BCCI prioritises Test cricket, it's about time other boards follow suit

cricketjoshila

T20I Captain
Joined
Mar 16, 2011
Runs
44,195
Post of the Week
1
BCCI announced a new financial incentive program to give a boost to test cricket in India.

If a player plays 10 tests in a year he will be earning INR 1.5cr as match fees plus additional incentive of 4.5cr. Thats a total of ₹6.0cr. In USD that will be $725000.

The additional incentive is based on per match basis. But roughly it will bring a player $50k more per match if he plays more than 75 per cent of India's tests in a year.

Other boards may not be able to pay this much but they must incentivise test cricket.

Quality players are made in test cricket. Bowling 4 over or batting 20 overs isn't going to produce greats.

Sourav Ganguly during the WC appeared on a episode of The Pavilion and said the same.

I hope this serves as a template for other boards to incentivise test cricket.

What other ways can boards incentivise tests? I hope other posters can throw in a few ideas.
 
Good move by BCCI.

PCB could follow this model on a lower budget of course if there was less corruption and less costs paid for providing security.
 
Test cricket should only be played by ind eng aus. All others should discard tests and just focus on t20s. Reality is tests are not profitable for others and the viewership as well is just not there. Even in this ind eng series- the grounds were 70% empty but if it was a t20 series- stadiums would have been packed to the gills. Hurts as i like tests but we have to accept the cold facts and reality. Focus on t20s and spread the game and make sure cricket is viable in the non-big 3 nations
 
Pointless. The end is writ large for Test cricket.

BCCI makes huge profits from white ball bilateral formats/IPL and gets a large share of ICC revenue

While they can afford to give such incentives, red ball cricket cannot be subsidised by those outside the Big 3.
 
Pointless. The end is writ large for Test cricket.

BCCI makes huge profits from white ball bilateral formats/IPL and gets a large share of ICC revenue

While they can afford to give such incentives, red ball cricket cannot be subsidised by those outside the Big 3.

What is big 3?

PCB makes similar money as ECB or CA.
 
Good move. I grew up loving Tests. ODI cricket was awesome as well until the ICC decided to destroy it with the 2 new ball rule. Playing a 7 match or 5 match T20 series is a joke!

Test cricket might not be a priority for every player these days but the ICC and every board should at least try to keep it alive.
 
Credit to India. They don't just give lip service to test cricket.
 
BCCI announced a new financial incentive program to give a boost to test cricket in India.

If a player plays 10 tests in a year he will be earning INR 1.5cr as match fees plus additional incentive of 4.5cr. Thats a total of ₹6.0cr. In USD that will be $725000.

The additional incentive is based on per match basis. But roughly it will bring a player $50k more per match if he plays more than 75 per cent of India's tests in a year.

Other boards may not be able to pay this much but they must incentivise test cricket.

Quality players are made in test cricket. Bowling 4 over or batting 20 overs isn't going to produce greats.

Sourav Ganguly during the WC appeared on a episode of The Pavilion and said the same.

I hope this serves as a template for other boards to incentivise test cricket.

What other ways can boards incentivise tests? I hope other posters can throw in a few ideas.
It's good to know but apart from the Big 3 Boards. Can other boards really prioritize it? Do they have that much money? Percentage wise they might already be spending the same as BCCI or CA.

Are Big 3 boards going to invite to play with lesser ranked teams for a 3 or even 5 match series home and/or away?
 
Isn’t ipl going to be $1million per player per game?

Why would they want to bust there backs for pittance in test cricket.
 
It's good to know but apart from the Big 3 Boards. Can other boards really prioritize it? Do they have that much money? Percentage wise they might already be spending the same as BCCI or CA.

Are Big 3 boards going to invite to play with lesser ranked teams for a 3 or even 5 match series home and/or away?

WI SA SL NZ get regular series in big 3.

Pakistan doesn't get a series in India but they play regularly in Eng and SA.
 
BCCI makes losses if you just count test cricket.

But BCCI makes huge money from other international matches plus the IPL.

Yeah but BCCI makes so much profit from white ball cricket that they can cover these losses.

You can't expect boards like PCB to provide such incentives when their broadcast deals and sponsorships/profitability is only a fraction of BCCI'S
 
Yeah but BCCI makes so much profit from white ball cricket that they can cover these losses.

You can't expect boards like PCB to provide such incentives when their broadcast deals and sponsorships/profitability is only a fraction of BCCI'S

Provide incentive in proportion to your income. But provide.

BCCI shares 26 per cent of its revenues with players.This over and above the central contract, match fees and the recent incentive. PCB gives 3 per cent as revenue share. That's the difference.
 
