Catastrophic Champions Trophy TV ratings threaten future sales

[Mlscicfan]

Who cares about rating of other countries .. people of Asia are following the CT , three of the four semi-finalists are from Asia. As long as India is doing well all concerned broadcasters will get profit from Indian sponsorores

 

[Aman]

Who cares about raring of other countries .. people of Asia are following the CT , three of the four semi-finalists are from Asia. As long as India is doing well all concerned broadcasters will get profit from Indian sponsorores

Kinda adds credence to the idea of cricket being a minority sport which is only popular in South Asia.

 

[member250]

They couldn't have asked for better final. And to think Pakistan was about to miss CT and even avoided playing WI just in case they lost haha

 

[hafeezrocks]

Kinda adds credence to the idea of cricket being a minority sport which is only popular in South Asia.

Cricket wins, it will always remain more popular in NZ than Rugby would ever be in Asia.

 

[roshanrocks]

So many people watch games on mobile apps and computers. How can these be counted?

 

[Aman]

Cricket wins, it will always remain more popular in NZ than Rugby would ever be in Asia.

Rugby can sell out huge stadiums in England, USA, Hong Kong and Japan.

Cricket will never do that and will solely rely on expat Indians to buy tickets.

 

[jagatk]

Rugby can sell out huge stadiums in England, USA, Hong Kong and Japan.

Cricket will never do that and will solely rely on expat Indians to buy tickets.

Put the right kind of matches and Cricket will also sell out big stadiums in England, Australia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, both are minority sports, frankly beyond maybe track and field and football all sports are minority sports followed only by some nations but not others.

 

[Aman]

Put the right kind of matches and Cricket will also sell out big stadiums in England, Australia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, both are minority sports, frankly beyond maybe track and field and football all sports are minority sports followed only by some nations but not others.

India vs whoever will never sell 90,000 tickets like All Blacks vs England did. Outside of the WC, India vs whoever won't sell out matches in Australia either.

 

[Napa]

Err...pardon me for being presumptuous but I think the theory you are referring to is the capital structure irrelevance theorem which has very little to do it a situation like this.

The basic idea behind the capital irrelevance theory is that you take an asset (a firm) and break it up in different ways (different owner/capital structures) it doesn't change the total value. This idea has broad applications, including the irrelevance of dividends.

It also applies to the situation here. The ICC has a number of different assets, that is viewership rights for different countries. MM would say that it doesn't matter how ICC packages these for sale, the total value won't change.

 

[Napa]

[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] you are really jumping around making up stories to suit whatever you wish to say at the moment.

When you claim that BCCI can't survive financially by itself, you say that there is more money in Australia and England.

Now that you claim that ODIs are not financially viable, you say there there is no money from Australia and England.

 

[Aman]

India vs whoever will never sell 90,000 tickets like All Blacks vs England did. Outside of the WC, India vs whoever won't sell out matches in Australia either.

82,000* in London.

61,500 for All Blacks vs USA in Chicago
62,300 for All Blacks vs Ireland in Chicago

India couldn't do those numbers even in their dreams for those markets.

 

[jagatk]

India vs whoever will never sell 90,000 tickets like All Blacks vs England did. Outside of the WC, India vs whoever won't sell out matches in Australia either.

I said right kind of matches, BBL match between Stars and renegades drew a 70000 crowd, i highly doubt india vs Australia at full strength won't be a full house at MCG.

 

[Napa]

India vs whoever will never sell 90,000 tickets like All Blacks vs England did. Outside of the WC, India vs whoever won't sell out matches in Australia either.

Never say never, especially when it comes to growing number of Indian fans worldwide. 2015 WC India vs. SA sold 87K tickets in Aus, more than the Australia-England game.

http://www.mid-day.com/articles/icc...eats-aus-vs-eng-in-attendance-at-mcg/16010156

 

[jagatk]

82,000* in London.

61,500 for All Blacks vs USA in Chicago
62,300 for All Blacks vs Ireland in Chicago

India couldn't do those numbers even in their dreams for those markets.

Put the same match in india and not more than 1000 people will come to watch, most odi and t20 matches in india are full houses, Rugby is popular in USA the same way cricket is in India. How are those nos even relevant.

 

[Aman]

Put the same match in india and not more than 1000 people will come to watch, most odi and t20 matches in india are full houses, Rugby is popular in USA the same way cricket is in India. How are those nos even relevant.

Rugby isn't that popular in USA or England. To do those numbers is seriously impressive. Further proves the biggest draw in rugby trumps the biggest draw in cricket. Fact is, India couldn't draw a dime outside a top 8 nation.

