We should identify the best IPL window from October to April - Lalit Modi

Lalit Modi, the IPL's founding chairman, sparked discussion when he proposed expanding the league to 94 matches and moving its start to January. In a social media post, he also urged ICC Chair Jay Shah to help facilitate a revised calendar. In a conversation with Cricbuzz, Modi set out the case for a window between October and April, and drew a comparison with football leagues that run over long seasons. Excerpts:

The April-May window is widely regarded as the masterstroke of your original concept in 2008. Free of international cricket, it allowed the BCCI to turn a vacant slot into its most lucrative property, and it brought families, women and children, to the grounds and in front of television. A January window may not offer the same advantages. Aren't you now arguing against what was arguably the IPL's biggest strength?

You are looking at the IPL today and applying that certainty to the circumstances in which I created it. When I started, there was enormous resistance and scepticism. I took a window nobody wanted and built a competition people wanted to watch. The success we see today was not handed to us.

April-May was the opportunity available then. It was never a declaration that these were the ideal months for Indian cricket for all time. We began with eight teams and a 59-match schedule. The BCCI subsequently expanded the league to 10 teams. A complete home-and-away competition for 10 teams means 90 league matches and four playoffs. That is 94 matches - 35 more than the original format, an increase of almost 60%.

How do you accommodate that growth in essentially the same compressed period without putting more pressure on players, spectators and everyone delivering the tournament? For families, of course the holiday period was an advantage. But families follow teams, players and compelling cricket. Their interest is not confined to two months. We should build a better experience through sensible timings, weekends and comfortable stadium conditions, while taking school calendars into account. I created the IPL to grow. I did not create it to stand still.

A January start could disrupt both the international and domestic calendar in India. How would you address that?

It would require changes. That is precisely why this discussion belongs in the new FTP. My broader position is that we should identify the best window from October to the end of April. January is a concrete starting proposal within that range. I am not asking for seven uninterrupted months of exclusive IPL cricket.

We need to sit down with the actual fixtures, venues, travel requirements and player commitments and design the season properly. International cricket needs protected blocks. Domestic cricket needs a coherent programme. Players need preparation and genuine rest. You cannot fit a Test tour into a few spare weekdays. But "the calendar would have to change" cannot be the final answer to every proposal. The purpose of planning a new calendar is to improve it.

Other countries have had to give up international windows to make room for their leagues. India can keep the two separate: host international cricket, sell those rights, then stage the IPL. Why disturb that?

Then assess the economics properly. My assessment is that bilateral and ICC rights income faces pressure in the coming cycle. The IPL is the BCCI's principal commercial engine and, in my view, its lifeline for future growth. The BCCI should be planning ahead of that risk.

A change in dates does not automatically mean combining the rights packages or abandoning valuable international cricket. It means deciding how the whole year should work. Calculate the additional IPL opportunity, the international income affected, the costs and the arrangements needed with other boards. Look at the net benefit to cricket.

Keeping two income streams separate is useful. Keeping the calendar unchanged regardless of how those income streams develop is not a business strategy.

You have raised the heat in the later stages of the season as a concern. With most matches played in the evening, who do you see bearing the brunt of it: players, spectators, or those working at the venues?

Sunset is not an air-conditioning switch. Heat and humidity do not disappear when the floodlights come on. Players warm up before the match. Spectators travel and queue before the match. Ground staff, security personnel and production crews work for hours before the first ball. There are afternoon matches as well.

For people sitting or working in open stadiums, the summer heat can be unbearable. We have to take that seriously. Weather patterns and heat conditions have changed. The answer cannot simply be that we managed in 2008, so we should carry on indefinitely.

My preference is to make better use of the October-April period, choosing dates and venues intelligently. Conditions differ across India, and April itself can be very hot. That is a reason for detailed planning. We must consider the experience of everyone on the ground.

Wouldn't dew be a significant factor in a January-March window, making matches lopsided in favour of the team batting second?

