BCCI to get USD 405 million as per the renegotiated ICC's revenue sharing model

[ipl_fan]

The ICC Board also unanimously agreed a new financial model, thereby reversing the 2014 resolutions and giving greater equality in the distribution of ICC income. As such the revenue distribution for the cycle 2016-2023 will be as follows:

Based on current forecasted revenues and costs, BCCI will receive $405m across the eight year cycle, ECB $139m, Zimbabwe Cricket $94m and the seven existing Full Members $128m each. The Associate Members (together with Ireland and Afghanistan) will collectively receive funding of $240m.

The ICC Full Council also voted unanimously to expel USACA following a Board recommendation in April and a recent Dispute Resolution Committee hearing before the Honourable Michael Beloff QC, which concluded last week. Further details will be issued in the coming days outlining the process which will now be followed to establish a new governing body for cricket in the USA that is capable of unifying the fractured cricket community in that part of the world.

ICC Chairman Shashank Manohar said: “I would like to thank all ICC members for their commitment to changing the constitution for the good of the global game. This is the first step towards the ICC improving its governance and I believe that these changes will benefit all members and enable us to continue to grow the global game.

“Throughout this process we have shown the strength of a collective and unified approach and I would like to pay tribute to my Board colleagues who have been so determined to reach consensus. They have not focused solely on their own country but have ensured cricket around the world benefits.”

 

[ipl_fan]

So everybody except ECB took a minimal cut and BCCI got an increment worth half their demand. Both parties met each other half way through and the impasse is over.

 

[Convict]

So everybody except ECB took a minimal cut and BCCI got an increment worth half their demand. Both parties met each other half way through and the impasse is over.

Yeah this was always going to happen.

Need to start with the big thing to let BCCI save face by negotiating down to the level everyone would have willingly accepted anyway.

 

[zn426]

Excellent.

Now can someone explain to me how the PCB runs through $128M a year yet still has such a shoddy domestic structure?

 

[omcswe]

Excellent.

Now can someone explain to me how the PCB runs through $128M a year yet still has such a shoddy domestic structure?

it's not for one year i think.

it is a cycle for 8 years.

the surprising amount is the one that is being paid to zimbabwe. maybe bcci had a point with the increased share that it wanted.

 

[Blitz]

I still find it hard to believe this model exists. This is ICC's money. Not BCCI's tours or IPL or domestic cricket.

This is ICC's event, where it invites teams to play a tournament. Absolutely outrageous to award a team anything more unless its not based on their position in the tournament.

 

[Anwar_194]

its $16million/ year total of $123 million for 8 years, still a lot of money and no progress on the domestic. I always say that PCB is run by the crooked partners of the president so they can get their share from all part of the country. $16million is from ICC, there is a lot more from the advertisement and TV rights that is not included.

 

[CricketingMinds]

Excellent.

Now can someone explain to me how the PCB runs through $128M a year yet still has such a shoddy domestic structure?

It is NOT $128M/year.

It is $128M in revenue for i think 5 years --- 2017 till 2022/23.

 

[Reddy]

$405 Million is a good figure for BCCI, that is $112 Million more than the last acrimonious ICC meeting.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

So we demanded 570 but got 405 in the end? Are you happy now [MENTION=76058]cricketjoshila[/MENTION] ?

 

[Junaids]

So everybody except ECB took a minimal cut and BCCI got an increment worth half their demand. Both parties met each other half way through and the impasse is over.

Nope.

The BCCI was offered this extra $100 million by the ICC through Shashank Manohar three months ago, and rejected it.

There has been no compromise. The BCCI can't pay its bills without ICC handouts, as Manohar well knows, and they have come back grovelling for what they were offered in the first place.

Total victory for the ICC, total defeat for the BCCI.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

Nope.

The BCCI was offered this extra $100 million by the ICC through Shashank Manohar three months ago, and rejected it.

There has been no compromise. The BCCI can't pay its bills without ICC handouts, as Manohar well knows, and they have come back grovelling for what they were offered in the first place.

Total victory for the ICC, total defeat for the BCCI.

Yes its a defeat both for BCCI and their paid fans.

 

[member250]

its $16million/ year total of $123 million for 8 years, still a lot of money and no progress on the domestic. I always say that PCB is run by the crooked partners of the president so they can get their share from all part of the country. $16million is from ICC, there is a lot more from the advertisement and TV rights that is not included.

Najam Sethi said there are lot's of people getting paid for doing nothing. He want to get rid all of them but politics are stopping him.

