Summer Olympic Games Los Angeles 2028 Sports Programme Road to LA 2028

[Roamingrover86 856]

28 minutes ago, Dragon said:

I've gone for this.

#1 Hosts (Providing they meet a certain standard, maybe top 30 in the world?)

#2 World Champions

#3 Winners of Asian qualifying tournament

#4 Winners of Oceanian qualifier

#5 Winners of joint Euro-Africa qualifier

#6 Winners of Pan-American qualifier

#7 and #8 Finalists in last chance global qualifier

That is an excellent distribution of quota places except I would add 1 more quota place to Asia and reduce 1 from last chance global qualifier . 
 

Edited September 8, 2023 by Roamingrover86

[nitinsanker 202]

1 hour ago, Dragon said:

There was a newspaper report earlier this year that suggested Indian payment for TV rights could rise from $12,000,000 to $200,000,000 if cricket was included in the Olympics

Yes that would be conservative as the rights for a cricket world cup would be 500 million dollars .... so if it is somewhat equally popular I would say at least  300 million more  ,.now figure that you get at least 20% of that in Bangladesh , Pakistan and sreelanka ....  less of an impact in other countries but again South Africa or Zimbabwe would go up as well 

 

So the question whether cricket would pay for itself in the Olympics is moot ... the question is what preventive measures would icc do to ensure that cricket in Olympics  does not overshadow their money spinners ( like only 3 over 21 players or something ) 

 

Also just the viewership of the Olympics would be hugely going up by a billion or so ... for countries like Bangladesh , srilanka and Pakistan give them genuine medal choices and teams to follow .... 

 

 

In my view a no brainer for IOC and the resistence would come from ICC ....

 

[mpjmcevoy 362]

Just now, Roamingrover86 said:

That is an excellent distribution of quota places except I would add 1 more quota place to Asia and reduce 1 from last chance global qualifier . 

Can't agree with that (though I can see why you would want it!)

 

Oceania 1, Africa 1, Europe 1, Pan America 1 kind of sells itself

Hosts is obvious.

I hesitate at World Champs, only because you might have a situation were RSA are world champs, and then you're talking Zimbabwe having a better shot than Pakistan or New Zealand, and that's not realistic.

That no longer there world champ spot now goes to Asia to recognise it has 5 'Full members' - so Asia 1+2, Host, Oceania 1, Africa 1, Europe 1, Pan American 1 leaves one last qualifier(or 2 if host is Aus, Ind etc) - which would be a MAJOR tournament in itself

 

It's a 10 teamer - PanAmerica 2+3, Europe 2 + 3, Africa 2+3, Oceania 2+3, Asia 3 + 4

 

Effectively this might boil down to Sri Lanka + Bangladesh + Trinidad + New Zealand + Guyana + PNG + Ireland + Netherlands + Zimbabwe + Namibia...

 

For a golden ticket to the Olympics, that's a qualifier sells itself. If we start with 2 groups of 5, top 6 go to QF (top of group teams get bye to semi, #2 and #3 to QF)

 

You could very well have a final knock out of Trinidad v Bangladesh, winner to play New Zealand, and Zimbabwe v Ireland, winner to play Sri Lanka, winner takes all. I'd say that might sell in and of itself.

[mpjmcevoy 362]

7 minutes ago, nitinsanker said:

Yes that would be conservative as the rights for a cricket world cup would be 500 million dollars .... so if it is somewhat equally popular I would say at least  300 million more  ,.now figure that you get at least 20% of that in Bangladesh , Pakistan and sreelanka ....  less of an impact in other countries but again South Africa or Zimbabwe would go up as well 

 

So the question whether cricket would pay for itself in the Olympics is moot ... the question is what preventive measures would icc do to ensure that cricket in Olympics  does not overshadow their money spinners ( like only 3 over 21 players or something ) 

 

Also just the viewership of the Olympics would be hugely going up by a billion or so ... for countries like Bangladesh , srilanka and Pakistan give them genuine medal choices and teams to follow .... 

 

 

In my view a no brainer for IOC and the resistence would come from ICC ....

 

Agree. ICC are in the FIFA situation here. Remember there would also be a woman's tournament, and I don't think ICC would mind their women's tournament's being slightly overshadowed, because Olympics would put rocket boosters under the women's game. I think it would be very short sighted for ICC to reject as MLB did - An Olympics for cricket breaks open new huge territories - China and Japan, the Gulf, Continental Europe, USA, where millions will watch ANYTHING olympic. There are signs of the globalisation working in rugby sevens already, and it certainly worked in women's football, and to an extent women's basketball.

 

If ICC wish to protect their own products, all they need is to settle on a strong narrative about what differentiates the tournaments, and play to it - which, largely will be numbers and global spread - a 16+ team CWC or T20WC will always have a very different dynamic and justification to a tight 'Champions trophy' style Olympic competition,

[Siddhartha Talukdar 234]

1 hour ago, Dragon said:

I've gone for this.

#1 Hosts (Providing they meet a certain standard, maybe top 30 in the world?)

#2 World Champions

#3 Winners of Asian qualifying tournament

#4 Winners of Oceanian qualifier

#5 Winners of joint Euro-Africa qualifier

#6 Winners of Pan-American qualifier

#7 and #8 Finalists in last chance global qualifier

USA are already 22nd in Men and 24th in Women in T20 rankings, but any group containing USA shall be to lopsided

[Dragon 1,844]

31 minutes ago, mpjmcevoy said:

Can't agree with that (though I can see why you would want it!)

 

Oceania 1, Africa 1, Europe 1, Pan America 1 kind of sells itself

Hosts is obvious.

I hesitate at World Champs, only because you might have a situation were RSA are world champs, and then you're talking Zimbabwe having a better shot than Pakistan or New Zealand, and that's not realistic.

That no longer there world champ spot now goes to Asia to recognise it has 5 'Full members' - so Asia 1+2, Host, Oceania 1, Africa 1, Europe 1, Pan American 1 leaves one last qualifier(or 2 if host is Aus, Ind etc) - which would be a MAJOR tournament in itself

 

Interestingly if this year was Olympic year (and based on results and rankings) it might have been Australia playing India for the final qualifying place.

ICC nightmare...

[Noorderling29 167]

Like other teamsports, there would have to be an equitable division of participants over the continents. That could mean that Asia is underrepresented, but under representation in teamsports is a common occurrence. 

[JoshMartini007 2,538]

That's the risk of having an 8-team cricket tournament. India isn't guaranteed to qualify, though they would be the favourites.

 

A 12-team tournament will likely prevent the issue and also qualifies more South Asian nations which helps showcase the difference of the sport. We just need to get around those pesky athlete quotas.

[dodge 1,024]

Baseball and softball had 6, so I'd imagine there is zero chance of them allowing cricket to have 12

[JoshMartini007 2,538]

8 minutes ago, dodge said:

Baseball and softball had 6, so I'd imagine there is zero chance of them allowing cricket to have 12

I know. It just defeats the point of "this sport is unique and played by a bunch of non-typical nations" when an 8-team tournament will likely contain . A 12-team tournament increases the chances of multiple of and a second Caribbean nation to qualify (also would be guaranteed a spot now)

 

But yes any team sport will probably have 6-8 teams.

Edited September 8, 2023 by JoshMartini007