Dew is a legitimate concern. It should be examined properly. But dew already affects the IPL in its existing window. The league introduced a wet-ball replacement provision in 2025 to address that problem. So remaining in April-May does not remove it.

Study conditions ground by ground: dew, temperature, rain, fog and air quality. Look at start times, ground preparation and appropriate playing conditions. If a venue is unsuitable in a particular month, assess whether its home fixtures can be placed elsewhere within the season.

I would not accept a calendar that makes the toss excessively decisive. Equally, I would not reject the whole proposal without comparing the actual conditions in both windows. That is why I am advocating a broader planning range. India does not have one uniform climate.

You are advocating a 94-match league, but past experience suggests that stretching the tournament can lead to viewer fatigue and a drop in ratings. Doesn't that risk killing the golden goose?

Fatigue is precisely one of the problems I want us to address. There is a difference between spreading a season sensibly and asking viewers to consume more and more cricket on consecutive days.

The 94-match figure comes from a clear sporting proposition: 10 teams, every opponent at home and away, followed by four playoffs. Each team would have nine home and nine away league fixtures. Supporters would get to see every opponent in their own city. The BCCI expanded the league. The calendar should allow the full competition to develop properly.

A longer season gives us room to create a recognisable weekly rhythm, build anticipation and leave breathing space. It also requires us to manage the players' entire year. More weeks alone will not create rest if we fill every gap with another commitment.

Of course we must test audience demand and commercial returns. I am not claiming that adding matches automatically adds value. But squeezing an expanded competition harder and harder also carries a risk. Protecting the golden goose includes giving it room to breathe.

Football leagues run long schedules, but a football match lasts 90 minutes while an IPL game stretches to nearly four hours. Isn't the viewing commitment fundamentally different?

Of course the sports are different. The useful comparison is how a league builds a season: regular fixtures, home-and-away competition, local loyalty and a story that develops over time. I am not suggesting that a cricket match takes the same amount of time as a football match.

In fact, if an IPL match demands a longer viewing commitment, that strengthens the argument for sensible spacing. Give people time to look forward to their team's next match. A supporter should be able to follow their club through a season without being expected to watch every minute of every game in the competition. We should also be disciplined about match duration and finishing times. A longer season should come with a better organised product.

You appear optimistic about the next IPL media-rights cycle, but there is a view in the industry that it may not see a significant rise in value...

My optimism is a commercial judgement. The eventual price will be determined by bidders and the business opportunity they see. But value is also influenced by how you design the product and conduct the sale. Player availability, a reliable calendar, competitive matches, audience engagement and the way rights are packaged all matter.

I have consistently argued for examining platform and territorial packages carefully and creating the conditions for genuine bidding competition. Broadcasters need a credible opportunity to make money. A longer window by itself will not produce a bigger cheque. It must improve what we are offering. I see substantial potential in the IPL. Realising that potential requires work. It will not happen simply because we assume the next auction must be worth more.

You are asking Jay Shah to strengthen Indian cricket, but as ICC Chair, his responsibilities extend to world cricket as well...

His responsibility to world cricket is exactly why I am asking him to use his good offices. BCCI can develop an IPL proposal. Securing an international agreement around it requires someone who understands India's commercial importance and the legitimate interests of the other boards.

Jay has the experience to help bring those interests together. He has already contributed to the IPL's commercial growth. At the ICC, he has the opportunity to help translate that strength into an arrangement the wider game can support. That means listening to other boards, protecting important international cricket and examining fair arrangements for player release and development. The countries producing overseas talent must have a reason to support the outcome.

I am putting forward an opportunity for leadership. I am not asking him to impose an Indian calendar on everyone else. A settlement that strengthens the IPL while giving the wider game greater certainty could be a defining achievement of his chairmanship. My position is straightforward: we built the IPL for the circumstances we faced in 2008. We should now build its next phase for the circumstances we face today.