Sport’s overreachers like Sussex and Leicester are guilty of hope not greed
As long as sport’s governing bodies and regulators reward risk over restraint, the cycle of boom, bust, sanction, repeat will continue, writes Ed Warner.
First the disclaimer: I live in Sussex and although its county side isn’t my first cricketing love – that “honour” belongs to Middlesex CCC – I’ve enjoyed days at Hove’s County Ground and time with Sussex CCC’s leaders in recent years.
It is hard then to take a dispassionate view of last week’s announcement of sporting and financial sanctions levied by the England and Wales Cricket Board as conditions of emergency funding after Sussex apparently ran up losses of around £1m over the past couple of seasons. The chairman, indisputably one of county cricket’s good guys, resigned at the weekend.
This transgression of the ECB’s financial rules feels depressingly familiar. After all, my first love, Middlesex CCC, were placed in special measures in 2023 after years of financial mismanagement during which their £2m of reserves all but disappeared.
The county managed to avoid the deferred points deductions that hung over them, but its struggles continue and are not purely financial – the CEO is reported to be subject to an allegation of misconduct and has taken a leave of absence.
Sussex have received immediate points deductions across all three men’s competitions, with further penalties deferred.
The ECB may frame such sanctions that accompany the lifelines it offers as necessary deterrents, but in truth both counties’ predicaments reflect the systemic strain across English cricket. This strain is especially acute for those have-nots who don’t host international cricket matches or franchises in The Hundred.
The aim of approving exceptional funding through this agreement is to provide Sussex with the time to correct their underlying issues and for the ECB to ensure that all counties are treated fairly.
Richard Gould, ECB chief executive
Static or falling membership numbers don’t square with rising operating costs and the trickle-down effect of player earnings that are inflating on the franchise circuit.
To manage most counties’ finances is to try and eke sporting success out of the loyalty of an ageing base of die-hard supporters whose first desire may be simply to be able to watch some cricket, but who certainly wouldn’t say no to the odd victory.
If only there was a virtuous circle of cricketing success generating increased revenue. Instead, wherever a county finishes in the standings its financial opportunity remains tightly constrained.
Although running up chunky losses might appear reckless with hindsight, attempts by leaders to buck such a dispiriting system are only human.
After all, who wants to be locked forever into sporting failure, especially with a membership base that is likely to applaud ambition and chafe at any perceived over-conservatism? If you don’t want to climb the ladder, however cautiously, what are you doing in post?
Ambition is addictive
In football, overspending has almost become institutionalised. When Leicester City last week received a six-point deduction for breaching financial regulations, they became just the latest in a string of clubs to receive such sanctions: Everton, Nottingham Forest, Derby County and Sheffield Wednesday the most prominent in recent times. And of course, the game still awaits the outcome of Manchester City’s case and their alleged 115 rule breaches.
The money involved may be greater, but football club owners’ motivations mirror those of cricket’s leaders. Ambition is addictive. Fans are hooked; investors too.
Where to place the blame when things go wrong? Those who dare to dream, or the regulators who clip their wings?
Leicester City, six points lighter, now sit just above the Championship’s relegation spots, but no one can take away the club’s 2015-16 Premier League title or 2021 FA Cup triumph. Most clubs’ fans would take that trade. Ambition over arithmetic.
Hardly any professional team sport is immune, it seems. Both rugby codes have lost heritage club names as a result of financial distress. Welsh rugby is currently beset by civil war as its governing body struggles to find a sustainable model.
Basketball’s infighting is just as bitter, the recent bankruptcy of its governing body a by-product of a struggle for control of a league of teams that, year after year, operate at a loss.
The dream of harnessing just a sprinkle of the NBA’s financial stardust is as strong as ever, but those riches remain infuriatingly ephemeral for those pumping money repeatedly into the sport.
Yes, there are bad actors, but in all these sports transgression usually stems from optimism, not deceit.
Owners and directors genuinely believe that financial risk and competitiveness are two sides of the same coin. The language of rule‑breaking becomes disguised (often inadvertently) as a language of faith, of a duty to invest, of a strategy for success.
When misplaced faith collides with reality, the fault line in governing bodies’ dual role of judge and doctor is tested.
Each has its own regulatory regime with attendant sanctions, but fans and owners will also look to them to provide a financial lifeline, if not from their own resources then in brokering a successful resolution to any crises that threaten a club’s existence.
Believers, not villains
Yet the question persists: are governing bodies and regulators acting to nurture their sport, or merely to maintain order within it? Fines and points deductions make headlines but rarely build resilience and stability. Punishment alone won’t cure financial recklessness.
The reform menu is long but familiar: more equitable central distributions, open‑book accounting scrutinised in real time, more nuanced profit‑based spending caps tied to verifiable revenue, and compulsory education for board directors.
Some call for independence in regulation, separate from the day-to-day work of governing a sport (as now arriving in English football). Others advocate rewards for sustainable performance, such as a bigger share of collective commercial and broadcast revenues.
But any reform requires courage. Each governing body fears that greater restraints will drive investors away, leaving sports under‑funded. So they oscillate between commanding and encouraging but risk ending up with an insufficiency of both control and incentive.
For all the breaches and bankruptcies, ambition remains sport’s most invigorating instinct. The drive that leads a cricket county to overspend or a football owner to gamble on success is the force that can fill a ground, inspire kids, and instil a fan culture.
Those who transgress the rules can be, but are rarely, villains. They are believers, occasionally misguided, but always driven by the desire to make their club matter.
As long as a sport’s structural incentives reward risk more than restraint, the cycle will continue: boom, bust, sanction, repeat.
The story of sport’s overreach is not one of greed. It is, in the end, a story of hope, and an utterly human one at that.
Ed Warner is chair of GB Wheelchair Rugby and writes his sport column at sportinc.substack.com