BCCI projected to earn US$ 230m & Pakistan US$ 34.51m per year in ICC's new finance model

[MenInG]

More money to other boards will also mean more corruption in other boards. This is applicable to Pakistan anyway.

Grass roots will remain dry.

In which case let's allow BCCI to run all boards?

 

[gazza619]

In which case let's allow BCCI to run all boards?

I would India takes all the money rather than our home grown corrupt defenders.

 

[MenInG]

May 16 (Reuters) - The Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) is unhappy with the proposed new revenue distribution model for international cricket although it accepts that India, the game's financial engine, should get the biggest share, chairman Najam Sethi told Reuters.

The International Cricket Council (ICC), the game's global governing body, has proposed a new revenue sharing model for the 2024-27 cycle to be voted on at its next board meeting in June.

According to figures leaked to Cricinfo, India would claim 38.5%, while England and Australia would pocket 6.89% and 6.25% respectively. Pakistan stands to earn 5.75% of the ICC's projected earnings, primarily from its media rights sale.

The 12 full members of the ICC would collectively get 88.81%, while the rest would be distributed among its 96 associate members.

"We are insisting that the ICC should tell us how these figures were arrived at," Sethi told Reuters from London.

"We are not happy with the situation as it stands.

"Come June, when the board is expected to approve the financial model, unless these details are provided to us, we are not going to approve it."

India generates an estimated 80% of ICC revenue and Disney Star shelled out $3 billion last year to acquire the 2024-27 media rights for the Indian market.

Sethi said the PCB had already asked the ICC to explain how its finance and commercial affairs committee, headed by Indian cricket board secretary Jay Shah, determined the share.

Despite the fact that all nations will get more money, Sethi said at least two other test playing nations were not happy with the model and had sought more details.

The ICC, which considered factors such as the performance of a country's men's and women's teams and their contribution to the ICC's commercial revenue, was not immediately available to comment.

"In principle, India should get more, there is no doubt about that but ... how is this table being developed?" Sethi said.

The proposed revenue split has become a major talking point in world cricket, which is already facing a rapidly altering landscape because of the Indian-driven rise of franchise-based leagues.

Former England captain Mike Atherton, writing in The Times newspaper on Monday, criticised the "flawed" model, which he feared would only deepen the game's existing inequality.

"If that distribution comes to pass, then the strong will get stronger, the weak weaker (relatively) and international cricket will continue to become less competitive — which is in nobody's long-term interest," Atherton wrote.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Atherton or any of the other critics needs to realise that this is not socialism or benefit system.

There has to be a proportionate distribution of the revenue and not equal distribution. If contribution is so lopsided, equal distribution is unjust.

 

[Thanos]

It would be interesting to see figures proposed by Sethi or Atherton. And how they've arrived to x, y, z numbers for respective boards.

I hope they don't give reason like stronger will get stronger etc while presenting their tables.

 

[RajBan]

PCB and Artherton should challenge ACB and ECB on why they have higher shares compared to PCB when they have much less population to cater to and when PCB contributes more in terms of revenue.

 

[Savak]

PCB and Artherton should challenge ACB and ECB on why they have higher shares compared to PCB when they have much less population to cater to and when PCB contributes more in terms of revenue.

Sethi is going to demand that PCB be placed number two on the list with a much increased share based on the following reasons

1) Pakistan has the second highest eye balls for Cricket after India. PSL is number two in terms of global viewership after the IPL

2) ICC makes the bulk of its money from Indo Pak contests in ICC events therefore the PCB needs to be given benefits for it

3) Pakistan has remained a competitive cricket nation inspite of zero international cricket in Pakistan over a decade

4) Pakistan won 2 ICC events in the last 16 years and the Pakistani players have frequently been in the Top ICC rankings

 

[RajBan]

Sethi is going to demand that PCB be placed number two on the list with a much increased share based on the following reasons

1) Pakistan has the second highest eye balls for Cricket after India. PSL is number two in terms of global viewership after the IPL

2) ICC makes the bulk of its money from Indo Pak contests in ICC events therefore the PCB needs to be given benefits for it

3) Pakistan has remained a competitive cricket nation inspite of zero international cricket in Pakistan over a decade

4) Pakistan won 2 ICC events in the last 16 years and the Pakistani players have frequently been in the Top ICC rankings

Agreed. ICC should truncate funds from ACB and ECB and distribute it proportionally to other members who are contributing more to the revenue generation and who has to cater to a larger base.

