BCCI & ECB take cuts due to demise of the "Big 3"

[jagatk]

I will say it again, stop just looking it through the beloved eyes of the BCCI and getting so emotional as if one of Indias great institutions has been shamed. It's just a damn cricket board. I have criticise the PCB umpteen times especially their incompetence and corruption.

Just Think about the game of cricket in general as well. How was the 2014 deal good for cricket and in any way fair, especially for lower teams ??

The ICC was a complete and utter joke that was bowing down to the demands of the BCCI and to a lesser extent the ECB and CA.

Show me one other sport that has control in this way ?? Even in football despite its problems with FIFA you don't see one country calling the shots.

It's ridiculous there are still those defending one of the most ludrucous deals in the history of sport.

No country dominates fifa because no 1 country brings most part of the income for fifa and fifa makes money from every where in the world not just 1 country wrong comparison. But just to put it in perspective, all but 1 FIFA president were europeans, guess which continent has the most fifa world cup slots?

I agree that big 3 was unfair, but do you really think anyone in their right mind will agree with 40% cut in their income especially when most of the money is made of what they bring to the table, also development of cricket is icc's job not bcci's, bcci is responsible for cricket in india, i would consider it bcci not doing their job if they don't oppose this tooth and nail and get best possible deal for india.

 

[Zak_Fan]

I will say it again, stop just looking it through the beloved eyes of the BCCI and getting so emotional as if one of Indias great institutions has been shamed. It's just a damn cricket board. I have criticise the PCB umpteen times especially their incompetence and corruption.

Just Think about the game of cricket in general as well. How was the 2014 deal good for cricket and in any way fair, especially for lower teams ??

The ICC was a complete and utter joke that was bowing down to the demands of the BCCI and to a lesser extent the ECB and CA.

Show me one other sport that has control in this way ?? Even in football despite its problems with FIFA you don't see one country calling the shots.

It's ridiculous there are still those defending one of the most ludrucous deals in the history of sport.

Do you realize the extent of cut India's state boards will be taking directly as a result of this? Number of professional Crickters in Delhi's small locality would be larger than in both Afganistan and Ireland combined.

Forget about BCCI's influence or power, just think it from a Cricketing perspective. Does it make sense when countries like Ireland or Afganistan get more than 1/5th the share BCCI do? How can you penalize BCCI for having other ways of making money?

 

[JaDed]

I will say it again, stop just looking it through the beloved eyes of the BCCI and getting so emotional as if one of Indias great institutions has been shamed. It's just a damn cricket board. I have criticise the PCB umpteen times especially their incompetence and corruption.

Just Think about the game of cricket in general as well. How was the 2014 deal good for cricket and in any way fair, especially for lower teams ??

The ICC was a complete and utter joke that was bowing down to the demands of the BCCI and to a lesser extent the ECB and CA.

Show me one other sport that has control in this way ?? Even in football despite its problems with FIFA you don't see one country calling the shots.

It's ridiculous there are still those defending one of the most ludrucous deals in the history of sport.

Football can't be an example they have club football throughout the year to make money and spread the game throughout a country.Its not about BCCI its about Indian population where the game has to be setup.

A proper example would be Rugby where there are intl tests and here is what ENGLAND HAD TO SAY ON IT:

an Ritchie, the chief executive of the Rugby Football Union, has rejected the notion that Twickenham match revenues should be shared with southern-hemisphere opponents, suggesting that they should “go build a stadium” if they want to improve their finances.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-un...cks-plea-to-share-twickenham-revenue---if-th/

 

[TalhaSyed]

Get more money into the test fund.Distribute that equally to all members.Sponsor a universal DRS. Increase the Prize money for annual Test Mace winner and the ICC tournaments.Set up a medical fund for test match players from poor countries.So many ways the ICC can bring down the costs of its member countries.

Oh ok so basically your main thing is that you want BCCI to earn approx. 5 times more money then the likes of PCB, SLC & CSA and 4 times more than the likes of CA & ECB. Which means that if ICC will take the money away from India they should invest it on more "ICC" related things compared to giving it to the members?

 

[cricketjoshila]

Oh ok so basically your main thing is that you want BCCI to earn approx. 5 times more money then the likes of PCB, SLC & CSA and 4 times more than the likes of CA & ECB. Which means that if ICC will take the money away from India they should invest it on more "ICC" related things compared to giving it to the members?

If ICC sponsors a Universal DRS or gives out test fund distributed on basis of the number of tests each team plays then their is equal distribution of the extra funds(some depending upon how many tests a country hosts).Its no more ICC taking away from BCCI and giving it to the rest.Its no more one baord being targetted since they are good at earning money.