 

[Aman]

Never say never, especially when it comes to growing number of Indian fans worldwide. 2015 WC India vs. SA sold 87K tickets in Aus, more than the Australia-England game.

http://www.mid-day.com/articles/icc...eats-aus-vs-eng-in-attendance-at-mcg/16010156

Outside WCs, India wouldn't draw real big unless they're playing Pakistan (more expat south asians) or Australia (Aussies will show up)

 

[Cricfan4eva]

Yeah exactly BBC aren't showing live games. Sky have been showing cricket for ages now and if it was actually on Channel 4, ITV or BBC for free I'm confident matches would attract large audiences. As for AUS/NZ that's pretty sad nobody knows the tournament is going on there and the fact there teams didn't make the semi final go well with that. The model of selling it simply to Star Sports sounds very bad.

The other option for ICC is sell it country wise and Star will have to pay a significantly less amount yet retain the lions share of viewership under it's umbrella. While ICC raise peanuts from other broadcasters around the world.

 

[Executioner]

Not sure about the numbers but cricket is a dying sport but the blame goes to the format of cricket.

People don't have time to sit for a 7-8 hour long fest. Even yesterday when India where running away with the match I watched a few tv series in between.

Modern era doesn't have time to spend on cricket. 8 hours? That's a tough ask mate

 

[BhayanakMaut]

Cricket needs to fade away and classify itself as obsolete.

OBSOLETE.

That's pretty much the only sport nine out of 10 people from the sub-continent follow

T20 is the only thing that can PROBABLY keep cricket alive in a meaningful manner outside South Asia. In fact, even the new urban generation in India is becoming increasingly distant. I am far more ancient than that, but even I don't give a crap about most bilaterl or tri-nation series even when India is playing.

 

[Napa]

82,000* in London.

61,500 for All Blacks vs USA in Chicago
62,300 for All Blacks vs Ireland in Chicago

India couldn't do those numbers even in their dreams for those markets.

Having lived in the US for 25 years, I can definitely tell you that Rugby is a minor sport here. The 61,500 attendance was likely boosted by very low priced or even free tickets. Frankfurt Galaxy of NFL Europa had an attendance of 33,000 for a game, yet the league was shut down. People attending came more to picnic rather than having any real interest in the game.

 

[Aman]

Not sure about the numbers but cricket is a dying sport but the blame goes to the format of cricket.

People don't have time to sit for a 7-8 hour long fest. Even yesterday when India where running away with the match I watched a few tv series in between.

Modern era doesn't have time to spend on cricket. 8 hours? That's a tough ask mate

Once Indians find another sport, cricket is doomed. They're the only ones keeping it strong, the moment it starts to compete 1 or 2 sports then you will see the sport crumble.

 

[Napa]

Once Indians find another sport, cricket is doomed. They're the only ones keeping it strong, the moment it starts to compete 1 or 2 sports then you will see the sport crumble.

It could happen but unlikely. The most likely replacement is the obvious candidate, football.

Cricket was actually more popular than baseball in the US at one time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cricket_in_the_United_States

 

[zyrus]

Now connect this with Amir Sohail's allegations and you'll know why Pakistan and India were rushed into the finals.

 

[jagatk]

Rugby isn't that popular in USA or England. To do those numbers is seriously impressive. Further proves the biggest draw in rugby trumps the biggest draw in cricket. Fact is, India couldn't draw a dime outside a top 8 nation.

How exactly does it prove anything, India vs WI drew a full house in a country that knows as much about cricket as it does about Kabaddi and before you go into the whole indian expats thing who do you think watched england vs all blacks, it is no wonder that they hosted this game in Chicago a city with huge irish community.

 

[Mlscicfan]

Once Indians find another sport, cricket is doomed. They're the only ones keeping it strong, the moment it starts to compete 1 or 2 sports then you will see the sport crumble.

Why worried about Cricket's survival, we Indians are the biggest followers of cricket and India is one of fast growing economy in the World. Thanks for the concern, Cricket is being played from centuries it survived all odds and will survive many more centuries .. kudos.

Good luck with Rugby... also 9 out of 10 Indians don't know anything about Rugby!

 

[jagatk]

Once Indians find another sport, cricket is doomed. They're the only ones keeping it strong, the moment it starts to compete 1 or 2 sports then you will see the sport crumble.

You have no clue about india, kabaddi league has a decent following and good viewership nos, Kerala Blasters ISL team had an avg attendance of 49-50k per game, that is a team with stars like Aaron Hughes,Graham Stack, Sandesh Jhingan.

 

[Aman]

You have no clue about india, kabaddi league has a decent following and good viewership nos, Kerala Blasters ISL team had an avg attendance of 49-50k per game, that is a team with stars like Aaron Hughes,Graham Stack, Sandesh Jhingan.

You might as well be writing in a different language...

 

[BhayanakMaut]

Why worried about Cricket's survival, we Indians are the biggest followers of cricket and India is one of fast growing economy in the World.

