What's new

"Greatest problem in world cricket is it is dominated by Australia, India & England" : Ali Bacher

OMB

First Class Captain
Joined
Dec 27, 2010
Runs
4,288
"Greatest problem in world cricket is it is dominated by Australia, India & England" : Ali Bacher

Ali Bacher Interview: The Greatest Problem in World Cricket is it is Dominated by Australia, India and England


Dr. Ali Bacher who played a prominent role in South Africa’s return to international cricket in 1991 with a three-match ODI series at Kolkata, Gwalior, and New Delhi in November 1991, is peeved at what he alleges is the present-day domination of Test cricket matches by India, England, and Australia. “It’s absurd and wrong,” he said in the course of an exclusive interview to News18. Com.

Summing up South Africa’s achievements and setbacks in the last thirty years, the former South Africa captain, a smart administrator who steered the 2003 ICC World Cup in South Africa, promoted Hansie Cronje in a big way, went through the ordeal of facing the music following the ICC ban on Cronje for match-fixing and played his part in bringing about the transformation (integration of black cricketers into the system) at the behest of the African National Congress-led government, believes that different teams have competed well over the last three decades. “But our batting is weak now. We have the fast bowlers,’’ he said during a telephone interview from Johannesburg. He welcomed the push for cricket at the Olympics and said that “Cricket should be a seven-a-side game at the Olympics.’’

Excerpts

It has been almost three decades since South Africa returned to mainstream cricket after the apartheid years ban from 1970 to 1991. How would you sum up South Africa’s performance in this period?

The last three decades, until recently, South African cricket has been really successful. We were isolated from 1970 to 1991, but from the moment we were readmitted into the ICC (as full member) we became a force in World Cricket. There is no question about that. We have produced some great players in the last three decades.

You were primarily responsible for promoting Hansie Cronje as a leader of the South African cricket team soon after the apartheid years. Would you say, the unpleasant events (match-fixing) that shamed Cronje were also its worst in the last thirty years?

Well, it devastated me. When he was in his twenties, I saw him as a very successful South African Test captain in the future. Leaders are born, you cannot make a leader. Hansie Cronje had the leadership qualities. I saw that early on. I motivated him. Some people thought I gave him too much scope to do things on his own. But I thought he was a natural leader.

And when those things arose, I could not believe it. It destroyed him, his family and his friends. It broke the heart of all South Africans because two years before this tragedy, a marketing company researched soccer, tennis rugby, cricket, tennis and with different population groups like whites, Afrikaners, Coloureds, Indians, and Hansie received more support. He became the reflection of the Afrikana in the New South Africa and a very senior figure in South African life.

There was one particular moment that broke my heart and that was when he phoned me. The late Percy Sonn, who was the President of the United Cricket Board South Africa had heard that Hansie was playing cricket on a beach. He went public saying he should even be banned from playing cricket on a beach, he has been banned for life. He phoned me and it broke my heart.

Well, the country went against me. They thought I had not supported him enough. He got banned for life. That was an ICC ruling. Even to this day, there is huge support for Hansie Cronje. He had become a formidable figure in an unusual society.


Does the transformation aspect appear to have affected South African cricket in recent times?

We least talk about it now. When we got back into World cricket in 1991, the cricketers were all whites, because the black cricketers under apartheid, never had the grounds, facilities, and coaches. We continued with whites and maintained a good standard.

When we had unification in the early 1990s, the South African national cricketers were all whites. We went to the World Cup in Australia in 1992 with one black cricketer (Omar Henry). The African National Congress was quite happy believing that it would take time for the changes to take place.

When the West Indies came in 1998-99, South Africa beat them 5-0. The late Steve Tshwete, the then sports minister, phoned me. The ANC was saying to him: “Minister of sports, what’s happening. There are no changes. South African cricket is almost all white.”

Steve came to the Centurion at the conclusion of the last game. I called a meeting of the main Board. And Steve asked where is the transformation?

There were going to be seven ODIs. The selectors had picked fourteen and they picked three additional black players. We beat the West Indies and everybody was happy. I called a team meeting and in a nice way, I told them: “Listen chaps, it’s a new political era. There got to be changes. We cannot progress with an all-white South African team. The ANC will turn against us. So we have to transform. Hansie did not like what I said and he stormed out of the meeting. He went to Bloemfontein and disappeared for three days and reappeared in Johannesburg. Thereafter our relationship was never the same again. He (Cronje) believed that there should have been more adulation because South Africa beat the West Indies 5-0 in the Test series. Fair enough.