 

[MenInG]

LONDON: Former England captain Michael Atherton has criticised the International Cricket Council's proposed profit-sharing model for the next four-year cycle (2024-2027) where India will be getting 38.50 per cent from an annual $600 million revenue pot.

If the proposed model by ICC's Financial & Commercial Affairs (F&CA) committee is passed during the Annual Conference in June, BCCI will be getting $231 million annually while England will be the second-highest grosser with a 6.89 per cent share, which translates to $41.33 million. Australia is third in the list with earnings of $37.53 million, which is equivalent to 6.25 per cent.

The entire list of ICC associate member countries will have 11 per cent distributed between them.

He, however, added that since all other countries will witness a leap in revenue, there will hardly be any push-back at the global conference.
"The planned distribution model will be discussed at the next ICC meeting in June, but with every country getting a larger amount (in absolute terms) than now, there may be little appetite to challenge the proposals," Atherton wrote in his column for the 'Times London'.

"As Ehsan Mani, the former ICC president and former chairman of the Pakistan Cricket Board, said this week: the money is going where it is needed the least," the former right-hander stated.

The primary formula followed is which country has the maximum sponsorship, revenue stream from TV broadcast rights, and India is a runaway leader when it comes to Star (an arm of Disney) which puts the maximum money for rights of global events.

"It is this last (commercial contribution) that skews the outcome significantly, given that by far the biggest contribution comes from the Indian television market," said Atherton.

"The last two factors are problematic, though, in determining any distribution. For example, for their performances in ICC events, India, Australia and England are given the highest ratings.

"In other words, these are the countries that have competed most effectively in the ICC knockout competitions over the past 16 years or so. But they already enjoy an inherent advantage, because they host more key events than anyone else."

Atherton believes that "those countries who enjoy the good fortune of having dynamic home markets already exploit that advantage through their domestic television revenue streams."

His reference was to the handsome earnings of the BCCI from broadcast rights of India's matches at home.

"These lucrative markets, therefore, give India and to a lesser extent England and Australia an in-built advantage."

Atherton expressed concern in his column that West Indies, which still produces a lot of talented cricketers, will get only $27.5 million annually just because as an assortment of island nations, they are not a commercially viable destination for broadcasters.

"The West Indies, for example, suffers from being in a high-cost, low-income region: as a tourist destination, the cost of flights and hotels is high (thus the cost of staging cricket is high), and in a region of only five million people, its television revenues are low (how much it contributes commercially to the ICC deal is put at 0.1 per cent)."

"For the West Indies, and others, the revenue stream from the ICC is more important than internal markets. The ICC distribution should be about helping to equalise an inherently unequal global landscape," he wrote.

Atherton, the cricketer-turned-journalist, is a well-known critic of BCCI's hegemony.

"There is a deeper malaise at work here. The economic transformation of India in the past three decades and the growing importance of television revenues have distorted cricket's landscape, making it more unequal and, therefore, in need more than ever of careful strategic thought and leadership. But there has been an absence of this at the ICC."

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...l-atherton/articleshow/100257872.cms?from=mdr

 

[U$ofA]

Atherton gives example of WI and how little $ they will get. But no mention of their corruption and what they have done with all the millions over the years - squandered. No account of where the money went. POOF, disappeared. No accountability, no one knows and no one cares.

Anyone want to guess what happens if more $$ are given to CWI?

 

[MenInG]

Atherton gives example of WI and how little $ they will get. But no mention of their corruption and what they have done with all the millions over the years - squandered. No account of where the money went. POOF, disappeared. No accountability, no one knows and no one cares.

Anyone want to guess what happens if more $$ are given to CWI?

What business is it of anyone about corruption in any country? Is India free of corruption? How do we know there is no corruption in Indian cricket?

 

[Angrez Pakistani]

Atherton gives example of WI and how little $ they will get. But no mention of their corruption and what they have done with all the millions over the years - squandered. No account of where the money went. POOF, disappeared. No accountability, no one knows and no one cares.

Anyone want to guess what happens if more $$ are given to CWI?

It’s their money my dude. They can have it and do whatever they want with it. If member boards like West Indies stop getting whatever little they are getting, their cricket will die. And other boards will meet the same fate. So at some point, cricket will become a tri-nation sport.