 

[Arham_PakFan]

Najam Sethi said there are lot's of people getting paid for doing nothing. He want to get rid all of them but politics are stopping him.

Considering Sethi himself was a political appointment,who did nothing to deserve the position he got,that seems a bit rich.

 

[Mp812]

$405 million is ok deal for BCCI . The $507 million was amount demanded but then it was always obvious bargaining would happen.
BCCI generates 70% of revenue. Fair enough it keeps max profits.
I read on some cricinfo comment, that if BCCI decides to form a parallel ICC body, then ICC may not get even half the revenue of what they are getting right now.
It is better BCCI be kept nominally happy because in that case BCCI will not think of making parallel world cricket body( my understanding is legally it can).
If that happens , all other boards( except CA ,ECB ) getting $132 million right now may see it going down to revenue of 40-50 million instead and i am pretty sure if they feel $132 m is not enough then $50 million will not be such a good deal.

It is purely business.

 

[Junaids]

$405 million is ok deal for BCCI . The $507 million was amount demanded but then it was always obvious bargaining would happen.
BCCI generates 70% of revenue. Fair enough it keeps max profits.
I read on some cricinfo comment, that if BCCI decides to form a parallel ICC body, then ICC may not get even half the revenue of what they are getting right now.
It is better BCCI be kept nominally happy because in that case BCCI will not think of making parallel world cricket body( my understanding is legally it can).
If that happens , all other boards( except CA ,ECB ) getting $132 million right now may see it going down to revenue of 40-50 million instead and i am pretty sure if they feel $132 m is not enough then $50 million will not be such a good deal.

It is purely business.

Purely business?

The BCCI generates ZERO revenue for the ICC. You are getting confused with bilateral series.

This is purely revenue from private Indian TV stations to cover an international tournament.

The BCCI's own published finances show that they opaquely use over 95% of their revenue in payoffs for state cricket association bigwigs, and around 2% on the national team players.

If anyone is buying anyone, the ICC could buy the best Indian players and double their combined BCCI and IPL wages for a fraction of this $400 million deal they are giving the BCCI.

What would that leave the BCCI with?

Which is why the BCCI came back grovelling on its knees to the ICC, and accepted what it had previously rejected!

 

[Junaids]

No offence, but where are [MENTION=76058]cricketjoshila[/MENTION] and [MENTION=142162]Napa[/MENTION] , who said that the BCCI would never take this terrible deal?

 

[Eye_Done]

Jhukti hai duniya jhukanay wala chahiye....Great to see BCCI did thook kay chaatna

 

[shaz619]

[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] can you summarise the chain of events with regards to the financials of the Big 3 model, what was proposed with regards to the new model and what was eventually negotiated as the final figure whilst pointing out who are the winners and losers in terms of the gains/losses

 

[Junaids]

[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] can you summarise the chain of events with regards to the financials of the Big 3 model, what was proposed with regards to the new model and what was eventually negotiated as the final figure whilst pointing out who are the winners and losers in terms of the gains/losses

Oh yes!

1. BCCI was offered $293 million by ICC, which Manohar said could be raised to "around $400 million".

2. BCCI said "no way, that's offensive, we won't accept a cent less than $570 million".

3. BCCI's Srinivasan clique, comprised of banned overage delegates, says "no deal less than $570 million, and make it snappy or we will leave international cricket." Of course Srinivasan required the extra funds to pay his state level power base.

4. ICC refuses to budge on its "around $400 million" offer.

5. BCCI capitulates and accepts the same $405 million it had previously rejected.

 

[shaz619]

Oh yes!

1. BCCI was offered $293 million by ICC, which Manohar said could be raised to "around $400 million".

2. BCCI said "no way, that's offensive, we won't accept a cent less than $570 million".

3. BCCI's Srinivasan clique, comprised of banned overage delegates, says "no deal less than $570 million, and make it snappy or we will leave international cricket." Of course Srinivasan required the extra funds to pay his state level power base.

4. ICC refuses to budge on its "around $400 million" offer.

5. BCCI capitulates and accepts the same $405 million it had previously rejected.

I suppose when that $293 was offered ICC always hoped to meet somewhere in the middle around the $400 million figure, but I still think they are being way too kind to the BCCI scroungers! Hopefully that figure comes down a lot more by the next cycle

 

[Napa]

No offence, but where are [MENTION=76058]cricketjoshila[/MENTION] and [MENTION=142162]Napa[/MENTION] , who said that the BCCI would never take this terrible deal?