But I stand by what I did that day, I did the right thing. I saw the writing on the wall. We had to be part of a new era and we had to face up to it. And we did that. We lost a lot of players. But the standard of cricket in schools is still good. We still have a very strong school cricket. We still continue to produce top-class fast bowlers. We have no problems here. Dale Steyn tells me Kagiso Rabada is our best. But our batting has declined in the last couple of years. We don’t have Jacques Kallis, AB de Villiers, Graham Smith, anymore. So batting is going to be a problem when India’s fast bowlers come here. Our batting is weak. It is just not strong as it used to be.

There have been administrative and governance issues too in recent times?

The leadership of cricket administration in South African cricket has been shambolic. Hardly anybody there knew much about cricket. It’s common knowledge, and I have it from reliable authority that each of national body of 14 members was receiving 150000 to 200000 rand each year to attend meetings. That’s gone now. There is now hope. Our Minister of Sport has created a new structure to administer SA Cricket. It will be headed by two highly respected advocates, Lawson Naidoo and Steven Budlender; both are passionate about the game. They don’t come with any baggage. They are top-class South Africans. They are in charge and I have spoken to them. The other plus is that Andrew Hudson is also on the new board and he will chair the cricket committee. We have good fast bowlers and a new administration. Our problems are going to be our batting.

But Graeme Smith is also part of the administration?

A. His story is extraordinary. He is the only Test captain ever to have led his country in more than a hundred Tests (108). He is new to administration. If he gets around, like I did, highly regarded senior people to advice and counsel him, he will be alright. If he tries to do everything on his own, he is going to run into problems. He is inexperienced in cricket administration. Look, if he is wise enough to get some smart people around him, he will be good.

South Africa had many great bowlers like Allan, Donald, Shaun Pollock, Makhaya Ntini, Dale Steyn and also Morne Morkel. How do you rate the current lot?


In my opinion, the three best South African bowlers are Neil Adcock, Dale Steyn and Allan Donald. And I would rate Steyn as the best of all of them. Steyn was fast, he bowled late away swingers and he knew to reverse swing the ball. And probably the most important thing is that he was a great competitor. At 5 in the afternoon, he would bowl as fast as he did at 10 in the morning. And he says, Kagiso Rabada would be our best fast bowler, not him.

The last 30 years has also seen batsmen like Jacques Kallis, Hashim Amla, Smith, AB de Villiers, Gary Kirsten and Herschelle Gibbs? All fine batsmen. South Africa does not have the same calibre now in batting. Why so?

I cannot answer this question. Watching the England batting against India, apart from Joe Root, the rest are pretty ordinary. We have that problem too. They have Mark Boucher (South Africa’s coach) who has played 147 Tests. He is a tough competitor and mentally tough. He is in charge. Two hours of de Villiers can change a Test match. Smith, as an opener, has a batting average of 49.

South Africa has played 273 Tests and won 131 in the last thirty years. Are you happy with these numbers? It’s almost Even-Stevens with England, but not the same against Australia?

The great Steve Waugh never won a Test series in India. Our team has adapted to conditions in the sub-continent. I think, our team has been better than any of the other non-Asian teams, like Australia, New Zealand, West Indies and England. We have a pretty good record in the sub-continent. That’s a credit to South African cricket. Playing against Australia, there are two aspects to it. In one-day internationals we are on par with Australia (51 wins/48 losses). Generally speaking, Australia is the only team in the last thirty years, that has got the better of us. Australia has had some unbelievable and great cricketers in Steve Waugh; in my opinion he was one of the greatest Test competitors. Then Shane Warne, the greatest leg-spinner of all time. Then Glenn McGrath, one of the greatest fast bowlers of all time; then Ricky Ponting, a great batsman. Australia has had a good run producing some great cricketers. We competed against these people.

South Africa, and you must be looking forward to the India tour in December - January? The tour did not happen last year because of the pandemic.

A. The big problem is that South Africa is going through the peak virus. It’s very strong at the moment in the Cape and Eastern Cape. There is some speculation that there could be a fourth wave at the end of the year. That may become an issue. But if that has to happen, and if the Indians could not come here, there will be serious consequences with South African cricket; for the players, the public and for the country. We need India here because we have a great relationship for the past thirty years. These days, India along with Australia, are the best Test teams in the World. There is no question about that. The reason is that for the first time ever, India has got some damn good fast bowlers.

I am a great admirer of India’s captain, Virat Kohli. He is pushing his players, he is on the ball; and in more than many ways, he reminds me of an Australian, South African! He is confident and he wants India to be successful. I just hope that this virus peters out so that India can come here and we can have a great Test series.