 

[TalhaSyed]

If ICC sponsors a Universal DRS or gives out test fund distributed on basis of the number of tests each team plays then their is equal distribution of the extra funds(some depending upon how many tests a country hosts).Its no more ICC taking away from BCCI and giving it to the rest.Its no more one baord being targetted since they are good at earning money.

ICC sponsoring DRS I agree with. However, up until very recently the biggest opposers to that would be the BCCI and Indian cricket team who dont think its fool proof.

Giving more to team who hosts more Test matches...hmmm..I kind of see the benefit, in the sense that it should (in theory) help promote Test cricket and give teams an incentive to play more Test matches. However, that doesn't help the likes of Ireland and Afghanistan, and doesn't help the game grow in parts of the world where it isn't played.

Just to clarify - BCCI is good at earning money because they are targeting a product at over a billion people, majority of whom are already crazy about the product. Don't get me wrong - BCCI have done well, in fact very well (specially with cashing in on the IPL) - however, the odds were always in their favour and they would have to go horrendously wrong to screw things up.

The likes of CA, ECB and CSA are also "very good at earning money", but they just don't have that ready made market there, waiting for them to cash in. Thats my opinion any way - ofcourse you may disagree and think the BCCI are the greatest thing since sliced bread which is why they have made so much money

 

[Cricfan4eva]

So if we're seeing BCCI take a ~30 percent cut, or whatever, & ECB take a negligible hit with CA getting the same amount, does that mean ECB/CA are bringing more money to the (ICC) table than 3yrs back? If not it's clearly unfair to take BCCI for a ride, the ECB & CA must take greater cuts & that can then be distributed evenly across every other member that the ICC pays.

Because you are looking at wrongly. Forget what BCCI were getting and are getting now.

Look at what the non essential nations are getting and then CA and ECB. CA and ECB are practically getting the same amount, you can't expect them to make a cut to an extent that they get below Pak, SL or BD, or are you?

As for BCCI, well their contribution to cricket is essential and no one denies that not even ICC which is why if you take a look at the revenue distribution, they are getting more than ECB and CA combined! and rightly so.

While it should be acknowledged how important BCCI is for ICC, some Indians over-state it as if BCCI could run IPL all year and still make the same amount of money. Absolutely not. We'd be self-sufficient thanks to our country relying on cricket as the sole sport but earnings wouldn't not be anywhere as it is now for BCCI.

There's also no India without other countries right? Why do you think broadcasters emphasise on a permanent Indo-Pak clash in ICC tournaments post 2007? Because that is their money spinner, India alone while fetches good $$, their clash with Aus, Eng, SA, Pak fetch more. So in order to see that game spreads and other members aren't resentful it was only logical that we had to part with the largest cut. How else would other boards have got a raise?

 

[Cricfan4eva]

IMO India shouldn't even be concerned about revenue sharing. Sure no one likes losing easy money but they should be more focused on the clubbed package deal ICC are trying through push through and the ODI/Test league. Because that is something they can't afford to backdown against. That hurts our personal revenue generation.

 

[R0H1T]

Because you are looking at wrongly. Forget what BCCI were getting and are getting now.

Look at what the non essential nations are getting and then CA and ECB. CA and ECB are practically getting the same amount, you can't expect them to make a cut to an extent that they get below Pak, SL or BD, or are you?

As for BCCI, well their contribution to cricket is essential and no one denies that not even ICC which is why if you take a look at the revenue distribution, they are getting more than ECB and CA combined! and rightly so.

While it should be acknowledged how important BCCI is for ICC, some Indians over-state it as if BCCI could run IPL all year and still make the same amount of money. Absolutely not. We'd be self-sufficient thanks to our country relying on cricket as the sole sport but earnings wouldn't not be anywhere as it is now for BCCI.

There's also no India without other countries right? Why do you think broadcasters emphasise on a permanent Indo-Pak clash in ICC tournaments post 2007? Because that is their money spinner, India alone while fetches good $$, their clash with Aus, Eng, SA, Pak fetch more. So in order to see that game spreads and other members aren't resentful it was only logical that we had to part with the largest cut. How else would other boards have got a raise?

Who's asking them to be cut down to SLC or PCB's size? But if India's taking a cut of ~40% (according to latest estimates) then why don't they get a cut of 20~30 percent respectively or is it too much to ask from them?

They also bank roll India for 5 & 4 tests plus lots of ODI & T20, that we don't get to play as frequently in say SA or NZ is also due to this anomaly. So we make them the biggest amount of $ (outside of a single Ashes tour) & we also forfeit a ton of $ for world peace?

