Boiz Played Well
Tape Ball Regular
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2019
- Runs
- 536
Media reports have it that the BCCI, CA and now the ECB are opposing ICC's plans to have eight tournaments in the next cycle from 2023-31.
ICC release: "The [ICC] Board decided that the eight-year cycle commencing in 2023 will comprise eight Men's events, eight Women's events, four Men's U-19 events and four Women's U-19 events."
Two extra tournaments (so there is one in each year) were tentatively added to the cycle and the worry is it crowds the international calendar. The Big Three's concerns are twofold: this can impact bilateral series which are profitable for them, and second, the Big Bash, IPL and the Hundred could be affected too. They're also saying this could "devalue" the Test Championship.
The remaining boards don't make much money off bilaterals and revenue from ICC tournaments can help boost their coffers. The BCCI are already threatening to not sign the members' agreement for that cycle if this goes through.
I get the argument that if these boards, and especially the BCCI are generating much of the game's revenues, they should have a say in what affects their pockets. But in the long-run would it be beneficial for the sport to have several of the full-member boards struggling financially?
Do you think there should be a ICC event every year (as it was pre-2015)? Or should bilateral cricket get extra room?
ICC release: "The [ICC] Board decided that the eight-year cycle commencing in 2023 will comprise eight Men's events, eight Women's events, four Men's U-19 events and four Women's U-19 events."
Two extra tournaments (so there is one in each year) were tentatively added to the cycle and the worry is it crowds the international calendar. The Big Three's concerns are twofold: this can impact bilateral series which are profitable for them, and second, the Big Bash, IPL and the Hundred could be affected too. They're also saying this could "devalue" the Test Championship.
The remaining boards don't make much money off bilaterals and revenue from ICC tournaments can help boost their coffers. The BCCI are already threatening to not sign the members' agreement for that cycle if this goes through.
I get the argument that if these boards, and especially the BCCI are generating much of the game's revenues, they should have a say in what affects their pockets. But in the long-run would it be beneficial for the sport to have several of the full-member boards struggling financially?
Do you think there should be a ICC event every year (as it was pre-2015)? Or should bilateral cricket get extra room?