What is your reading of the World cricket now? Test cricket, ODI and Twenty20. In addition, there are the IPL, Big Bash, PSL, CPL and The Hundred now?

The greatest problem in world cricket now is that it is dominated by Australia, India and England. Where else do you find this, England scheduled to play 17 Test matches. This is absurd. Whereas countries like Pakistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka, West Indies are scraping to get a few Test matches. This is wrong. Three countries cannot dominate world cricket. Bangladesh has taken a long time to come through, but they have just beaten Australia 4-1 in the Twenty20 series. You cannot allow the game to be controlled and manipulated by three countries. I am totally opposed to what’s happening in World cricket today.

The game is all about money, and the money is in these leagues. That’s where the sponsors are. That’s where the crowds are and the TV audience. You cannot stop it unfortunately. In five or ten years’ time, people may love Test cricket or not. Who knows? Australia and England will play the Ashes for a hundred years. But what will happen to Test cricket in other parts. You watch the Test matches in the West Indies, there is nobody there. It’s a worrying aspect. The domination by three countries must stop.

Cricket entering the Olympics, what are your thoughts on this?

It’s a great idea. But not eleven-a-side cricket, but like Rugby, seven-a-side. You will get big audiences. Why should it not be seven-a-side. Why not? The Olympics is the world’s biggest sporting event. Why should not cricket be part of it. The rules can be changed; it can be done. Those changes are not insurmountable.
 
Ali Bacher is the most influential cricket administrator of the past 50 years, and he's not saying anything wrong here. However, fixing international cricket can't simply be a matter of blandly stating that the system is broken due to the influence of three countries and needs to change. There need to be realistic solutions on how to go about effecting tangible change.

Unfortunately, Bacher is now too old to lead South African cricket and there is no comparable statesman around that can influence international cricket administration while keeping the traditional countries feeding from his hand. We all know Bacher had to be a genius to have no stigma attached from the rebel tours.
 
new zealand will always be competitive owing to their high levels of professionalism and developed economy, outside of the big 3+ Pakistan is the only country with a population big enough to compete with these 4 teams if test cricket if marketed and developed correctly.

as much as i hate to say it west indies, sri lanka, bangladesh and south africa, for various reasons i dont think will be able to sustain test cricket long term, especially away from home, and you cant blame the big 3 for improving for their inability to compete.

the quality of cricketers that sri lanka, south africa and west indies produce, at test level, has dropped drastically over the last fifteen to twenty years, and bangs golden trio of saqib, mushfiq and tamim will retire with no replacements, which will relegate them to even greater inconsequence at test level kinda like sri lanka without any of the glory years.

just to clarify, if pak let cricket development drift then pak will join that group too.
 
Last edited:
You watch the Test matches in the West Indies, there is nobody there. It’s a worrying aspect. The domination by three countries must stop.
What is he actually trying to say?
 
What is he actually trying to say?

Look at today’s Test!

The West Indian cricket season is March to May, but they are playing this series now because the IPL takes all their players and shamelessly schedules itself in the middle of the West Indian cricket season!
 
Look at today’s Test!

The West Indian cricket season is March to May, but they are playing this series now because the IPL takes all their players and shamelessly schedules itself in the middle of the West Indian cricket season!

How is this related to crowd not turning up for test matches?
 
The other countries not in big 3 have themselves to blame and it's their own responsibility to develop game in their country. These countries have played cricket for 60 to 70 years and due to their unprofessional and lack of planning they are in this state.

You can all day keep blaming big 3 , icc yada yada, but It's all due to their greed and lack of professional they are not able to compete well.
I can remember SL, WI, Pak boards are always in limelight due to pay issues, selection issues, corruption, age fudging etc..
 
This is like saying that the “greatest problem in online retail is it is dominated by Amazon” .. it is what it is …. Sure it impacts some but a large % benefit on balance
 
The other countries not in big 3 have themselves to blame and it's their own responsibility to develop game in their country. These countries have played cricket for 60 to 70 years and due to their unprofessional and lack of planning they are in this state.

You are right. Bacher blames other countries while South Africa selects its team based on race quotas and just recently saw a spate of destructive riots.
 
Yep, BCCI has ruined international cricket, 2 very unlikeable teams and one so and so.
 
Bacher takes the easier way out, not that it was totally unexpected. Would be interesting to know his thoughts about hegemony of England and Australia till 90s.

Someone should tell him CSA is doing a very good job of killing the game themselves in South Africa.
 
