What Is the Hundred Cricket Controversy?

“The Hundred remains one of the most divisive experiments in cricket.” 

That line, repeated in countless media commentaries since the tournament’s 2021 launch, captures the depth of the debate. While the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) created the format to bring new audiences to the game and modernise cricket’s appeal, it has instead opened one of the sport’s fiercest cultural divides.

The controversy is not about whether people watch — attendances have been healthy, and television numbers are stable. It is about what the competition represents. Is it a bold new step that safeguards cricket’s future, or is it a cynical, commercially driven gimmick that undermines the very traditions that make the game meaningful?

Even on the technical side, the ECB has faced criticism. The decision not to use the Dukes cricket ball — long regarded as the gold standard in English conditions — but instead experiment with bespoke, branded alternatives only deepened suspicions that the Hundred prioritises marketing over sporting integrity. When players complained about the erratic behaviour of these newer balls, comparisons with the proven consistency of the Dukes sharpened the sense that tradition had been needlessly abandoned.

This article explores the Hundred cricket controversy from all angles: the traditionalists’ objections, technical issues with the ball and pitch, the clash between audience goals and reality, financial disputes, format identity struggles, and the surprising positives — particularly for women’s cricket.

Foundational Objections: Innovation vs Tradition

For many purists, The Hundred is “fast-food cricket.” By reducing overs, rebranding vocabulary (“balls” instead of overs, “batters” instead of batsmen), and layering entertainment elements such as DJ sets into the broadcast, the ECB is accused of dumbing down a sport that thrives on depth and nuance.

Scepticism also runs deep over the ECB’s motives. Commentators and even players suggested the new format was designed not for cricketing innovation but for broadcasting contracts and sponsorship appeal. Fans loyal to the 18 first-class counties felt excluded, since The Hundred limited itself to eight city-based franchises. This created resentment: decades of county heritage seemed ignored in favour of flashy new branding.

On social media, early campaigns like #OpposeThe100 reflected organised fan resistance. Critics warned that The Hundred could fracture domestic cricket culture rather than unify it.

Ball and Pitch Issues: Technical Controversies

Beyond identity politics, the format has faced technical criticism. In 2025, the ECB had to withdraw a controversial batch of branded Hundred balls after widespread complaints. Players claimed these balls had excessive lacquer and heavier seams, producing exaggerated swing and seam movement that skewed games toward bowlers.

Pitches, too, have been under scrutiny. Slow and tired surfaces during some editions led to low-scoring contests that felt less exciting than the free-flowing spectacle promised by organisers. The format’s rules — such as allowing bowlers to deliver 10 consecutive balls — may have unintentionally amplified bowler dominance under those conditions.

When fans tune in expecting fireworks, prolonged passages of attritional play undermine the very purpose of the tournament. These controversies fuel doubts about whether The Hundred’s condensed structure is balanced for fair, entertaining cricket.

Audience & Purpose: Promised New Fans vs Reality

The ECB’s strongest justification for creating The Hundred was that it would bring new fans, particularly women, children, and families, into cricket’s orbit. Some evidence supports this: the inaugural seasons saw high proportions of women and juniors among ticket buyers, and the family-friendly presentation struck a chord.

Yet, subsequent admissions from ECB officials have conceded that there is no robust evidence that these audiences transition into following other formats, such as Tests or county cricket. Critics suggest that rather than expanding the pie, The Hundred risks cannibalising attention away from existing tournaments, including the T20 Blast, which was already thriving.

The debate remains unresolved: is The Hundred a gateway to cricket or a parallel product that competes with its own ecosystem?

Financial & Commercial Disputes

The Hundred’s economics have drawn as much heat as its cricket. Lalit Modi, the former IPL architect, lambasted the ECB’s franchise model as “a big fat Ponzi scheme,” arguing the projections of financial growth were unrealistic.

Player salaries have also sparked debate. A recent increase in men’s top salaries was labelled “disproportionate” by the Professional Cricketers’ Association, with critics pointing out that the gender pay gap widened despite the tournament’s equal-branding rhetoric.

Meanwhile, reports of early financial losses — including figures around £9 million over the first two seasons — raised questions about long-term sustainability. Proponents argue this is normal for a start-up competition; sceptics see it as proof that the venture was flawed from inception.

Format & Identity Critiques

Even leaving aside money, many question whether the format works on its own terms. With 100 balls per innings instead of 120, the matches are shorter, but some players argue the compressed format feels breathless, leaving little room for the subtle momentum shifts that define cricket.

The entertainment add-ons — DJs, flashing lights, simplified graphics — are criticised by some as gimmicks that alienate core fans rather than entice them. Others note that the lack of marquee international stars, especially in the men’s competition, has diluted its competitive edge.

The Hundred risks being caught between identities: neither as prestigious as Test cricket, nor as globally powerful as T20 leagues like the IPL.

Gender Equity & Positive Sides Amid Controversy

Not all is negative. Supporters highlight that The Hundred has delivered unprecedented exposure for women’s cricket. For the first time, women’s and men’s matches share the same branding, venues, and marketing campaigns. Crowds for women’s games have surged, and television coverage has treated both genders on near-equal footing.

Research suggests this visibility has shifted cultural perceptions, presenting cricket as a gender-inclusive sport. For many young girls and families, The Hundred provided their first live cricket experience.

This success complicates the controversy: while critics decry commercial motives and gimmicks, it is undeniable that women’s cricket has benefited in ways few other reforms could have achieved.

FAQs

Is The Hundred officially considered a T20 match for stats?

No. The Hundred is recognised as its own format in statistical records. Performances are not included in T20 statistics.

Do criticisms outweigh benefits in the long term?

This remains subjective. Purists argue that the damage to tradition and existing competitions outweighs short-term benefits. Supporters counter that innovation was necessary to engage new fans.

Can the Hundred format change to address criticisms?

Yes. Discussions about adjusting rules — or even reverting to T20 while keeping the “Hundred” branding — have already surfaced.

Has the scrutiny hurt player participation or audience trust?

Some overseas stars have opted out, citing scheduling and format scepticism. Audience trust is divided, with strong family uptake but persistent traditionalist resistance.

Conclusion: Unpacking the Hundred Cricket Controversy

The Hundred cricket controversy is less about whether people will watch and more about what the format symbolises. Detractors argue that it dilutes tradition, disrupts existing competitions, and fails to prove its long-term audience impact. Supporters point to its gender equity advances, strong live attendance, and role in cricket’s survival in a crowded entertainment market.

Ultimately, the controversy reflects cricket’s wider struggle: balancing heritage with modernisation. For The Hundred to endure, the ECB must show greater transparency in finances, address technical issues, and engage with critics constructively. Whether the format thrives or fades may determine how English cricket reinvents itself for the 21st century.