Editorial: Olympic cricket a win for Brisbane

The inclusion of cricket in the Olympics would change the game for Brisbane, in a way that is far bigger than the inclusion of a popular sport we are good at, writes the editor.

There are 24 people in the Olympic movement who could this week deliver to Brisbane a massive legacy gift – and it is not the 23 who sit around the table at the Organising Committee for the 2032 Games.

Instead, we are referring to the 24 members of the Programme Commission of the International Olympic Committee – the group expected to recommend on Friday that T20 cricket be included in the 2028 Los Angeles Games.

In doing so, the sport will then be all but locked into the schedule for 2032 – a surprise that changes the game for Brisbane, in a way that is far bigger than the inclusion of a popular sport we are good at.

First, let’s step back a bit. If the government does bite what is now likely to be a $4bn bullet and go ahead with its planned demolition and rebuild of the Gabba as the main Olympic and Paralympic stadium for 2032, the two main tenants of that venue – AFL and cricket – will be homeless for up to seven years, from early-2026.

As yet, there is no solution. The Brisbane Lions AFL team were at one stage pushing for new stands to be constructed at their training base at Springfield, near Ipswich. Meanwhile, cricket has maintained it needs an upgrade of its facility at Allan Border Field in inner-city Albion.

But neither option would be suitable to host both sports at the elite level – meaning money would need to be spent twice for no direct Olympics benefit – an unpalatable solution for a government that is trying to win regional electorates next year, but that has set aside billions to build Games facilities in the southeast of the state.

This conundrum saw another solution emerge late last year – to transform the Main Arena at the inner-city RNA Showgrounds into a 20,000-seat boutique “stadium” to host both the football and cricket between 2026 and the Games.

As the months have ticked by, both sports have grown more and more comfortable with that trade-off, but the lack of a Test-rated wicket means there would be no five-day internationals here for the duration.

This reality was called out in the recent open letter from Queensland Cricket chair Chris Simpson and chief executive Terry Svenson, which warned: “We are preparing ourselves for a worst-case scenario where cricket could face the loss of access to the Gabba for potentially greater than seven years.”

However, if cricket is included in the 2032 Games, then it will also need a venue to be played in.

And that puts the Allan Border Field option back on the electorally palatable table for the government – as it could upgrade, over the next two years and through its 2032 Games funding package, both the RNA and the Albion site (to a Test venue with a capacity of 10,000) before the Gabba is demolished.

This in turn would deliver an unexpected legacy – that we would emerge from hosting the Games with two more mid-sized, inner-city football and cricket venues, in addition to the Gabba. This would be a good thing for a growing city.

Why is the IOC wanting to include cricket? The answer has nothing to do with Brisbane, and everything to do with India – soon to be the world’s most-populated nation, but a country where the Olympics are just not very popular.

An Olympics T20 tournament – perhaps based on the eight-team live trial at the Commonwealth Games in Birmingham last year – would be massive not only in India, but all those nations that make up the vastly populated subcontinent.

It would deliver the IOC a huge new revenue stream, and it would help convince India to bid to host the 2036 Olympic and Paralympics.

Both would be huge wins for IOC president Thomas Bach, who is due to step down from the job in 2025 – the same year the 2036 host is to be decided. Coincidence? Not likely.

Legacy, it seems, matters.

TAKE TIME TO UNDERSTAND VOICE

It doesn’t much matter whether the Uluru Statement from the Heart that the Prime Minister says his Voice referendum responds to is one page, or 26 pages. What matters is that as many of us as possible cast an informed ballot on October 14.

The longer Uluru document is not some big secret. Instead, as the publicly available formal report of the 2017 referendum council that first recommended an Indigenous Voice to Parliament, it provides important context to the statement that has informed this process.

We published the report in full yesterday, not to fuel the conspiracy theories; quite the opposite. We published it because we hope all our readers head to the ballot box having given due consideration to this proposal to add to our nation’s Constitution a new, ninth, chapter.

The leaders of the Yes campaign say they are not concerned about polling that suggests they are losing the argument because one-third of voters have still not made up their minds. They are confident that people will support the Voice when they take the time to understand it.

As we have repeatedly said in this column, it is your responsibility as an Australian voter to properly consider what is being proposed – and to make up your own mind.

Responsibility for election comment is taken by Chris Jones, corner of Mayne Rd & Campbell St, Bowen Hills, Qld 4006. Printed and published by NEWSQUEENSLAND (ACN 009 661 778). Contact details here