Bacher takes the easier way out, not that it was totally unexpected. Would be interesting to know his thoughts about hegemony of England and Australia till 90s.

Someone should tell him CSA is doing a very good job of killing the game themselves in South Africa.

The cricket world was more equal and less political before India joined the ranks of England and Australia. There was racism but I think today with the progress we made, we would be better off without Indian hegemony.
 
The cricket world was more equal and less political before India joined the ranks of England and Australia. There was racism but I think today with the progress we made, we would be better off without Indian hegemony.

I bet you would be chest thumping if it was PCB rather than BCCI.
 
Very good interview and good points raised by him.

I think Adam Bacher was his relative as well who was a very good batter himself.

Cricket is likely going to be dominated by the countries who generate the most amount of money. It's simple as that. Aus, India and Eng are those teams.

Caribbean will still be producing t20 players but I doubt we'll see another Lara or even Chanderpaul for Tests.

SA is going through a crisis with all the transformation and stuff. Even Faf on his way out said that us players have to deal with a lot of outside interference that affects us on and off the field as individuals and as a team.

Pak simply needs to invest in grassroot system and proper channel to develop talent. Once we do that, things will start getting better. And I am not talking about scrapping FC teams. Need more school cricket, university cricket, club cricket, grade 2 and stuff. More stadia should be built in the smaller cities and there should be a lot of investment in northern side of the Pak including KPK and Gilgit Baltistan. I doubt there is any cricket in GB or any stadium. Balochistan is massively lacking in facilities and being ignored since forever. Kashmir has a beautiful stadium in Mirpur and more cricket should be encouraged there with scouts going from clubs to clubs to see talent and scrap useless posts in PCB.
 
The cricket world was more equal and less political before India joined the ranks of England and Australia. There was racism but I think today with the progress we made, we would be better off without Indian hegemony.

ICC had veto before BCCI came in to power. It was BCCI who pushed equality in ICC.
 
ICC had veto before BCCI came in to power. It was BCCI who pushed equality in ICC.

All governing bodies have the veto. It's better for ICC, IOC or FIFA to have veto power than the federation of one country.
 
How is this related to crowd not turning up for test matches?

The West Indian cricket season runs from March to May, before not just the temperature goes up but also the weather turns unpleasantly humid and sweaty, and rainy too.

Traditionally a Kingston Test takes place with the following weather:

1988-89: 28 April - 3 May
West Indies v India, 39 mm rainfall average

1989-90: 24 February - 1 March
West Indies v England, 19 mm rainfall average

Compare with this month's matches - 98 mm rainfall average.

Test matches in the Caribbean were played from March to May for a reason. The Caribbean enters hurricane season from 1 June to November, and attending cricket in the hurricane season is an unpleasant hot, sweaty experience even when there is no hurricane.

But the BCCI desire to avoid playing the IPL in Monsoon Season means that the West Indies now have to schedule their home Test series during their own equivalent of the Monsoon season.

In effect, the West indies Cricket Board has to sacrifice crowds for TV money.
 
But the BCCI desire to avoid playing the IPL in Monsoon Season means that the West Indies now have to schedule their home Test series during their own equivalent of the Monsoon season.

In effect, the West indies Cricket Board has to sacrifice crowds for TV money.

But, but, but... I thought you said the Australian and English players would not be interested in playing in India and the BCCI was living on handouts from Australia and England. How did it suddenly become so powerful that it can decide that it can take away the prime time to play from other cricket boards? Something doesn't compute :)))
 
All governing bodies have the veto. It's better for ICC, IOC or FIFA to have veto power than the federation of one country.

If you prefer veto, then there won't be much to discuss since it is a direct form of dictatorial and most people, who doesn't want to have self identity, will prefer to follow it anyway.

Difference of perception with regards to realization of self worth comes in to play here.
 
But, but, but... I thought you said the Australian and English players would not be interested in playing in India and the BCCI was living on handouts from Australia and England. How did it suddenly become so powerful that it can decide that it can take away the prime time to play from other cricket boards? Something doesn't compute :)))

Er, nope.

The BCCI chronically overspends, so they balance their books by extorting an ever-increasing amount of the ICC's money.

Players from countries like New Zealand, Pakistan, South Africa and the West Indies consequently earn much less money from their Boards - because the BCCI has effectively extorted the money which should have been theirs - and are vulnerable both to IPL approaches and corrupt approaches. If the ICC money was used fairly and equitably they would earn just as much as players from rich countries, just as Luis Suarez from Uruguay earns as much as Alvaro Morata from Spain.