Provide incentive in proportion to your income. But provide.

BCCI shares 26 per cent of its revenues with players.This over and above the central contract, match fees and the recent incentive. PCB gives 3 per cent as revenue share. That's the difference.
No point considering gross revenues. What percentage of profits are they giving ?

Thats what matters. Cost of hosting matches etc. does not change regardless of revenues earned.
 
No point considering gross revenues. What percentage of profits are they giving ?

Thats what matters. Cost of hosting matches etc. does not change regardless of revenues earned.

Percentage of gross revenue will be more than the percentage of profit. No?

So players will get more as percentage of revenue and not profit.
 
Percentage of gross revenue will be more than the percentage of profit. No?

So players will get more as percentage of revenue and not profit.

This is a rough approximation ,

Revenues(broadcast + digital rights + sponsorships ) - Cost( of hosting international cricket i.e. DRS etc)

What players are paid should be compared as a percentage of above to be fairer to the smaller boards.

BCCI earns huge revenues on a per match basis compared to PCB.

But the costs for hosting are similar .
 
This is a rough approximation ,

Revenues(broadcast + digital rights + sponsorships ) - Cost( of hosting international cricket i.e. DRS etc)

What players are paid should be compared as a percentage of above to be fairer to the smaller boards.

BCCI earns huge revenues on a per match basis compared to PCB.

But the costs for hosting are similar .

What you are saying is profit. Why will players reduce their percentage by deducting the costs.

Cost of hosting are not similar.
 
What's the point if u don't have any opposition to play with ?
 
Deprive others and make your own cricket stronger. 10 matches a year and then the bonus kicks in! Pak doesn't even play that many.

Good thing money doesn't buy trophies
 
Deprive others and make your own cricket stronger. 10 matches a year and then the bonus kicks in! Pak doesn't even play that many.

Good thing money doesn't buy trophies

PCB is responsible for scheduling Pakistan's matches. Talk to them.
 
I don't think prioritizing Tests will make them a better side. May be SA can get better in Tests. NZ will definitely try to do the best they can. Remaining teams lack quality players. They are good only for 4 over encounters.
 
SA
Australia
England
WI
NZ

Are they not opposition?

Aus and Eng, yes. But the others .. their test players don't get paid much so their best players will opt for franchise cricket.

Good players who have cut their career short for t20 -
ABDv
Boult
Mccullum
DuPlessis
Amir
Gayle
Bravo
Morkel
 
What's the point if u don't have any opposition to play with ?
This. The only meaningful Test series' now are Ashes, De Mello/Pataudi , BGT.

Even if these incentives focus our players' priorities, it will only sustain Test cricket with England and Australia.

Neither the fans nor any other stakeholders care about the format in any other cricketing nation.
 
Aus and Eng, yes. But the others .. their test players don't get paid much so their best players will opt for franchise cricket.

Good players who have cut their career short for t20 -
ABDv
Boult
Mccullum
DuPlessis
Amir
Gayle
Bravo
Morkel
Lol most of them played out their test career before opting for T20s. Amir and Bravo were always average players in tests.
 
But in what range at least ?

No idea what it costs but the bigger worry for bcci would be the consistent revenue losses due to Tests ending well before day 5.

I cannot remember the last time a test lasted 5 full days in India.
 
Good for India but I don't see how this applies to most other countries. For one thing Pakistan doesn't play 10 test matches in a year. Besides that, most boards can't afford to do this. You do know that South Africa literally sent their C team to New Zealand for the test series because they quite literally could not afford their franchise T20 tournament to be a flop. And Pakistan, Sri Lanka, New Zealand and Bangladesh aren't really better off financially. West Indies arguably more worse off than anybody because they can't even hold down players to central contracts. Why? Because the central contracts don't pay well enough and Windies players make big money from leagues.

But if BCCI really cares so much about test cricket why don't they play longer series and more regularly with teams that aren't Australia and England? Doesn't even have to include Pakistan. I think that would be far more helpful for test cricket in general and for the other teams.

But yeah, thanks for illuminating us with this self-serving piece of information that only benefits the richest board in the world and that only they, Australia and England can afford to do.
 
But if BCCI really cares so much about test cricket why don't they play longer series and more regularly with teams that aren't Australia and England? Doesn't even have to include Pakistan. I think that would be far more helpful for test cricket in general and for the other teams.
The bcci has always wanted to play a 3 test series against sa and nz, but those boards only wanted to host india for a 2 test series.

We play 3 tests with lanka too and I don't see any reason to play a long series against low quality teams like sl, wi and bang.