The extra $ could always go to associates & things which cricketjoshila suggested a while back, but I guess the ICC & ECB, CA can take better care of our money?

 

[HitWicket]

Football can't be an example they have club football throughout the year to make money and spread the game throughout a country.Its not about BCCI its about Indian population where the game has to be setup.

A proper example would be Rugby where there are intl tests and here is what ENGLAND HAD TO SAY ON IT:

The rugby quote quite clearly states match revenues, which stay with the host country/local association in cricket as well...

 

[JaDed]

The rugby quote quite clearly states match revenues, which stay with the host country/local association in cricket as well...

Yes but they should share it for the "greater" of the game as Aus and NZ can't build big stadiums on their own because population is not the issue its the big stadiums, similar to how India's population generating revenue doesn't mean its because they built a brand and spend money on the game marketing it.

Think England and Rugby union are being really unfair to Southern teams,they need to share the revenue,cmon be a sport think for the betterment of your Southern Rugby nations and why not provide some for Hong Kong,Lanka and others too.

“Of course they say they want more money, but there is nothing to stop Australia or New Zealand building a stadium,” said Ritchie. “Go build a stadium if you want to increase your revenue growth. We have all been through it here in Ireland, Wales, Scotland and ourselves, incurring debt on stadium build in order to reap the benefits.

 

[HitWicket]

Yes but they should share it for the "greater" of the game as Aus and NZ can't build big stadiums on their own because population is not the issue its the big stadiums, similar to how India's population generating revenue doesn't mean its because they built a brand and spend money on the game marketing it.

Think England and Rugby union are being really unfair to Southern teams,they need to share the revenue,cmon be a sport think for the betterment of your Southern Rugby nations and why not provide some for Hong Kong,Lanka and others too.

Except the person you are quoting is arguing against England rugby having to pay directly to the southern hemisphere teams for the revenue generated at Twickenham (something which doesn't happen in cricket either anyway), completely different from funding distributed by the sports worldwide governing board.

 

[JaDed]

Except the person you are quoting is arguing against England rugby having to pay directly to the southern hemisphere teams for the revenue generated at Twickenham (something which doesn't happen in cricket either anyway), completely different from funding distributed by the sports worldwide governing board.

My point was about investing in the game and brand of it and ripping BCCI just for being better at that not sure if you can see that or or rather are trying to ignore the efforts of BCCI in promoting and making a game in a developing country attractive and professional relevant.

 

[Cricfan4eva]

Who's asking them to be cut down to SLC or PCB's size? But if India's taking a cut of ~40% (according to latest estimates) then why don't they get a cut of 20~30 percent respectively or is it too much to ask from them?

They also bank roll India for 5 & 4 tests plus lots of ODI & T20, that we don't get to play as frequently in say SA or NZ is also due to this anomaly. So we make them the biggest amount of $ (outside of a single Ashes tour) & we also forfeit a ton of $ for world peace?

The extra $ could always go to associates & things which cricketjoshila suggested a while back, but I guess the ICC & ECB, CA can take better care of our money?

The money from our cut isn't going to ECB or CA though.

If you see ECB got a 15% cut.

CA didn't get any because that was what was deemed appropriate as base minimum for a top 8 side. Rest had to come from India.

I don't see how it could be worked out otherwise? It's after all money from world events, so you can't exactly keep the world out of it?

 

[rhony]

Lets look at it this way, we have a population of 1.2-1.3 billion almost 10 times (safely)more than England and Australia yet we are only getting double their revenue?
Since all were making socialist remarks how about this scenario? How is this fair?

How about the argument that BCCI deserves more money as they have to deal with a billion people. There will be more people playing the game and hence require more facilities.

 

[HitWicket]

How about the argument that BCCI deserves more money as they have to deal with a billion people. There will be more people playing the game and hence require more facilities.

If they have more people then they'll naturally get more revenue from their own personal sponsorships, local TV rights etc. Not sure it should nessecarily then also be a cause for an increase in ICC funds recieved.

 

[rhony]

If they have more people then they'll naturally get more revenue from their own personal sponsorships, local TV rights etc. Not sure it should nessecarily then also be a cause for an increase in ICC funds recieved.

There is a difference between asking for an increase and protesting against a decrease. If there was a radical change in the monies brought in by others and if the BCCI revenues were taking a hit, a decrease would have been justified. Add to that the percieved back stabbing by Eng, AUS and Shawshank

 

[HitWicket]

There is a difference between asking for an increase and protesting against a decrease. If there was a radical change in the monies brought in by others and if the BCCI revenues were taking a hit, a decrease would have been justified. Add to that the percieved back stabbing by Eng, AUS and Shawshank

Not sure what the BCCIs revenue would have to do with it?

