shots in the first three quarters.
Lakers: Doncic dominated early, but they’re thriving with balance. Six Lakers scored in double figures, and big men Jaxson Hayes and Christian Koloko played solid defense.
Key moment
Doncic was afire from the opening tip, scoring nine points in less than three minutes and 20 points in about eight minutes. He led an 18-2 run midway through the first quarter with three 3-pointers and three assists before cooling off.
Key stat
Doncic scored 30 points for the 200th time in his NBA career. He’s done it eight times in 16 games with LA.
Up next
The Nuggets visit the Trail Blazers on Friday. The Lakers host the Bucks on Thursday.