Cricket World Cup returns to terrestrial TV

Having looked at these figures covering the whole period ,from 2005/6 to 2013/14, and looking at changes in participation of other sports, there clearly isn't a single magic bullet answer for cricket's decline.

Here is a graph of the change in participation over that period for the 14 major sports, in order of participation take-up as at October 2014, with Swimming recording 2.7 million particpants, down to Boxing at 145, 000



Free-to-air certainly isn't proven since Golf has declined about as much, and Rugby Union has been extensively televised, whereas I can't recall much televised Netball (up 33%) and only limited amounts of Boxing (up 25%).

I think there are some social and economic factors involved here, for example the huge upsurge in Athletics take-up will certainly owe a lot to the almost zero-cost associated with taking up jogging as a lifestyle health aid of choice, whereas swimming does rely on expensive facilities, the former council-maintained baths crumbling yera by year and privatised health centre baths being expensive. This doesn't, I'm aware, explain the only comparatively small decline in Equestrianism, a very expensive pastime, but may contribute to the decline of Golf (expensive and ever-rising equipment and club membership fees), of Squash and Rackets (private club membership expensive and no longer possessing the social cachet it enjoyed a few years ago), and Tennis (expensive equipment, limited public courts). In contrast cycling, though it can be very expensive is clearly riding the zeitgeist, and no wonder Matt Prior is shifting his allegiance.

If these figures have been maintained on the same basis throughout the period of the different surveys, then they do show that there can be significant shifts from one year to the next influenced by external events, such as Olympics and World Cup years, or significant British successes in world sports. The longer-term trends seem to even out these enthusiastic highs in favour of cost/benefit decisions made individually. Even there emotion may win out - how many peopley ma have spent a few hundred quid on a bike in the wake of Wiggins and Froome? What is concerning from this kind of analysis is that cricket's problems will continue to increase as land becomes scarcer, and equipment and presentation costs increase.

Without a significant and sustained wave of public enthusiasm - winning the World Cup, beating all other opponents consistently, and with maximum media exposure - it doesn't look as if cricket can sustain its present position as a majority sport for much longer. Perhaps Free-to-air might help, but a first-rate national team and star presence would do as much.