 

[rhony]

Not sure what the BCCIs revenue would have to do with it?

BCCI tapped almost every resources they can for their internal revenues. Just watch an Indian game on telly and you would be extremely lucky to see the game in full screene. They have rolling adds with bright colors every ball. BCCI is shameless in plugging in ads like DLF maximum etc for even boundaries in IPL. The ICC pot is huge and India contributes about 70% of that. They will not accept a pay cut considering nobody else is contributing much

 

[HitWicket]

BCCI tapped almost every resources they can for their internal revenues. Just watch an Indian game on telly and you would be extremely lucky to see the game in full screene. They have rolling adds with bright colors every ball. BCCI is shameless in plugging in ads like DLF maximum etc for even boundaries in IPL. The ICC pot is huge and India contributes about 70% of that. They will not accept a pay cut considering nobody else is contributing much

Except the BCCI aren't actually directly paying the ICC a single penny are they and all the money from practically all the sources you've listed above will go directly to the BCCI anyway.

 

[R0H1T]

The money from our cut isn't going to ECB or CA though.

If you see ECB got a 15% cut.

CA didn't get any because that was what was deemed appropriate as base minimum for a top 8 side. Rest had to come from India.

I don't see how it could be worked out otherwise? It's after all money from world events, so you can't exactly keep the world out of it?

This isn't just world events though is it? Also the ICC pays ECB some $ 100+ million for this year's CT, if some reports are to be believed, so hosting rights (revenue) is something they'll already get a fair chunk of, with CA getting the next WT20.

The revenue sharing also doesn't make sense when you're lumping SLC, NZ, WI & BCB with ECB & CA in terms of sharing revenue btw where did this chart come from, ICC directly is it? I'm not sure how the ICC will manage the game keeping a bigger chunk for themselves, check the latest cricinfo articles, that the money will come mainly from India will annoy BCCI to no end.

 

[rhony]

Except the BCCI aren't actually directly paying the ICC a single penny are they and all the money from practically all the sources you've listed above will go directly to the BCCI anyway.

It's the money contributed by Indian sponsors and Indian viewership. It's because of the popularity of the game in India. Big 3 scheme happened for bad or worse but good luck trying to get the cash away from BCCI's cold dead hands when they are the only one contributing a lion's share to the pool

 

[R0H1T]

Except the BCCI aren't actually directly paying the ICC a single penny are they and all the money from practically all the sources you've listed above will go directly to the BCCI anyway.

How is it directly going to the BCCI? The advertisers pay $ to STAR, the broadcaster (STAR) is owned by Newscorp, the title sponsors & broadcasters pay the ICC big bucks depending on the eyeballs the (ICC) event will generate. The level of $ coming in to ICC depends on the perceived viewership in India, above all else. Take India out & you'll get at least a 50~70% cut in spends on these ICC events.

If BCCI were making $ directly then why would they need middlemen like ICC to take care of their money, Indian money to be precise?

 

[HitWicket]

How is it directly going to the BCCI? The advertisers pay $ to STAR, the broadcaster (STAR) is owned by Newscorp, the title sponsors & broadcasters pay the ICC big bucks depending on the eyeballs the (ICC) event will generate. The level of $ coming in to ICC depends on the perceived viewership in India, above all else. Take India out & you'll get at least a 50~70% cut in spends on these ICC events.

If BCCI were making $ directly then why would they need middlemen like ICC to take care of their money, Indian money to be precise?

Rolling ads covering the screen - Not part of the international feed and instead just money for star.

DLF maximum sponsorship - nothing to do with the ICC, all money staying in India for the sponsorship.

 

[R0H1T]

Rolling ads covering the screen - Not part of the international feed and instead just money for star.

DLF maximum sponsorship - nothing to do with the ICC, all money staying in India for the sponsorship.

Again none of the $ for an ICC event is paid directly to BCCI, this is an undeniable fact. The ICC events are wholly owned by ICC & hence their copyright over the name.

I think you're talking about IPL, wholly owned by BCCI, nothing to do with any ICC event.

 

[HitWicket]

Again none of the $ for an ICC event is paid directly to BCCI, this is an undeniable fact. The ICC events are wholly owned by ICC & hence their copyright over the name.

I think you're talking about IPL, wholly owned by BCCI, nothing to do with any ICC event.

