The future of Test cricket points to a wider problem in modern sport: crowds create the meaning, identity and emotional value that commercial systems increasingly seek to own and monetise.

Chas Keys recently raised an important concern about the future of Test cricket. His argument was not really about batting techniques, bowling actions or even the quality of the modern game. Rather, it was about power. Increasingly, the future of cricket appears to be determined less by players and supporters than by boards, investors, broadcasters and the owners of franchise competitions.

The rise of T20 cricket has brought extraordinary financial success. It has also shifted the centre of gravity within the game. Decisions once made primarily in the interests of cricket are now increasingly influenced by commercial considerations. Chas’ concern is that Test cricket, the game’s oldest and richest form, may become one of the casualties.

Perhaps the issue is not simply what is happening to cricket. Perhaps cricket is merely revealing something that is happening across much of modern sport.

Who, exactly, owns the crowd?

At first glance the question seems absurd. Crowds are not owned. Supporters choose which teams they follow and which games they attend. Yet the history of modern sport can almost be understood as a gradual shift in the relationship between the game, its participants and its spectators.

For much of sporting history, spectators were little more than a fortunate by-product. Clubs were established because people wanted to play. Communities organised competitions because they valued participation. Supporters gathered because they knew the players, lived in the district or simply enjoyed the contest. The crowd was important, but it was not the reason the event existed.

The local football field still reminds us of this........

© Pearls and Irritations