Would be a waste of time and money
 
Good for India but I don't see how this applies to most other countries. For one thing Pakistan doesn't play 10 test matches in a year. Besides that, most boards can't afford to do this. You do know that South Africa literally sent their C team to New Zealand for the test series because they quite literally could not afford their franchise T20 tournament to be a flop. And Pakistan, Sri Lanka, New Zealand and Bangladesh aren't really better off financially. West Indies arguably more worse off than anybody because they can't even hold down players to central contracts. Why? Because the central contracts don't pay well enough and Windies players make big money from leagues.

But if BCCI really cares so much about test cricket why don't they play longer series and more regularly with teams that aren't Australia and England? Doesn't even have to include Pakistan. I think that would be far more helpful for test cricket in general and for the other teams.

But yeah, thanks for illuminating us with this self-serving piece of information that only benefits the richest board in the world and that only they, Australia and England can afford to do.
The problem is the other teams will not be willing to host India for 5 tests. Biggest reason being cost constraints. The home/away against a team has to be the same number of matches. I am sure India will host 5 tests without issue. It is the reciprocal series that will be the issue.
 
The bcci has always wanted to play a 3 test series against sa and nz, but those boards only wanted to host india for a 2 test series.

We play 3 tests with lanka too and I don't see any reason to play a long series against low quality teams like sl, wi and bang.

Would be a waste of time and money
Australian players echoed the same sentiment about NZ. They want to play 3 tests against NZ. But they don't play. here is an article from 6 years. It is due to finance NZ plays only 2 tests.

 
Test cricket is the only thing that can improve a player. Temperament and patience can only be learned through this format. If you are a bowler, you can learn to bowl with consistent line and length which can help you to succeed in other formats as well. A similar thing can be said for the batters as well. BCCI is doing the right thing but we must also keep in mind that nations like West Indies, Bangladesh, and Pakistan are not playing enough test cricket. Players will not be happy if they are just made to play test cricket like 4-5 matches in the whole year is just not feasible for players of these countries. BCCI can afford such pattern not other boards.
 
I think they should have relegation system. Otherwise teams will slack off won't focus on infrastructure development. Only top 8 teams should play tests. May be associate nations like Ireland can have exceptions.
 
We have seen recently what importance Saffers give for Test cricekt.

Its best if IND ENG AUS play test cricket and leave out the other countries. Even NZ isn't interested.
 

Rahul Dravid's Blunt Take On Scheduling Concerns Amid BCCI's Red-Ball Cricket Push​


Indian cricket team head coach Rahul Dravid suggested that the domestic cricket scheduling should go through an 'all-round review' after players like Shardul Thakur and R Sai Kishore expressed their concerns. Shardul said that players need more breaks between the matches in order to avoid injury and his sentiments were echoed by Sai Kishore. Following India's win over England in the fifth Test match in Dharamsala, Dravid was asked about the concerns and he said that the BCCI should consult the players who are "going through the grind and putting their bodies on the line."

"I've heard the same as well. I saw some of the comments Shardul, I think, made. And in fact some of the boys who've come into the team as well, also comment about how tough the domestic schedule is, especially in a country like India with the amount of travel involved. So yeah, we need to hear the players. That's a very important thing in a lot of these things," Dravid said.

"You need to hear your players, because they are the ones going through the grind and putting their bodies on the line, and if there are enough voices saying that, then yeah, I think there's some need to look at it, and see how we can manage our schedules."

Dravid also urged the BCCI to look into the scheduling of other competitions like Duleep Trophy and Deodhar Trophy to manage the pressure on the cricketers.

"It's a long season already in India. It's tough," Dravid said. "The Ranji Trophy is a long season, and if you add a Duleep and a Deodhar on top of that...Last year, if I'm not mistaken, the Duleep started in June, it was just a month after the IPL, and your problem in this situation is your best players, the guys who are pushing for selection for India, are the ones that end up playing the most cricket. Because they keep getting selected at the next level, more and more, and their teams are the ones probably who are playing the semi-finals and the finals, or that kind of situation. They are the ones who end up playing a lot of cricket, and you also want them to be playing for India, and India A tours, and so it can get quite tough on a lot of those boys, and maybe we need to hear them out."

"Maybe we need to re-look and see whether some of the tournaments that we are conducting are necessary in this day and age or if they are not necessary. There needs to be an all-round review [involving] coaches and players, especially the guys who are part of the domestic circuit," he added.

NDTV
 
We have seen recently what importance Saffers give for Test cricekt.

Its best if IND ENG AUS play test cricket and leave out the other countries. Even NZ isn't interested.
NZ is always interested. They never compromise with any formats. Be it is t20 or ODI or Test. They always give their best. SA is the one that requires some indirect pressure.
 