And I think you clearly commented without even reading what I'd quoted. I stated that none of the sources of income hed posted would go directly to the ICC, which included DLF maximums and local TV ads.

 

[Itachi]

I'll just state a simple aspect.

All the people supporting this move, let's say your employer cut your salary by 30% forcefully to donate to a few NGO which work in the dimension of lifting up the poor people. Would you agree?

 

[R0H1T]

And I think you clearly commented without even reading what I'd quoted. I stated that none of the sources of income hed posted would go directly to the ICC, which included DLF maximums and local TV ads.

And I told you DLF maximum sixes & fours have nothing to do with the ICC. The local ad $ is going to STAR, STAR also paid for the full 8yrs rights cycle IIRC, if not STAR then certainly one of the Newscorp subsidiaries.

Then there's the title sponsors like Reliance in the recent past, or even LG that obviously pay money to the ICC looking at the Indian market. So how are you telling me that none of this money goes to the ICC, obviously most ad $ spent don't go directly in the ICC coffers otherwise why would they need a broadcaster like STAR?

 

[LastManstanding]

If they have more people then they'll naturally get more revenue from their own personal sponsorships, local TV rights etc. Not sure it should nessecarily then also be a cause for an increase in ICC funds recieved.

Because that money clearly isn't enough to persuade millions of youngsters in a third world country to take up the game of cricket seriously where sporting culture doesn't exist.

Isn't it the ICC's duty to see game is reaching to as many people as possible?

Why shouldn't the money be cut off from England and Australia since they already have fully developed infrastructure and comparatively less population and spent on the countries in the subcontinent?

 

[ask_analyse_act]

BCCI moves out or messes up the international calendar, funds dry up, then you do what?

let them go for it....cricket will not dry up, keeps business running....

 

[HitWicket]

And I told you DLF maximum sixes & fours have nothing to do with the ICC. The local ad $ is going to STAR, STAR also paid for the full 8yrs rights cycle IIRC, if not STAR then certainly one of the Newscorp subsidiaries.

Then there's the title sponsors like Reliance in the recent past, or even LG that obviously pay money to the ICC looking at the Indian market. So how are you telling me that none of this money goes to the ICC, obviously most ad $ spent don't go directly in the ICC coffers otherwise why would they need a broadcaster like STAR?

Evidently you still haven't read what I posted and quoed. You're first paragraph is basically agreeing with me on what I stated (although you make it sound as if what I've stated is wrong somehow) whilst your second is trying to suggest I'm wrong on things I haven't even commented on .

 

[cricketjoshila]

ICC sponsoring DRS I agree with. However, up until very recently the biggest opposers to that would be the BCCI and Indian cricket team who dont think its fool proof.

Giving more to team who hosts more Test matches...hmmm..I kind of see the benefit, in the sense that it should (in theory) help promote Test cricket and give teams an incentive to play more Test matches. However, that doesn't help the likes of Ireland and Afghanistan, and doesn't help the game grow in parts of the world where it isn't played.

Just to clarify - BCCI is good at earning money because they are targeting a product at over a billion people, majority of whom are already crazy about the product. Don't get me wrong - BCCI have done well, in fact very well (specially with cashing in on the IPL) - however, the odds were always in their favour and they would have to go horrendously wrong to screw things up.

The likes of CA, ECB and CSA are also "very good at earning money", but they just don't have that ready made market there, waiting for them to cash in. Thats my opinion any way - ofcourse you may disagree and think the BCCI are the greatest thing since sliced bread which is why they have made so much money

1.If you were here during that period you would know that BCCI catagorically stated that they opposed the DRS because it was not fully automated and since then it has been fully automated and has been accepted by the BCCI.So that is done and dusted.

2.Ireland and Afghanistan are to receive 50mn USD each.Now Afghanistan doesnt even have the right atmosphere to develop infrastructure in Afghanistan.I believe a bit too much isbeing given to them so that when they are made full members they support the dispensation that is doling out this money.This is just vote buying.Anyways even if you let them have their 50mn you can still deduct monies from ECB CA CSA PCB etc to get money for a Test Fund.

3.Well it looks like that because you are not aware of the issues that BCCI faced.Till 1993 BCCI was not allowed to sell its TV Rights.They had to fight it out in the Supreme Court to get the permission to sell their rights.There are many more such issues.Yes its an advantage that 1bn people are crazy about the game but 200mn people are crazy about it in Pakistan and the PCB havent done half as well.Cricket was not the most popular game in India,it was hockey.And in places like Kolkata etc even football was more popular.It took a lot of effort to tap that market.So while you are right that there was a huge market,it wasnot as easy as you said it was.