 

[U$ofA]

What business is it of anyone about corruption in any country? Is India free of corruption? How do we know there is no corruption in Indian cricket?

I am sure there is plenty of corruption in BCCI. But it is their money, they generate it, their corruption, they have to deal with it.

With CWI, they want more of someone else's $$ without any accountability. Almost nothing generated by them. That is a problem.

 

[U$ofA]

It’s their money my dude. They can have it and do whatever they want with it. If member boards like West Indies stop getting whatever little they are getting, their cricket will die. And other boards will meet the same fate. So at some point, cricket will become a tri-nation sport.

I am not saying they should stop getting money. In fact I say, ICC give them more $$. But with a monitored program path to self sustainability. Help them come up with a 5-7 year plan toward self sustaining.

Accountability is key for these boards that depend only on ICC handouts. I am not singling out CWI, goes for SLC, CSA, BD, Zim as well.

 

[cricketjoshila]

It’s their money my dude. They can have it and do whatever they want with it. If member boards like West Indies stop getting whatever little they are getting, their cricket will die. And other boards will meet the same fate. So at some point, cricket will become a tri-nation sport.

No its not their money. Its ICC money, generated from other countries.

 

[KingOfPakBreakfast]

No it’s not their money. It’s ICC money, generated from other countries.

You seem to regularly forget (or perhaps to fail to understand) a very simple point.

Indian cricket will only ever remain relevant if they have both variety AND strength of competition. Killing the funding of the smaller nations doesn’t only make international cricket less competitive. It also kills their youth coaching programs, which will eventually go on to impact foreign IPL player pools.

Conceding a bit on the ICC split will make the Indians less obscenely rich, but may be the difference in hamstringing or vitally resuscitating another country’s cricket board.

 

[U$ofA]

You seem to regularly forget (or perhaps to fail to understand) a very simple point.

Indian cricket will only ever remain relevant if they have both variety AND strength of competition. Killing the funding of the smaller nations doesn’t only make international cricket less competitive. It also kills their youth coaching programs, which will eventually go on to impact foreign IPL player pools.

Conceding a bit on the ICC split will make the Indians less obscenely rich, but may be the difference in hamstringing or vitally resuscitating another country’s cricket board.

How long will the resuscitation take? Because, at some point, the resuscitation giver is going to get tired. At some point the resuscitation needs to end and self sustaining has to begin.

 

[cricketjoshila]

You seem to regularly forget (or perhaps to fail to understand) a very simple point.

Indian cricket will only ever remain relevant if they have both variety AND strength of competition. Killing the funding of the smaller nations doesn’t only make international cricket less competitive. It also kills their youth coaching programs, which will eventually go on to impact foreign IPL player pools.

Conceding a bit on the ICC split will make the Indians less obscenely rich, but may be the difference in hamstringing or vitally resuscitating another country’s cricket board.

India generates 90 per cent of the revenue. Takes around 20 per cent now. That may increase to 35 per cent. How is that not fair?

This resuscitation has been happening for many years now.

 

[KingOfPakBreakfast]

How long will the resuscitation take? Because, at some point, the resuscitation giver is going to get tired. At some point the resuscitation needs to end and self sustaining has to begin.

How brilliantly short termist. If you want to get to a point where India can only competitively play a much weakened England or Australia all the time, then ofcourse increase the Indian %. Any sport in the world only thrives on breadth and depth of competition. The BCCI can be greedy now, but when in a few years, there’s a lack of variety of competition, its own TV deals will suffer.

 

[KingOfPakBreakfast]

India generates 90 per cent of the revenue. Takes around 20 per cent now. That may increase to 35 per cent. How is that not fair?

This resuscitation has been happening for many years now.

No one’s ever disputed India’s importance to the extant revenue model. However, any financially dominant sporting power still needs a variety of worthwhile opponents to make their actual product attractive to watch.

Also, the point on funding cuts effecting foreign player pools is incredibly relevant too. In 10 years time you’ll probably have more IPL teams without having that foreign player pool to make the competition actually competitive.

Which will then effect TV revenue, as viewers get bored of a league with too many substandard foreign players.

Intelligent organisations think long term, rather than going for the short termist money grabbing approach. Clearly the BCCI only think from dollar to dollar.