I didn't say BCCI would never take this terrible deal as far as I remember, if you have a reference to a post by me saying so please share.

I did say BCCI <b>should not</b> take take this deal. There is a difference between <b>will not</b> and <b>should not</b>.

I would be surprised if I ever said "will not" as I have very little confidence in the intelligence and courage of the CoA.

I did say that in the long term BCCI will separate from ICC (simply because the bulk of the money is being generated in India), and that may take a decade or two to be completed.

 

[Junaids]

I didn't say BCCI would never take this terrible deal as far as I remember, if you have a reference to a post by me saying so please share.

I did say BCCI <b>should not</b> take take this deal. There is a difference between <b>will not</b> and <b>should not</b>.

I would be surprised if I ever said "will not" as I have very little confidence in the intelligence and courage of the CoA.

I did say that in the long term BCCI will separate from ICC (simply because the bulk of the money is being generated in India), and that may take a decade or two to be completed.

Fair enough, my friend.

I actually agree with you on almost all counts.

I'd like to see the BCCI leave international cricket too, and take with them the Gayles and Warners. They are welcome to all the over-30 has-beens they want.

I would notice and miss them if South Africa or Pakistan left international cricket. But I actually wouldn't really notice if we lost one of India or Bangladesh or Sri Lanka from international cricket.

I know that's awful, given that India top the Test rankings. But they keep losing every time they go to England or Australia.

 

[bujhee kom]

Fair enough, my friend.

I actually agree with you on almost all counts.

I'd like to see the BCCI leave international cricket too, and take with them the Gayles and Warners. They are welcome to all the over-30 has-beens they want.

I would notice and miss them if South Africa or Pakistan left international cricket. But I actually wouldn't really notice if we lost one of India or Bangladesh or Sri Lanka from international cricket.

I know that's awful, given that India top the Test rankings. But they keep losing every time they go to England or Australia.

What do Pakistan and Saffers do that Bd, Lanka and India dont?

 

[Arham_PakFan]

Oh yes!

1. BCCI was offered $293 million by ICC, which Manohar said could be raised to "around $400 million".

2. BCCI said "no way, that's offensive, we won't accept a cent less than $570 million".

3. BCCI's Srinivasan clique, comprised of banned overage delegates, says "no deal less than $570 million, and make it snappy or we will leave international cricket." Of course Srinivasan required the extra funds to pay his state level power base.

4. ICC refuses to budge on its "around $400 million" offer.

5. BCCI capitulates and accepts the same $405 million it had previously rejected.

So,after all that drama and all those threats,the BCCI accept the same deal which it didn't want.Lol.

 

[Napa]

Fair enough, my friend.

I actually agree with you on almost all counts.

I'd like to see the BCCI leave international cricket too, and take with them the Gayles and Warners. They are welcome to all the over-30 has-beens they want.

You are welcome to keep believing that the top cricketers will resist playing for the biggest paychecks due to some moral code hypothesized by the one and only Junaids.
[MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION]

I know that's awful, given that India top the Test rankings. But they keep losing every time they go to England or Australia.

A little bit of thinking should let you deduce that India loses less abroad than other teams lose in India, hence India's #1 ranking.

 

[bujhee kom]

[MENTION=142162]Napa[/MENTION]

No worry. [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] seems to dislike India ans Bangladesh. Wouldnt mind if we stopped playing or even notice. Someone he would notice if Saffers (chokers, never won anything) or Pakistan (basket case cricket admin/team) vanished though.

 

[bujhee kom]

[MENTION=142162]Napa[/MENTION]

No worry. [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] seems to dislike India ans Bangladesh. Wouldnt mind if we stopped playing or even notice. Someone he would notice if Saffers (chokers, never won anything) or Pakistan (basket case cricket admin/team) vanished though.

* typo. * somehow.

 

[Khwaja]

That's a big ask

 

[Romali_rotti]

Lol @ some of the responses in this thread. If BCCI formed a separate body to ICC, aus, sa, eng would follow them instantly, money talks, plain reality is that majority of the money is coming from India. Only downside from my perspective is that if BCCI separates from ICC they will isolate Pakistan due to politics and it would be a damn shame to witness that. Any major cricketing tourney or test series where Pakistan would not be allowed to participate is not right imo any way you look at it.

 

[bujhee kom]

No one will follow BCCI as the collapse of b3 model shows

 

[MenInG]

CRICKET SOUTH AFRICA (CSA) has welcomed the widespread and significant changes made to the constitution of the International Cricket Council (ICC) as well as the revised financial model for all member countries.