 

[Cricfan4eva]

This isn't just world events though is it? Also the ICC pays ECB some $ 100+ million for this year's CT, if some reports are to be believed, so hosting rights (revenue) is something they'll already get a fair chunk of, with CA getting the next WT20.

The revenue sharing also doesn't make sense when you're lumping SLC, NZ, WI & BCB with ECB & CA in terms of sharing revenue btw where did this chart come from, ICC directly is it? I'm not sure how the ICC will manage the game keeping a bigger chunk for themselves, check the latest cricinfo articles, that the money will come mainly from India will annoy BCCI to no end.

If not World events where else do you think ICC makes its revenue from? Bilaterals are shared by boards.

 

[Thivagar]

How much does BCCI make per year from IPL ?

 

[rhony]

And I think you clearly commented without even reading what I'd quoted. I stated that none of the sources of income hed posted would go directly to the ICC, which included DLF maximums and local TV ads.

I mentioned DLF max as an example to show that BCCi already monetisez everything in their capacity. This is a response to your comment that BCCI should try to enhance their revenues internally rather than depend on ICC handouts

 

[HitWicket]

How much does BCCI make per year from IPL ?

Just over $12mn USD in profits.

 

[rhony]

How much does BCCI make per year from IPL ?

Economic Times report estimates that this season’s IPL (2016) made a gross collection of Rs. 2,500 crores ($378.78 million). Not sure about the profit

 

[HitWicket]

Just over $12mn USD in profits.

Hold up, I've read this wrong, give me a second to work it out.

 

[HitWicket]

Revenue from the 2015 IPL is listed at $194mn dollars however expenditure is also listed as $194mn dollars. It does include $34.7mn paid to state associations in the expenditure though which I would assume is considered the 'profits' as such.

 

[Rotoman]

Love that the ICC is taking advantage of BCCI's internal turmoil. But I fear that there are going to be repercussions. If the BCCI decides that they are being unfairly done in by, ****'s going to hit the roof pretty quickly and I fear that the ICC will have no answer whatsoever to what the BCCI are going to bring down on them.

The smart thing to do would have been to not give such large sums to Afg, Ire etc and reduce the cuts to BCCI being so drastic. Then after that assess situations and find someway to move closer to the ideal scenario.

 

[Thivagar]

Economic Times report estimates that this season’s IPL (2016) made a gross collection of Rs. 2,500 crores ($378.78 million). Not sure about the profit

Revenue from the 2015 IPL is listed at $194mn dollars however expenditure is also listed as $194mn dollars. It does include $34.7mn paid to state associations in the expenditure though which I would assume is considered the 'profits' as such.

is this true ? [MENTION=76058]cricketjoshila[/MENTION]

 

[cricketjoshila]

is this true ? [MENTION=76058]cricketjoshila[/MENTION]

Surplus from IPL for the year ended 31st Marchh 2016 was around USD 31mn.(Taking 65 rs per USD as avg for that year)

 

[Thivagar]

Surplus from IPL for the year ended 31st Marchh 2016 was around USD 31mn.(Taking 65 rs per USD as avg for that year)

Interesting, how much does the BCCI pocket in a year excluding the income from ICC share ?

 

[cricketjoshila]

Interesting, how much does the BCCI pocket in a year excluding the income from ICC share ?

Difficult to say like that.Because ICC income varies from year to year.Also BCCIs income also varies from year to year depending upon the number of matches it plays and how many home matches are played.

Then the expenditure isnt fixed also.As depending on the surplus generated after the expenses BCCI releases money to members and only keeps about 20 to 30mn USD for itself as declared profit.This all approx calculation from top of my head.

 

[R0H1T]

If not World events where else do you think ICC makes its revenue from? Bilaterals are shared by boards.

Did you bother reading the last few posts, carefully? The ICC sells rights to ICC events, broadcast & title (sponsor) rights in order to make money. They don't make money directly off DLF max 4 & 6, which if fine in theory except DLF sponsors IPL & that's where I corrected the other poster.

Now how do you suppose they make money?

 

[Cricfan4eva]

Did you bother reading the last few posts, carefully? The ICC sells rights to ICC events, broadcast & title (sponsor) rights in order to make money. They don't make money directly off DLF max 4 & 6, which if fine in theory except DLF sponsors IPL & that's where I corrected the other poster.

Now how do you suppose they make money?

Umm I am not sure I get what you are trying to suggest.

World events - Title and broadcast (basically the whole shabang) goes to ICC.

Bilaterals - Between home and away boards as per their own understanding I guess, ICC doesn't come into it.

IPL is obviously exclusive to BCCI.