 

[U$ofA]

How brilliantly short termist. If you want to get to a point where India can only competitively play a much weakened England or Australia all the time, then ofcourse increase the Indian %. Any sport in the world only thrives on breadth and depth of competition. The BCCI can be greedy now, but when in a few years, there’s a lack of variety of competition, its own TV deals will suffer.

So pretty much give me money or else....

How am I being short term? Take WI for example, has been on the resuscitation table for decades. No sign of improvement. No accountability or tracking of where the money is going. They do not generate any $$$. Take the handout, squander it and stick their hand out for more. Happening for decades.

This I am not a fan of. At some point there should be a turnaround. Resuscitation can only be done for so much time before time of death is announced.

 

[cricketjoshila]

No one’s ever disputed India’s importance to the extant revenue model. However, any financially dominant sporting power still needs a variety of worthwhile opponents to make their actual product attractive to watch.

Also, the point on funding cuts effecting foreign player pools is incredibly relevant too. In 10 years time you’ll probably have more IPL teams without having that foreign player pool to make the competition actually competitive.

Which will then effect TV revenue, as viewers get bored of a league with too many substandard foreign players.

Intelligent organisations think long term, rather than going for the short termist money grabbing approach. Clearly the BCCI only think from dollar to dollar.

There is need of opposition thats why BCCI takes 35 per cent and rest 55 per cent is distributed among others.

 

[cricketjoshila]

How brilliantly short termist. If you want to get to a point where India can only competitively play a much weakened England or Australia all the time, then ofcourse increase the Indian %. Any sport in the world only thrives on breadth and depth of competition. The BCCI can be greedy now, but when in a few years, there’s a lack of variety of competition, its own TV deals will suffer.

How is the money given to WI or Zimbabwe being utilised?

WI players are more interested in becoming T20 mercenaries. What has WI done to incentivise them to play for WI?

The less said about Zimbabwe the better. War ravaged Afghanistan has more international class players than Zimbabwe. Why?

You just can't keep getting money and not be held accountable.

 

[Pakhs]

Really?

India is generating 3bn. Pakistan has a population of 220mn or one fifth of India, but Pakistan isnt generating even 10 per cent of India. Infact rest all countries together cannot make 20 per cent of what India brings.

3bn by India

RoW 200mn

Its not about population surely.

Its not about population 100% but ofcourse 80% its about population which is true for all such business models. However in case of India its also due to having huge amount of crazy / fanatical cricket fans which are another levels to any others country.

 

[Pakhs]

How is the money given to WI or Zimbabwe being utilised?

WI players are more interested in becoming T20 mercenaries. What has WI done to incentivise them to play for WI?

The less said about Zimbabwe the better. War ravaged Afghanistan has more international class players than Zimbabwe. Why?

You just can't keep getting money and not be held accountable.

If you going to be so critical then same critical criteria can be applied to BCCI as well, what are they doing with such vast and unparalleled financial resources? Last time India won an ICC even was decade ago? India has everything in its favor to win next 5 ICC tournament barring an upset, huge financial resources, massive population, Cricket monopoly, and the list goes on.

All countries are doing what they can.. Apart from India and the Ashes most countries are prioritizing T20 cricket. Which is the only financially viable sport now.

 

[MenInG]

There is a growing expectation that a contentious proposed revenue distribution model will likely be passed by the International Cricket Council's board even though dissension lingers over the "ridiculous" share set for cash-stricken smaller countries.

Widespread debate has erupted after ESPNcricinfo reported that India's governing body is set to receive $230 million a year - or 38.5 per cent - of net surplus earnings from the ICC's $3 billion media rights deal for 2024-27.

That's a significant increase from its 22 per cent share in the current 2015-23 deal with the proposed model to be tabled at the ICC's Annual General Meeting in July in South Africa.

While the focus has been largely on India's enormous slice of the pie - and the subsequent pared back percentages of fellow powerhouses Australia and England - smaller cricket nations could face significant challenges keeping the sport afloat in non-traditional areas.

Associate Members - 94 nations deemed under the 12 top tiered Full Members who are granted more funding and power - are set to receive 11.19 per cent, which is about the same percentage as in the current model.