“We are very pleased that the ICC have accepted a new model for doing business that is in line with accepted standards of Corporate Governance and this will benefit the growth of the game globally,” commented CSA President, Chris Nenzani.

“What was particularly important is the fact that all the changes were accepted unanimously by members and this show of unity is very pleasing.

“There is also a much better model in terms of the share of finances to ICC members.

“I also wish to take this opportunity to thank Mr Shashank Manohar for the amazing work done over the past while and to congratulate Imran Khwaja on his election as the ICC Deputy Chairman.”

Cricket South Africa played a lead role in challenging the previous ICC resolutions that had concentrated power and money in the hands of a few and had been working towards a more acceptable model for governance and revenue sharing.

“Compared to where we were a few years ago, the recent changes at ICC level have been very pleasing and it is now up to our chief executives to put in place a new international cricket structure that will ensure the sustainability of all three formats at international level.

“On behalf of all South African cricketer stakeholders and fans I would like to take this opportunity to welcome Afghanistan and Ireland as Full Members,” he concluded.

 

[Bhaijaan]

President elect Ganguly has said this would be his major agenda with the ICC.

Interesting times ahead

 

[Realromeo]

Why do teams like Bangladesh and Sri lanka get get 1/4 of our share when we have 1/5th of worlds population ? Kinda unfair.

 

[SensiblePakFan]

Should be more equal to grow the game.

 

[HitWicket]

Why do teams like Bangladesh and Sri lanka get get 1/4 of our share when we have 1/5th of worlds population ? Kinda unfair.

Full members should get an equal share each with associate members all getting equal base payments with specific targets that grant them extra funding working up to full membership.

 

[Babbar]

Every test playing country should pay equally to ICC, whether though advertising/sponsorship revenue, or Government grant; to grow Cricket.

All full members should pay equal share of ICC budget with Associate members getting support to develop cricket.

If the payments by different countries are different than the voting power in ICC should be based on percentage of contribution a country makes, like in World Bank or ADB. One can’t ask for funds and then demand equal vote as The biggest contributor. It’s not UN where Rawanda has same vote as Japan..

 

[HitWicket]

Every test playing country should pay equally to ICC, whether though advertising/sponsorship revenue, or Government grant; to grow Cricket.

All full members should pay equal share of ICC budget with Associate members getting support to develop cricket.

If the payments by different countries are different than the voting power in ICC should be based on percentage of contribution a country makes, like in World Bank or ADB. One can’t ask for funds and then demand equal vote as The biggest contributor. It’s not UN where Rawanda has same vote as Japan..

None of the boards pay anything the ICC.

 

[Babbar]

None of the boards pay anything the ICC.

Pakistan of course does not Pay, India directly or indirectly pays a huge amount that runs the world cricket!

 

[HitWicket]

Pakistan of course does not Pay, India directly or indirectly pays a huge amount that runs the world cricket!

Like I said, the BCCI don't pay a penny to the ICC.

 

[Babbar]

Of course ICC gets nothing from BCCI. That’s why ICC bows to BCCI even though it gets nothing from India but treats equally contributing PCB like Rwanda Cricket Board.

Every beggar thinks that everyone deserves equally from the kitty and should have same voice though only 1-2 persons are contributing to it.

 

[HitWicket]

Of course ICC gets nothing from BCCI. That’s why ICC bows to BCCI even though it gets nothing from India but treats equally contributing PCB like Rwanda Cricket Board.

None of the boards are financially contributing to any pot though, that'y my point.

 

[RajBan]

Full members should get an equal share each with associate members all getting equal base payments with specific targets that grant them extra funding working up to full membership.

No they should not. It has to be balanced out on couple of factors - Who brings bigger revenue as well as the size of the country which drives the development needs. It's not a straight forward task.

 

[HitWicket]

No they should not. It has to be balanced out on couple of factors - Who brings bigger revenue as well as the size of the country which drives the development needs. It's not a straight forward task.

Boards don't bring in revenue to the ICC, private companies do. Countries that are larger in size/population will generate a greater amount of their own revenue to compensate for that. The ICC revenue handouts shouldn't be affected by that.

 

[Slim]

President elect Ganguly has said this would be his major agenda with the ICC.

Interesting times ahead

President elect. ) Man, you are proper entertainment.