 

[R0H1T]

Umm I am not sure I get what you are trying to suggest.

World events - Title and broadcast (basically the whole shabang) goes to ICC.

Bilaterals - Between home and away boards as per their own understanding I guess, ICC doesn't come into it.

IPL is obviously exclusive to BCCI.

Did I state anything different, you're trying to make it sound like I said the opposite?

The poster I replied to said something about DLF sponsorship, to which I replied it's tied to IPL & has nothing to do with ICC, besides that the local ad (catering to India) money goes directly to STAR whilst title sponsorship is ICC business.

 

[Eagle_Eye]

ICC money is the only way Ireland and Afghanistan can get some money and develop the game. Or should we just simply shut up shop and tell them that this club is closed to new members.

The kind of money going to the 2 minnows is really paltry in bigger scheme of things considering the revenue BCCI generates...... for the other boards it might be a concern. I am not sure the appetite for cricket in Ireland deserves such investment... but then again they may surprise us and overtime become like NZ.

 

[Cricfan4eva]

This isn't just world events though is it? Also the ICC pays ECB some $ 100+ million for this year's CT, if some reports are to be believed, so hosting rights (revenue) is something they'll already get a fair chunk of, with CA getting the next WT20.

The revenue sharing also doesn't make sense when you're lumping SLC, NZ, WI & BCB with ECB & CA in terms of sharing revenue btw where did this chart come from, ICC directly is it? I'm not sure how the ICC will manage the game keeping a bigger chunk for themselves, check the latest cricinfo articles, that the money will come mainly from India will annoy BCCI to no end.

Did I state anything different, you're trying to make it sound like I said the opposite?

The poster I replied to said something about DLF sponsorship, to which I replied it's tied to IPL & has nothing to do with ICC, besides that the local ad (catering to India) money goes directly to STAR whilst title sponsorship is ICC business.

What did you mean by the bolded part then?

 

[R0H1T]

What did you mean by the bolded part then?

The ICC pays the permanent test members a fixed amount, under the previous model(s) while ICC events hosted in say England or Aus also give them (hosts) more money. The ICC pays hosting rights to them, England is supposed to be getting 3x or more, according to some estimates, for hosting the CT as against India hosting the last WT20. The real kicker here is that under the new model ICC will take a bigger cut, higher variable pay & that (some) member boards will always get less than what was proposed under the big 3 model.

 

[Cricfan4eva]

The ICC pays the permanent test members a fixed amount, under the previous model(s) while ICC events hosted in say England or Aus also give them (hosts) more money. The ICC pays hosting rights to them, England is supposed to be getting 3x or more, according to some estimates, for hosting the CT as against India hosting the last WT20. The real kicker here is that under the new model ICC will take a bigger cut, higher variable pay & that (some) member boards will always get less than what was proposed under the big 3 model.

I wouldn't just directly compare ICC WT20 in India to CT in England. Costs there are obviously a lot higher and tournament duration also plays a part I guess. But I agree that it's wrong if despite all these considerations England are unfairly getting more. Didn't BCCI raise concern over it though?

 

[R0H1T]

I wouldn't just directly compare ICC WT20 in India to CT in England. Costs there are obviously a lot higher and tournament duration also plays a part I guess. But I agree that it's wrong if despite all these considerations England are unfairly getting more. Didn't BCCI raise concern over it though?

The length of CT is life half, or less, of what the WT20 lasted for. The WT20 also had 16 or 20 teams playing, including the qualifier stage, so there's that.

I don't see how ICC is paying 3x more amount for a lesser (yes CT is puny as compared to WT20) event, with half the teams & less than half the time it'll last, wrt the WT20 last year. BCCI's objections have been duly noted, but if this resolution passes then I do expect them to take more things into their hands & look to maximize revenues via bilaterals, viz playing more at home than in England or Aus, or even IPL e.g. not paying other boards a cut of the player fees. That seem logical ways how they'll get more $ & then some.

 

[HitWicket]

The length of CT is life half, or less, of what the WT20 lasted for. The WT20 also had 16 or 20 teams playing, including the qualifier stage, so there's that.

I don't see how ICC is paying 3x more amount for a lesser (yes CT is puny as compared to WT20) event, with half the teams & less than half the time it'll last, wrt the WT20 last year. BCCI's objections have been duly noted, but if this resolution passes then I do expect them to take more things into their hands & look to maximize revenues via bilaterals, viz playing more at home than in England or Aus, or even IPL e.g. not paying other boards a cut of the player fees. That seem logical ways how they'll get more $ & then some.

