The announcement of the English Premier League yesterday came without much fanfare. And in The Times, Richard Hobson questions whether this really is a "premier" competition:

There is a fundamental problem about England and an equivalent of the Indian Premier League (IPL). We can have an English Premier League by name - Giles Clarke, the ECB chairman, coined the term when the 2008 season was launched in April - but what is “Premier” about a competition with at least 18 teams?

If the EPL is to really blossom as a viable commercial product, England will need support from India, Hobson continues.

Talks on refreshing the Twenty20 format, which was born in England in 2003, began long before the notion of “New Twenty20” and Collier, who is trying to finalise details of the Champions League with India, Australia and South Africa, said that the ECB has “received enormous broadcast and sponsor interest from around the world”.

The success of the tournament - and value of broadcasting deals overseas - is sure to be enhanced if the ECB can reach agreement with the Board of Control for Cricket in India over the release of its leading players, with the quid pro quo that England players will be allowed to feature in the IPL.

Keith Bradshaw and David Stewart's leaked plans, which proposed a city-based set-up of nine teams, was thrown out by the ECB, but many are concerned that a competition involving 20 teams might lack the cutting-edge talent which the Indian Premier League offered. Over in The Telegraph, Nick Hoult has a rather simple explanation to why Bradshaw and Stewart's plans were rejected: television.

It is believed they threw out Bradshaw's proposal after being told by television companies a nine-team city based tournament was worthless as a broadcasting deal. Sources within the broadcasting industry last night cast doubt on that view.

Paul Newman at the Daily Mail believes that the counties have locked themselves into a "Twenty20 prison".

The 18 first-class counties will all play a full part in a Twenty20 revolution that ends any possibility of city franchise cricket but leaves the domestic game in danger of reaching saturation point in the short format that is taking over the cricketing world.

There is also the possibility of EPL teams being backed by team name sponsors to generate more income. Kentucky Fried Middlesex, perhaps? Or how about Utterly Butterly Lancashire?

At The Guardian, Lawrence Booth was particularly concerned about overkill, but recognised that politics had scuppered any prospect of a slimline tournament.

The announcement confirmed what had become obvious in the days since proposals for a nine-franchise EPL, drawn up by Keith Bradshaw of the MCC and David Stewart of Surrey, were leaked to the press last Friday: namely, that many of the 18 first-class counties were unwilling to be marginalised and the ECB did not want to cede ownership of a potential milch cow to an outside company, in this case New Twenty20 Ltd. It has also been pointed out that any ECB-sanctioned tournament involving anything but all 18 counties would have been unconstitutional in any case.