 

[RajBan]

Boards don't bring in revenue to the ICC, private companies do. Countries that are larger in size/population will generate a greater amount of their own revenue to compensate for that. The ICC revenue handouts shouldn't be affected by that.

Private companies do it based on market size that is administered by the BCCI, not ICC. They take it as an investment as they hope to generate many times more from that market. ICC benefits accordingly. It's absolutely fair then BCCI being representative body of that market and responsible for development of the game there ask for a proportionate share.

I don't support BCCI's attitude that they are above law and they should get precedence for everything and anything over other boards because of their market size. That is sheer discriminatory and unethical and keeps power in hands of few. Infact since they are financially stable it is a bigger responsibility for them to help spread the game to new charters and sustain over the long run. That in turn actually helps BCCI to generate more revenue. (That's what Dalmiya did in 90s). But ICC is also out of mark when they demand full leverage from BCCI but deny proportionate funds for appropriate development of the game in BCCI's market. Both are two extremes. A middle ground is necessary.

 

[HitWicket]

Private companies do it based on market size that is administered by the BCCI, not ICC. They take it as an investment as they hope to generate many times more from that market. ICC benefits accordingly. It's absolutely fair then BCCI being representative body of that market and responsible for development of the game there ask for a proportionate share.

I don't support BCCI's attitude that they are above law and they should get precedence for everything and anything over other boards because of their market size. That is sheer discriminatory and unethical and keeps power in hands of few. Infact since they are financially stable it is a bigger responsibility for them to help spread the game to new charters and sustain over the long run. That in turn actually helps BCCI to generate more revenue. (That's what Dalmiya did in 90s). But ICC is also out of mark when they demand full leverage from BCCI but deny proportionate funds for appropriate development of the game in BCCI's market. Both are two extremes. A middle ground is necessary.

The private companies aren't paying for a BCCI product, they're paying for ICC products. The BCCI already profit from their market size through their own deals with private companies. This shouldn't be a chance to double dip by claiming from the ICCs profits as well.

 

[RajBan]

The private companies aren't paying for a BCCI product, they're paying for ICC products. The BCCI already profit from their market size through their own deals with private companies. This shouldn't be a chance to double dip by claiming from the ICCs profits as well.

It's not that simple. ICC is extremely weak and inept in marketing the game. As a governing council it never had a comprehensive vision to generate revenues and dependant on marketing skills of cricket boards instead. Unlike FIFA it played a secondary role to boards to promote the game. In such a scenario it has less leverage and justifiably so to an extent when it comes to financial matters. The fact is Individual boards have often shown more initiative and innovation than ICC and it really does not have enough credibility to call the shots. It's shameful how they have undermined development in Kenya , Ireland or Netherlands , all three could have been stable Test playing teams by now.

 

[HitWicket]

It's not that simple. ICC is extremely weak and inept in marketing the game. As a governing council it never had a comprehensive vision to generate revenues and dependant on marketing skills of cricket boards instead. Unlike FIFA it played a secondary role to boards to promote the game. In such a scenario it has less leverage and justifiably so to an extent when it comes to financial matters. The fact is Individual boards have often shown more initiative and innovation than ICC and it really does not have enough credibility to call the shots. It's shameful how they have undermined development in Kenya , Ireland or Netherlands , all three could have been stable Test playing teams by now.

Any examples of FIFA taking a primary role in promoting the game?

I don't see what any of the above has to do with India taking a bigger handout from the ICC profits than anyone else?

 

[cricketjoshila]

The private companies aren't paying for a BCCI product, they're paying for ICC products. The BCCI already profit from their market size through their own deals with private companies. This shouldn't be a chance to double dip by claiming from the ICCs profits as well.

They are paying for the Indian market, which UCC accesses via BCCI and Indian team.

Remove the Indian team and Indian msrket.

How valuable is the ICC product?

 

[RajBan]

Any examples of FIFA taking a primary role in promoting the game?

I don't see what any of the above has to do with India taking a bigger handout from the ICC profits than anyone else?

Countless. Today Football world cup is the greatest sports show because FIFA has been actively promoting it. The way it has spread the game to every nook and corner and then put in governance around it is really exemplary. That does not mean Fifa does not have problems, it has actually major isdues but it is still the top governing body in terms of promoting football and generating revenues for development in weaker nation's.

India gets a bigger handout because it facilitates the bigger bucks and need proportionate amount to channel it back to the maintenance and development of infrastructure to support it's members. ICC can't treat India as a cash cow and then deprive it of it's needed development fund.