Fairly sure the funding thing was already discussed to death before and it came out that the figure suggested (by a BCCI source if I remember correctly) was complete rubbish.

 

[HitWicket]

is this true ? [MENTION=76058]cricketjoshila[/MENTION]

If you want a more specific breakdown of the 2015 and 2014 IPL :

Source : BCCI financial statement 2015/16

Just noticed that sneaky surplus transferred line at the bottom which I missed before. Profit from the IPL for the BCCI in 2015 was therefore around $32mn USD.

Interesting, how much does the BCCI pocket in a year excluding the income from ICC share ?

By removing what the BCCI describe as "Distribution/Participation fee from International/Asian cricket council (ICC/ACC)" from their surplus over the last few years you get :

2015/16 = -$7.6mn USD (Was however $240mn USD left sat around from the discontinued champions league which should probably be taken into account here though)
2014/15 = +$13.5mn USD
2013/14 = +$73.9mn USD
2012/13 = +$42.8mn USD

 

[Thivagar]

If you want a more specific breakdown of the 2015 and 2014 IPL :

Source : BCCI financial statement 2015/16

Just noticed that sneaky surplus transferred line at the bottom which I missed before. Profit from the IPL for the BCCI in 2015 was therefore around $32mn USD.




By removing what the BCCI describe as "Distribution/Participation fee from International/Asian cricket council (ICC/ACC)" from their surplus over the last few years you get :

2015/16 = -$7.6mn USD (Was however $240mn USD left sat around from the discontinued champions league which should probably be taken into account here though)
2014/15 = +$13.5mn USD
2013/14 = +$73.9mn USD
2012/13 = +$42.8mn USD

Interesting, thanks. I was thinking they were making more profits than that.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Interesting, thanks. I was thinking they were making more profits than that.

They will not keep more than a certain amount as profits because of taxation reasons and hence distribute maximum of surplus amount to the State association.

 

[TalhaSyed]

1.If you were here during that period you would know that BCCI catagorically stated that they opposed the DRS because it was not fully automated and since then it has been fully automated and has been accepted by the BCCI.So that is done and dusted.

2.Ireland and Afghanistan are to receive 50mn USD each.Now Afghanistan doesnt even have the right atmosphere to develop infrastructure in Afghanistan.I believe a bit too much isbeing given to them so that when they are made full members they support the dispensation that is doling out this money.This is just vote buying.Anyways even if you let them have their 50mn you can still deduct monies from ECB CA CSA PCB etc to get money for a Test Fund.

3.Well it looks like that because you are not aware of the issues that BCCI faced.Till 1993 BCCI was not allowed to sell its TV Rights.They had to fight it out in the Supreme Court to get the permission to sell their rights.There are many more such issues.Yes its an advantage that 1bn people are crazy about the game but 200mn people are crazy about it in Pakistan and the PCB havent done half as well.Cricket was not the most popular game in India,it was hockey.And in places like Kolkata etc even football was more popular.It took a lot of effort to tap that market.So while you are right that there was a huge market,it wasnot as easy as you said it was.

Sure - but that doesn't change the fact that BCCI were the biggest opposers to DRS & frankly makes no difference to this discussion regarding how funds should be distributed...

Ok - so we go back to the original point about you wanting all the teams to lose money and not just India, which defeats the purpose of the exercise which is a more equal and balance split amongst the teams.

Yes - as mentioned BCCI have done well, however, they would have to mess up big time to not do well with such a large ready made market - as mentioned earlier. What you have stated doesn't change that. There is also quite a significant difference between 1.25bn and 185mn. Now I really didn't wanna get into this but since you mentioned it, BCCI has a 7 times bigger market to work with than PCB. PCB is valued at $55 million whilst BCCI is valued at $295 million*, which would mean BCCI is 5 times more valuable than PCB.

Now personally I think the PCB is a shambles and complete mess, but I guess, using your theory, given the fact that they have a market which is one seventh the size of the BCCI's market, the fact that they are worth one fifth of what BCCI is worth, isn't too shabby....

Anyway - again - we go off topic.

I guess the summary is - rather than ICC's revenue (which they generate primarily through global events which all the teams participate in) going to teams other then India, you would rather see it spent on stuff like having DRS in all matches, larger test funds and retirements plans for players who come from poorer countries.

Now even though I could agree that it would be great to have DRS in all matches, and it would be nice to have a larger test fund - I see absolutely nothing wrong with full members boards and associate teams getting the money instead, to try and improve the cricketing infrastructure in their respective countries. In my eyes this is more important then implementing technology across the board, however, this is simply a mater of personal opinion.