I had expected this to be a bit lighter than it was, 350 pages and typeset to use as few pages as possible. I didn't necessarily expect "in America, bats are round, but here they are square, how 'bout that?" but the author's nationality played a very small part in his outlook; this was more a political analysis of cricket through a socialist lens.
The first chapter was lighter, comparing baseball to cricket, and the foreword makes it clear the author is a socialist from the outset - not that this would have remained hidden for long. I didn't really mind the political angle itself, it was more that it was quite dry in places. There were a lot of interesting points made, but there were too many lists of 'Lord Baggles of Chutsworth, Lord Beggles of Chotsworth, Lord Biggles of...' when trying to illustrate the hold of the establishment over its administration. It reminded me of Surveillance Capitalism in that it said the same useful thing many times, and it was too repetitive and wordy as a result. Aspects were still well-argued though, in particular hiding behind a selective version of tradition to keep the status quo, and a complete lack of democratic accountability.
Reading it 30 years after its initial publication had its pros and cons. The more recent developments were recounted in more detail, but that meant the minutiae had even less relevance, whlile the contemporary problems provided an interesting comparison with today's. There were racism problems in Yorkshire (on the part of the crowd, though), borderline racist opinions in the cricket press, and despair at the adverts on the pitch and around the boundary (what on Earth would Marqusee make of the IPL?). Counties were resistant to changing the domestic structure, where first class cricket was being subsidised by Tests, which is still the case today. Marqusee was also ahead of time by remotely caring about women's cricket, although the focus is mostly about the top of the men's game.
Other interesting points made included: authorities resisting the market when it suited, and appealing to it at other times as justification; hypocrisy when it came to players stretching the rules depending on their nationality; and the relative comfort columnists felt in ascribing player weaknesses to their national character, especially if they had a different skin colour. It was just a shame that it wasn't particularly fun to read, and I think it could have been shorter while still making the same arguments. The structure was fine, but the writing itself didn't encourage me to keep reading. Instead, there was just enough subtance that I felt I was learning something.