While it is true that all members will receive far more remuneration given the ICC's media rights deal is significantly higher than the $2 billion for the 2015-23 cycle, it can be easy to be cynical of a sport so skewed towards the heft of India when it is granted more than triple the amount of a combined 94 members.

India last year received a mammoth $6 billion broadcast deal for the Indian Premier League, its money-spinning T20 competition. Jay Shah - India's powerful cricket boss - is also the chair of the ICC's finance and commercial affairs committee heavily involved in the proposed revenue distribution model, a position he shoehorned into amid politicking during last November's chair election.

"I was not surprised India wanted more, but I am surprised with the ridiculous percentage for Associates, who are the largest stakeholders," Sumod Damodar, an Associate Member representative on the influential Chief Executives' Committee, told me.

"To appease individual Full Members, perhaps the argument was that percentages will go down but the value will increase. The problem for Associates is their membership is increasing.

"New members are coming in and there are new programmes proposed to be enforced. How the hell are we going to sustain, develop and grow if there is no increase in the pot?

"Where will all the money come from for the pathways and events?"

Ehsan Mani, the former ICC president and ex-Pakistan cricket boss, believed Associate nations deserved far more remuneration.

"The 90-odd Associates should have received at least $30-50 million (on top of the proposed $67 million a year) if the ICC board is serious about making cricket a global sport," he told me. "This money should have been seen as an investment as some of the (Associate) economies are far more robust and a greater potential to contribute to the ICC in the longer term."

Mani believed the ICC needed to "wean off relying just on India" and pour more funds into the U.S. and China, which was once a country of
"From my previous discussions with the sports ministry, China is willing to develop the game seriously but requires active engagement with the ICC," Mani said.

"The U.S. alone could contribute $600-700 million over an eight-year cycle once the game is established there. It has been done by FIFA starting with a much smaller base in the U.S. than cricket.

"Investment of $10 million each in the U.S. and China could be justified. Then there are Associate Member countries with strong economies such as Singapore, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, U.A.E. which have huge potential far more than most Full Members in the long-term.

"Africa as a whole with its mineral resources and growing population justifies a higher level of investment too."

While strong debate is set to ensue in July's meetings, there is a feeling of resignation from some insiders that the proposed model is likely to remain intact - or only slight amended - before being passed by the board, which only has three Associate Member representatives out of 16 directors.

"Hoping India will be amenable and it won't be passed easily," an insider close to proceedings told me. "But it is most likely to be passed as is. There will be carrots dangling.

"It shouldn't pass like this....should be a matter of principle."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/trista...stribution-model-set-to-pass/?sh=649ee3d7df10

 

[U$ofA]

Perhaps ICC needs to kick India out as a member. This will then enable a more equitable distribution of the $$$$.

So everyone needs to stop the crying and get into action. Specifically, the ICC.

Is the ICC listening?

 

[Front Foot Pull]

Perhaps ICC needs to kick India out as a member. This will then enable a more equitable distribution of the $$$$.

So everyone needs to stop the crying and get into action. Specifically, the ICC.

Is the ICC listening?

That is a great idea. There won't be any debate when there isn't even much money to distribute in the first place

 

[Front Foot Pull]

Ofcourse, it is because of indian population BCCI is rich and making money. You need to do some research before posting illogically.

though the number has been on the rise every year, india had a relatively big population in the 90s too. But the cricket market has grown in greater proportions when compared to the growth of economy and population. population is always there but how you tap the potential of that population is what matters here.

BCCI can do a lot more but what growth did other countries with decent population achieve in the same period?

looks like it is you who needs to do more and more research before posting rookie analysis like just population is making rich. although, i am not sure even that is going to help you post something meaningful because your craving to criticize and whine on india to pose like a pseudo intellectual outweighs it.

 

[MenInG]

The International Cricket Council has distanced itself from Ricky Ponting's claims of "talks" within the sport's governing body to address pay disparity in Test cricket. (More Cricket News)

At the curtain raiser of the World Test Championship final earlier this month, Ponting had said that discussions were on at a very high level in the ICC to ensure cricketers from smaller countries are paid well to play the five-day format.

However, ICC general manager of cricket Wasim Khan said the issue was raised in one of the Cricket Committee meetings but was not taken forward.

"I think it was perhaps a misquote. It was raised initially within the ICC Cricket Committee. It was a discussion point, but certainly nothing was taken forward around payments to players.