Australia, England lobby ICC for increased payments to help save Test cricket​


Australia and England will lead a push to establish minimum Test match payments for all male cricketers when the countries that comprise the International Cricket Council meet in Dubai from Thursday.
The international benchmark is expected to be set at the Australian Test fee of about $20,000 a match as a starting point, which is designed to make Test cricket more attractive to current and future generations of players as lucrative Twenty20 leagues lure some of the best talent away from the longer format. The minimum rate could go as high as the $27,000 fee that players who represent India currently receive.

Front of mind is exciting youngster Shamar Joseph, who bowled the West Indies to a spectacular victory in the last Test of the Australian summer in Brisbane two months ago.
While Joseph has pledged his future to playing Test cricket for the West Indies, there are fears that the Indian Premier League, in particular, will eventually prove too attractive, as it already has for a number of his countrymen.

Cricket West Indies retainers for players range from $US100,000 ($150,000) to $US150,000, with Test match payments of $US5000, among the lowest in the game.
Players of Joseph’s ability and charisma are earning $1 million or more per year in the IPL.
Cricket Australia retainers average almost $1 million a year on a sliding scale: captain Pat Cummins is paid $2 million and can earn another $1 million annually in match and tour fees, and from CA’s player marketing pool.

The difference is compounded by the struggling West Indies playing as few as six Tests a year. Australia played 22 in the past 15 months, which included an away Ashes series.


Following India’s 4-1 big win over England in their recent Test series, the Board of Control for Cricket in India announced a new incentive scheme encouraging their players to prioritise first-class cricket.
The “Test Cricket Incentive Scheme” will pay significant bonuses to those who become regular Test players, says BCCI president Roger Binny.

“This scheme is not only designed to encourage players to engage in the purest format of the sport [Test matches], but also addresses the evolving dynamics of the cricketing landscape, ensuring parity with match fees in other formats and league cricket,” the BCCI said in a statement. “This initiative aligns with our vision of promoting Test cricket as the pinnacle of the sport.”
BCCI secretary Jay Shah said on social media that it was a “step aimed at providing financial growth and stability” for Test players.

As part of the payment process, anyone who plays at least 75 per cent of India’s Tests in a year will earn an extra $82,000 a Test, and anyone who plays between 50 per cent and 75 per cent of Tests annually will earn an additional $55,000 a Test.
This is on top of the country’s four-tier retainer system, which ranges from $183,000 to $1,278,000. On top of that, most leading India players are already wealthy because of significant corporate endorsements and IPL contracts.
One point of debate will be where the money comes from to cover the minimum Test match payments, and how will it be paid? Currently, all Test countries are paid a dividend by the ICC, which is vital for most nations given their modest broadcast deals.
Some countries have a history of not paying players in a timely manner, but there would be uproar from a number of countries complaining about a breach of sovereignty if the ICC attempted to pay their players directly.

The push by Australia and England for a minimum Test match payment is intended to be a top-up to bring all players to a similar level. That means cricketers from Australia and England are unlikely to get a pay rise unless India’s rate is set as the standard.
It is part of a wider agenda for the ICC to be more proactive in promoting and protecting Test cricket. A new development committee will be formed with its central focus to be the primacy of Test cricket.
South Africa sending a third-string squad to New Zealand recently will be on the agenda as part of this enhanced focus on Test cricket. Cricket South Africa administrators were forced to keep all their top-level players at home to play in a new Twenty20 competition run by IPL clubs.
SOURCE: https://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricke...o-help-save-test-cricket-20240313-p5fc4j.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Australia, England lobby ICC for increased payments to help save Test cricket​


Australia and England will lead a push to establish minimum Test match payments for all male cricketers when the countries that comprise the International Cricket Council meet in Dubai from Thursday.
The international benchmark is expected to be set at the Australian Test fee of about $20,000 a match as a starting point, which is designed to make Test cricket more attractive to current and future generations of players as lucrative Twenty20 leagues lure some of the best talent away from the longer format. The minimum rate could go as high as the $27,000 fee that players who represent India currently receive.

Front of mind is exciting youngster Shamar Joseph, who bowled the West Indies to a spectacular victory in the last Test of the Australian summer in Brisbane two months ago.
While Joseph has pledged his future to playing Test cricket for the West Indies, there are fears that the Indian Premier League, in particular, will eventually prove too attractive, as it already has for a number of his countrymen.