 

[Donal Cozzie]

I read an article in 2017 which stated that a tiny amount of the ICC money the BCCI gets even filters down to grassroots due to the amount of corruption in the state organisations.

If thats true then what could justify getting an even more monstrous sum at the expense of smaller markets that need it far more?

 

[USofA]

The private companies aren't paying for a BCCI product, they're paying for ICC products. The BCCI already profit from their market size through their own deals with private companies. This shouldn't be a chance to double dip by claiming from the ICCs profits as well.

The problem here is that the final product may be ICC's. But they do not control the components (teams) that go into making the product. The components are controlled by the individual boards. Therein lies the power.

 

[USofA]

I read an article in 2017 which stated that a tiny amount of the ICC money the BCCI gets even filters down to grassroots due to the amount of corruption in the state organisations.

If thats true then what could justify getting an even more monstrous sum at the expense of smaller markets that need it far more?

But they are. The ICC is the one giving the $$$ to BCCI. The $$ are controlled by the ICC. It's in their bank account. They are the one's transferring the money to the boards. The ICC is at fault.

 

[Babbar]

This is just too funny! All kinds of reasoning being given on how to extract billions of dollars from India while nothing-states with zero contribution wants to live off Indian fans.

Same greed that drove Pakistan in suing India for not playing with them for millions of dollars and then losing half its budget as penalty to India and lawyers last year.

Before 1971, Pakistan and Bangladesh were a single country sharing the funds. But suddenly after the split, with half the market each, the two countries are entitled to get double the amount in total?

Tomorrow if Pakistan splits in 4 more countries (or England in 40 countries), will each of the 4 or 40 teams get equal funds as India or Australia?

LOL

 

[RajBan]

I read an article in 2017 which stated that a tiny amount of the ICC money the BCCI gets even filters down to grassroots due to the amount of corruption in the state organisations.

If thats true then what could justify getting an even more monstrous sum at the expense of smaller markets that need it far more?

That's a different argument. There is no doubt corruption exists in BCCU and state members. That has to be solved through institutional changes which the CoA failed miserably. Not sure if Ganguly can do anything about it as he himself is part of that system.

However that does not justify why ICC should not give the due share to BCCI that it deserves.

 

[Napa]

The private companies aren't paying for a BCCI product, they're paying for ICC products.

The private companies are paying mainly for the eyeballs of Indian customers. ICC doesn't have any natural right to this money being generated from Indians. BCCI should ensure that most of Indian money stays in India. There is enough money which needs to be spent to support development in India, not wise to send it abroad. Make the IPL season 6 months long and crush ICC if it doesn't come up with a fairer distribution. Let the best players in the world decide where they want to play.

 

[Donal Cozzie]

That's a different argument. There is no doubt corruption exists in BCCU and state members. That has to be solved through institutional changes which the CoA failed miserably. Not sure if Ganguly can do anything about it as he himself is part of that system.

However that does not justify why ICC should not give the due share to BCCI that it deserves.

The BCCI already get far more than anyone else. There reaches a stage where the good of the game as a whole is more important than an individual board's greed. Also, as others have pointed out, the ICC get money from private TV broadcasters, not the BCCI, and while you would be correct in saying this money is so massive because of India's demand for cricket, I could turn around and say that without other countries to play with those viewers will have nothing to watch.

You need a competitive global game for the sport to thrive. That requires some semblance of parity in terms of financing, otherwise the game loses all appeal as the rich just batter the poor, which is already starting to happen.

 

[the Great Khan]

The BCCI already get far more than anyone else. There reaches a stage where the good of the game as a whole is more important than an individual board's greed. Also, as others have pointed out, the ICC get money from private TV broadcasters, not the BCCI, and while you would be correct in saying this money is so massive because of India's demand for cricket, I could turn around and say that without other countries to play with those viewers will have nothing to watch.

You need a competitive global game for the sport to thrive. That requires some semblance of parity in terms of financing, otherwise the game loses all appeal as the rich just batter the poor, which is already starting to happen.

then you misunderstand the Indian cricket public. They want to see India and Indians win. End of. If that means playing with two countries then so be it. As long as india wins that is what matters. If chennai play mubai india wins. If India play aus India must win.

International cricket for India is the ICC tournaments and thats about it. yes theyll say test cricket is the pinnacle becasue the players like it and feel it is an immense challenge..but if the BCCI had their way they would get rid of test cricket, keep the tournaments , scrap all bilateral ODI's and t20's..and expand the IPL..

oh and ban Pakistan from most cricket..