"Ricky's views were a discussion point as many things are within the Cricket Committee but there has been no discussion with the members with regards to that," said Wasim in a select media interaction.

The Cricket Committee is headed by former India captain Sourav Ganguly.

During the event held on May 19, Ponting had said : "... make the payments bit more even across international Test cricket to attract players from these different countries who want to play for their country.

"It is something that has been spoken about at a very high level at the ICC to help that...," he had said.

With the rapid rise of T20 cricket, an increasing number of players are preferring franchise leagues over national duty, especially the ones from the West Indies.

In ICC's proposed financial model for 2024-27, the 12 Test-playing nations will see a substantial increase in their earnings.

"What is fair to say is what the members will be receiving in the next cycle will be greater than what they have received previously. The players' payments are down to the members (individual boards)," he said.

https://www.outlookindia.com/sports...n-point-but-not-taken-forward-icc-news-290336

 

[MenInG]

NEW DELHI: Cricket's cash-starved associate member nations fear the proposed new international revenue distribution model, which heavily favours the game's superpowers, could potentially stall the growth of the game.

The International Cricket Council (ICC) has proposed a new revenue sharing model for the 2024-27 cycle to be voted on at its July board meeting in Durban.

According to figures leaked to Cricinfo, cricket's financial engine India would alone claim 38.5%, primarily in recognition of its contribution to the commercial revenue pot.

The 12 full members of the ICC would collectively take 88.81% with the rest distributed among 94 associate members.

The ICC has not commented on the figures, though general manager Wasim Khan said on Monday all members would get more money under the proposed model than in the past.

Pakistan have already made clear their opposition to the model in its current shape and resentment is rumbling among other, less developed, cricketing nations.

Sumod Damodar, one of the three associate member representatives on the ICC Chief Executives' Committee, said the proposal would not meet the needs of associate members.

"If what is being proposed and discussed is likely to be the outcome then, as an associate member representative, I would be (disappointed)," he told Reuters.

"There are numerous practical reasons why it would be inadequate for associate members."

Damodar, vice chairman of Botswana's board, said associate members who have earned one-day international (ODI) status need more money to sustain their high-performance programmes, while the others need cash to bridge the gap.

Citing the rapid rise of Nepal in men's cricket and Thailand in the women's game, Damodar said more countries would step up if they were given the required financial support.

Vanuatu Cricket Association Chief Executive Tim Cutler said the proposed model would only accentuate the inequality between cricket's haves and have-nots.

"The new model is now even more heavily weighted towards the bigger cricketing nations, and there is a risk that the proposed changes will exacerbate this imbalance, putting the future of the game at further risk," Cutler told Reuters.

"The sad reality is, cricket will not grow beyond its current corners of the world ... if the allocation of the game’s global funds aren't more equally allocated with a view to actually growing the game."

With full members having 12 of the 17 total votes on the ICC board, Cutler said diverting funds away from themselves, or making independent decisions for the good of the game, would be like "turkeys voting for Christmas".

The ICC did not respond to a request for comment when asked about the concerns of the associate members.

Former ICC President Ehsan Mani said there was a lack of vision at the governing body in its approach to developing cricketing nations, despite the huge commercial potential of some of them.

"One of the biggest risks for global cricket is its over-dependence on one country, India, for a major part of the revenues generated," the former Pakistan Cricket Board chairman told Reuters.

"Countries like the USA and the Middle East and, in longer term, China would bring enormous benefits to the ICC, its members and the global game. World cricket would be stronger and richer for it."

For Mani, India grabbing the lion's share of ICC revenues "makes no sense" and he advocated equal shares for all full members.
"World cricket needs a strong West Indies, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Pakistan," he added.

"Cricket in Zimbabwe has suffered due to lack of funds as have Ireland and Afghanistan. Lack of investment in some of these countries will make the game unsustainable and world cricket will be poorer for it."

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...te-members/articleshow/100613249.cms?from=mdr

 

[MenInG]

India's cricket board earned a surplus of around $1.5 billion in the five years to 2021-22, the country's parliament heard during a rare look into the sporting body's finances.

The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) does not typically publish its finances in detail.

But it is known to be one of the world's most lucrative governing bodies thanks to India's diehard love of the game and periodic bidding wars over broadcast rights.