Cricket already has only eight teams (nine if you count WI) competing among themselves time and again for decades. Out of those nine, the popularity of the sport is already in sharp decline in at least 5. India being a fast growing economy or having a huge domestic market can not alone help the sport survive in the long run.

There is no real expansion. With the exception of Bangladesh, no new team has entered the "mainstrem" since forever. Afghanistan may do well in the coming years, but that won't make Cricket a sport with a global following.

Cricket won't die anytime soon. But if **** doesn't improve, it will be losing relevance even faster than it is today.

 

[amvbfm]

The basic idea behind the capital irrelevance theory is that you take an asset (a firm) and break it up in different ways (different owner/capital structures) it doesn't change the total value. This idea has broad applications, including the irrelevance of dividends.

It also applies to the situation here. The ICC has a number of different assets, that is viewership rights for different countries. MM would say that it doesn't matter how ICC packages these for sale, the total value won't change.

I'm sure applying it beyond corporate structure might be possible but doesn't sound terribly convincing or applicable in this particular case (although I accept that this might be due to my ignorance regarding the theory's wider applications and I would be happy to be proven wrong with references). Also given the disproportion in viewership numbers across the cricketing world, selling rights as a bundle must definitely be more lucrative for ICC (and why I think sum of parts won't be the same as total in this case) and which is the reason why some of the boards are considering pooling tv rights for bilateral series.

 

[jagatk]

Cricket already has only eight teams (nine if you count WI) competing among themselves time and again for decades. Out of those nine, the popularity of the sport is already in sharp decline in at least 5. India being a fast growing economy or having a huge domestic market can not alone help the sport survive in the long run.

There is no real expansion. With the exception of Bangladesh, no new team has entered the "mainstrem" since forever. Afghanistan may do well in the coming years, but that won't make Cricket a sport with a global following.

Cricket won't die anytime soon. But if **** doesn't improve, it will be losing relevance even faster than it is today.

Most American sports have little to insignificant market outside usa, i dont see how cricket loses any relevance unless it loses base in india which is highly unlikely.

 

[czar]

Cricket already has only eight teams (nine if you count WI) competing among themselves time and again for decades. Out of those nine, the popularity of the sport is already in sharp decline in at least 5. India being a fast growing economy or having a huge domestic market can not alone help the sport survive in the long run.

There is no real expansion. With the exception of Bangladesh, no new team has entered the "mainstrem" since forever. Afghanistan may do well in the coming years, but that won't make Cricket a sport with a global following.

Cricket won't die anytime soon. But if **** doesn't improve, it will be losing relevance even faster than it is today.

See, Cricket might lose relevance on a Global scale but it can survive very well as a League Sport even if it's confined to one country like India.

Add a couple of more teams and arrange matches only on weekends and run the IPL for 6 months. With no Cricket at all for rest of the 6 months, I don't see why Cricket wouldnt be hit for the said period. It will prosper just as the MLB, American Footballers and Aussie Rules Football does.

A Sport doesn't have to have a Nationalistic following like Football in all countries. Cricket will just be as good in a country of over a Billion.

 

[Mlscicfan]

Cricket already has only eight teams (nine if you count WI) competing among themselves time and again for decades. Out of those nine, the popularity of the sport is already in sharp decline in at least 5. India being a fast growing economy or having a huge domestic market can not alone help the sport survive in the long run.

There is no real expansion. With the exception of Bangladesh, no new team has entered the "mainstrem" since forever. Afghanistan may do well in the coming years, but that won't make Cricket a sport with a global following.

Cricket won't die anytime soon. But if **** doesn't improve, it will be losing relevance even faster than it is today.

IPL is been around from 10 years hugely successful... IPL broadcasters are not worried about outside India viewers for revenue. Like basketball is surviving in US alone, cricket will survive in 8 to 10 countries!

 

[Aman]

Tbf, it would be disastrous for rights holders if the Final ended up being NZ vs SL/WI.

Those matches wouldn't draw a dime.

 

[omcswe]

Tbf, it would be disastrous for rights holders if the Final ended up being NZ vs SL/WI.

Those matches wouldn't draw a dime.

if cricket dies out, it won't be a big deal.

something else will pop up, if not, then still nothing to worry about. it's life, things die, disappear, vanish, and get forgotten but life goes on.

 

[IndYeah1]

The basic idea behind the capital irrelevance theory is that you take an asset (a firm) and break it up in different ways (different owner/capital structures) it doesn't change the total value. This idea has broad applications, including the irrelevance of dividends.

It also applies to the situation here. The ICC has a number of different assets, that is viewership rights for different countries. MM would say that it doesn't matter how ICC packages these for sale, the total value won't change.

Truth bombs shall be ignored while nonsense arguments based on hokey logic that put India/BCCI in a bad light shall be taken as gospel.

 

[Langau]

It's funny, I'll be in Canada on Sunday so I can't even use the Willow TV subscription I have for when I'm in the USA.