Cricket West Indies retainers for players range from $US100,000 ($150,000) to $US150,000, with Test match payments of $US5000, among the lowest in the game.
Players of Joseph’s ability and charisma are earning $1 million or more per year in the IPL.
Cricket Australia retainers average almost $1 million a year on a sliding scale: captain Pat Cummins is paid $2 million and can earn another $1 million annually in match and tour fees, and from CA’s player marketing pool.

The difference is compounded by the struggling West Indies playing as few as six Tests a year. Australia played 22 in the past 15 months, which included an away Ashes series.


Following India’s 4-1 big win over England in their recent Test series, the Board of Control for Cricket in India announced a new incentive scheme encouraging their players to prioritise first-class cricket.
The “Test Cricket Incentive Scheme” will pay significant bonuses to those who become regular Test players, says BCCI president Roger Binny.

“This scheme is not only designed to encourage players to engage in the purest format of the sport [Test matches], but also addresses the evolving dynamics of the cricketing landscape, ensuring parity with match fees in other formats and league cricket,” the BCCI said in a statement. “This initiative aligns with our vision of promoting Test cricket as the pinnacle of the sport.”
BCCI secretary Jay Shah said on social media that it was a “step aimed at providing financial growth and stability” for Test players.

As part of the payment process, anyone who plays at least 75 per cent of India’s Tests in a year will earn an extra $82,000 a Test, and anyone who plays between 50 per cent and 75 per cent of Tests annually will earn an additional $55,000 a Test.
This is on top of the country’s four-tier retainer system, which ranges from $183,000 to $1,278,000. On top of that, most leading India players are already wealthy because of significant corporate endorsements and IPL contracts.
One point of debate will be where the money comes from to cover the minimum Test match payments, and how will it be paid? Currently, all Test countries are paid a dividend by the ICC, which is vital for most nations given their modest broadcast deals.
Some countries have a history of not paying players in a timely manner, but there would be uproar from a number of countries complaining about a breach of sovereignty if the ICC attempted to pay their players directly.

The push by Australia and England for a minimum Test match payment is intended to be a top-up to bring all players to a similar level. That means cricketers from Australia and England are unlikely to get a pay rise unless India’s rate is set as the standard.
It is part of a wider agenda for the ICC to be more proactive in promoting and protecting Test cricket. A new development committee will be formed with its central focus to be the primacy of Test cricket.
South Africa sending a third-string squad to New Zealand recently will be on the agenda as part of this enhanced focus on Test cricket. Cricket South Africa administrators were forced to keep all their top-level players at home to play in a new Twenty20 competition run by IPL clubs.


SOURCE: https://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricke...o-help-save-test-cricket-20240313-p5fc4j.html
these two countries spent a century restricting the sport. now they want to distribute someone else's money to promote the sport
 
Last edited by a moderator:
these two countries spent a century restricting the sport. now they want to distribute someone else's money to promote the sport
BCCI is not a gullible organization. They will not part with their $$$ that easy. BCCI will call the bluff and put CA and ECB in their place.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BCCI announced a new financial incentive program to give a boost to test cricket in India.

If a player plays 10 tests in a year he will be earning INR 1.5cr as match fees plus additional incentive of 4.5cr. Thats a total of ₹6.0cr. In USD that will be $725000.

The additional incentive is based on per match basis. But roughly it will bring a player $50k more per match if he plays more than 75 per cent of India's tests in a year.

Other boards may not be able to pay this much but they must incentivise test cricket.

Quality players are made in test cricket. Bowling 4 over or batting 20 overs isn't going to produce greats.

Sourav Ganguly during the WC appeared on a episode of The Pavilion and said the same.

I hope this serves as a template for other boards to incentivise test cricket.

What other ways can boards incentivise tests? I hope other posters can throw in a few ideas.
How will they control IPL franchises from corrupting players? Cause players can still earn way more in IPL. Why would players like injuries etc much easier to succeed and last longer in t20
 
How will they control IPL franchises from corrupting players? Cause players can still earn way more in IPL. Why would players like injuries etc much easier to succeed and last longer in t20

BCCI runs IPL, franchisees don't. They haven't been able to dictate the BCCI.
 
BCCI runs IPL, franchisees don't. They haven't been able to dictate the BCCI.
Problem is outside big 3 it will be hard for say SA Pakistan to provide such incentives. Nz might be able to as they prioritise tests.
 
Problem is outside big 3 it will be hard for say SA Pakistan to provide such incentives. Nz might be able to as they prioritise tests.
Actually, they don't. In fact they have designed their schedule to play less tests and more white ball in their home season.

Not only NZC, but their players too prioritize IPL contracts. The players have an agreement with NZC that national duties will not clash as much as possible with IPL. If it does, they are allowed to choose IPL. NZC is in full agreement.
 
Back
Top