A government minister listed recent BCCI earnings in parliament on Tuesday which revealed revenue of $919 million and expenditure of $370 million for the year to March 2022, leaving a surplus of $549 million.

It was the board's biggest surplus out of the five years from 2017-18, with earnings of $3.3 billion and $1.8 billion in expenses for the same period.

The all-powerful BCCI is often said to call the shots in world cricket due to their outsized wealth compared to other national cricket boards.

The BCCI also stands to earn approximately $230 million per year between 2024-27 – or 38.5 per cent of the International Cricket Council's annual earnings of $600 million, according to ESPN Cricinfo.

Last year, the BCCI sold its media rights for the wildly popular Indian Premier League Twenty20 tournament for a whopping $6.2 billion.

The board has recently floated a tender for media rights for its international and domestic matches which is set to reap another huge windfall.

SuperSport

 

[U$ofA]

I think they will get a smaller broadcast deal than their existing one for international matches. It will still be a huge $$$ figure, but less than previous.

I believe that India fan focus has/is transitioning to IPL first, Internationals next. That will definitely reflect in the broadcast deals.

 

[Bhaijaan]

I can see a greater sense of acceptance in these numbers than previously by non Indians. Also the fact that PCB is earning almost the same as Australia, England must be comforting. Pakistan might have a bigger population but the cricketing economy still doesn’t beat the two old powerhouses as India’s did many years ago.

India with its size + economy is the lone super cricket nation. More than even the Pakistanis, it took a while for the Aussies and especially the English to digest the fact that a former colony has now more political and economic clout than them.

As far as India is concerned, the position has only gotten consolidated over the years with the rise of the economy. The gap will get greater. The numbers India is capable of posting in Cricket is potentially insane. It’s just the tip of the ice burg. IPL is going to get bigger to eventually a two tier 20 teams each format like the European football leagues. It will attract the best of talent unless the Saudis would want to compete which is unlikely as their focus is in Football, F1. China is focused on Olympics and USA will never embrace Cricket.

 

[Gilly]

Cricket South Africa nett worth $47mil
Bangledesh Cricket nett worth $51mil
Pakistan Cricket nett worth $55mil
England Cricket nett worth $59mil
Australian Cricket nett worth $79mil
India Cricket nett worth $2.25bil

I hope all countries maximize the value they can from cricket, the stronger cricket becomes in other countries the stronger it will become in Australia.

 

[cricketjoshila]

I think they will get a smaller broadcast deal than their existing one for international matches. It will still be a huge $$$ figure, but less than previous.

I believe that India fan focus has/is transitioning to IPL first, Internationals next. That will definitely reflect in the broadcast deals.

That's because BCCI is being run poorly.

Once the IPL deal was done and Star lost out on digital rights and sony-zee didn't get any thing, BCCI should have tendered the international rights immediately.

For some reason they waited.

Result was that a desperate Star bid 3bn plus for ICC rights of India territory. The next bidder was nearly half this amount.

Result is that, Star is now nearly done with their budget. Unless their sub leasing deal with Zee for ICC rights materialize, Jio will win the BCCI international rights at around a 1bn.

Far lesser than what Star paid to the ICC.

It goes without saying that India international rights are very profitable.

Another reason for the rights losing value is that in past 2 years, BCCI is letting Star players skip series very frequently.

 

[Hitman]

That's because BCCI is being run poorly.

Once the IPL deal was done and Star lost out on digital rights and sony-zee didn't get any thing, BCCI should have tendered the international rights immediately.

For some reason they waited.

Result was that a desperate Star bid 3bn plus for ICC rights of India territory. The next bidder was nearly half this amount.

Result is that, Star is now nearly done with their budget. Unless their sub leasing deal with Zee for ICC rights materialize, Jio will win the BCCI international rights at around a 1bn.

Far lesser than what Star paid to the ICC.

It goes without saying that India international rights are very profitable.

Another reason for the rights losing value is that in past 2 years, BCCI is letting Star players skip series very frequently.

Welcome back, bro! Was waiting for you. Now, all we need is Mamoon back.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Its a bit surprising how easily this went through. After 2017, thought BCCI was on the backfoot for good at ICC after all boards voted against them.

 

[FearlessRoar]

The more money, the lower the quality of players, because they earn lots of money whether they perform or not. Sooner or later, we will see adverse effects of excessive money in Indian Cricket.