[MENTION=132954]Aman[/MENTION] will understand, I'm going to watch the America's Cup if I can't get a feed for the cricket.

That's one sporting event which actually has captivated me this month.

The Auld Mug!

you can watch the final's live streaming on ptv sports official youtube channel

 

[BhayanakMaut]

See, Cricket might lose relevance on a Global scale but it can survive very well as a League Sport even if it's confined to one country like India.

Add a couple of more teams and arrange matches only on weekends and run the IPL for 6 months. With no Cricket at all for rest of the 6 months, I don't see why Cricket wouldnt be hit for the said period. It will prosper just as the MLB, American Footballers and Aussie Rules Football does.

A Sport doesn't have to have a Nationalistic following like Football in all countries. Cricket will just be as good in a country of over a Billion.

Yes, I was referring to its popularity and relevance on a global scale. I didn't say Cricket will die anytime soon. The Indian market is still large enough to accommodate sustainability and self-sufficiency for a few decades at least. That, in turn, will help other boards to fare better than they otherwise would.

Moreover, it's not like India is going to ace any other team sport anytime soon That further strengthens Cricket's grip in the market. Phewww!

But it's hardly a solution if you don't want to see more international teams going down the WI or Zim way.

 

[Napa]

I'm sure applying it beyond corporate structure might be possible but doesn't sound terribly convincing or applicable in this particular case (although I accept that this might be due to my ignorance regarding the theory's wider applications and I would be happy to be proven wrong with references). Also given the disproportion in viewership numbers across the cricketing world, selling rights as a bundle must definitely be more lucrative for ICC (and why I think sum of parts won't be the same as total in this case) and which is the reason why some of the boards are considering pooling tv rights for bilateral series.

A way to think of MM (inspired by the Arrow-Debreu economy) is that all assets (viewership rights) produce certain payoffs in future states of the economy. The value of the assets today is the sum of the state prices today, irrespective of how these assets are parceled off today.

Pooling may produce synergies or may reduce transaction costs. These are not accounted for in the "perfect world assumptions" that are needed for MM. So pooling may cause the pooled costs to be higher. On the other hand transaction costs could also reduce the reduce the total of the pooled value as the buyers may not wish to own some of the assets.

It is quite possible that ICC has non-monetary goals, such as games of the smaller (loss-producing) markets should be televised. In that case it may pool rights even though the pooled price may be the same or lower.

 

[explayer]

almost every asian has got sky sport just to watch CT and that includes myself.and there are millions of asians living in Uk. Article is not correct

 

[Napa]

TV ad rates rocket ahead of India, Pakistan final

The ICC uses a bizarre and idiosyncratic way of selling TV rights for its tournaments.

etc.

Rather than "catastrophic", the TV networks are making hay. According to the Pakistani newspaper Dawn, advertisements are selling for 10 times their usual rate for the final.

Cricket is alive and well, and will continue flourishing in the future.

“India v Pakistan Final... !!!!!!!! All TV execs around the world are now cracking a nice bottle open to celebrate,” tweeted former England captain Michael Vaughan.

https://www.dawn.com/news/1339938/tv-ad-rates-rocket-ahead-of-india-pakistan-final

 

[Madplayer]

There isn't. How's it like in Australia? Don't really see much on Australian sports sites, even a few Australian forums aren't too enthusiastic about it.

Why not? This is the only thing you guys have ever won in cricket and still no interest?

 

[Aman]

Why not? This is the only thing you guys have ever won in cricket and still no interest?

Dwindling interest in the sport + rugby season and America's Cup.

 

[amvbfm]

A way to think of MM (inspired by the Arrow-Debreu economy) is that all assets (viewership rights) produce certain payoffs in future states of the economy. The value of the assets today is the sum of the state prices today, irrespective of how these assets are parceled off today.

Pooling may produce synergies or may reduce transaction costs. These are not accounted for in the "perfect world assumptions" that are needed for MM. So pooling may cause the pooled costs to be higher. On the other hand transaction costs could also reduce the reduce the total of the pooled value as the buyers may not wish to own some of the assets.

It is quite possible that ICC has non-monetary goals, such as games of the smaller (loss-producing) markets should be televised. In that case it may pool rights even though the pooled price may be the same or lower.

Errr if you say so don't think there is a need to complicate it so much. You are over analyzing the issue. Regardless of all those theories, the fact remains that ICC will find it very difficult to sell the rights separately. Having the Indian rights bundled with those of lesser countries gives ICC the leverage for negotiation. Also you are missing the point about pooling. Countries are looking to pool the rights for the same reason to bundle attractive series with ones that broadcasters won't be interested in and thereby getting better bids. Also pooling is being considered by boards for bilateral series to counter the negoatiating power of Indian broadcasters (with Sony's acquisition of Ten Sports the market has become more monopolistic).