As for players from England and Australia, I said that they would never sign up for a year-round IPL. They are happy to pimp themselves out to play garbage cricket and live in a Covid-infested land for a couple of months per year, but no more.
 
The West Indian cricket season runs from March to May, before not just the temperature goes up but also the weather turns unpleasantly humid and sweaty, and rainy too.

Traditionally a Kingston Test takes place with the following weather:

1988-89: 28 April - 3 May
West Indies v India, 39 mm rainfall average

1989-90: 24 February - 1 March
West Indies v England, 19 mm rainfall average

Compare with this month's matches - 98 mm rainfall average.

Test matches in the Caribbean were played from March to May for a reason. The Caribbean enters hurricane season from 1 June to November, and attending cricket in the hurricane season is an unpleasant hot, sweaty experience even when there is no hurricane.

But the BCCI desire to avoid playing the IPL in Monsoon Season means that the West Indies now have to schedule their home Test series during their own equivalent of the Monsoon season.

In effect, the West indies Cricket Board has to sacrifice crowds for TV money.

Best time to play games in the Carribbean is November to December when temperature is pleasant.
Does not conflict with IPL.
 
Best time to play games in the Carribbean is November to December when temperature is pleasant.
Does not conflict with IPL.

That's the football season. The grounds are generally marked out for football and have goalposts on them.

From club level upwards the same people play football and cricket. They are not going to swap seasons, and there's been no First Class cricket for months by then.

That is definitely never going to happen!
 
Last edited:
Er, nope.

The BCCI chronically overspends, so they balance their books by extorting an ever-increasing amount of the ICC's money.

Amazing... a deadbeat which is able to extort massive amounts of money... if you BCCI's secret you should write a book so that we can all get rich.

They are happy to pimp themselves out to play garbage cricket and live in a Covid-infested land for a couple of months per year, but no more.

At this point top players from all over the world has made clear that their priority is IPL. I am going to keep laughing as the IPL keeps lengthening its season while the whiners keep whining about garbage cricket and extortion.
 
Last edited:
That's the football season. The grounds are generally marked out for football and have goalposts on them.

From club level upwards the same people play football and cricket. They are not going to swap seasons, and there's been no First Class cricket for months by then.

That is definitely never going to happen!

ARG.jpg

Here's the Antigua Recreation Ground in December! Note the cricket scoreboard in the picture.
 
Amazing... a deadbeat which is able to extort massive amounts of money... if you BCCI's secret you should write a book so that we can all get rich.



At this point top players from all over the world has made clear that their priority is IPL. I am going to keep laughing as the IPL keeps lengthening its season while the whiners keep whining about garbage cricket and extortion.

The ICC wants money from Indian TV stations just as FIFA wants money from TV channels in Japan and the USA. So they structure World Cup Qualifying to make it incredibly unlikely that their teams can mess up qualifying.

The difference is that FIFA then distributes its revenue equitably, whereas the ICC ends up giving most of its money to the BCCI.
 
If you prefer veto, then there won't be much to discuss since it is a direct form of dictatorial and most people, who doesn't want to have self identity, will prefer to follow it anyway.

Difference of perception with regards to realization of self worth comes in to play here.

Anyone would prefer the ICC having control over things rather than the BCCI monopolizing world cricket and bringing in their petty biases and political garbage.
 
The difference is that FIFA then distributes its revenue equitably, whereas the ICC ends up giving most of its money to the BCCI.

That's what I was saying. Seems like BCCI has hypnotized ICC to get what is not its due. You should write a book about how it is done :)))
 
Last edited:
Anyone would prefer the ICC having control over things rather than the BCCI monopolizing world cricket and bringing in their petty biases and political garbage.
Yeah, it's pretty evident why you'd want that.
 
The cricket world was more equal and less political before India joined the ranks of England and Australia. There was racism but I think today with the progress we made, we would be better off without Indian hegemony.
Again, it's not too difficult to gauge why you hate India being clubbed with Australia and England as far as calling shots in the cricket world is concerned!

You were happy being ruled by Australia & England but angry when India joined them as a dominant partner!
 
If the ICC money was used fairly and equitably they would earn just as much as players from rich countries, just as Luis Suarez from Uruguay earns as much as Alvaro Morata from Spain.

This does not make sense, Suarez earns 800,000 euro more than Morata and Suarez plays in the Spanish league.

Are you trying to say FIFA allocates the same amount of money to NZ as they allocate to Spain and if they do not then why?.
 
This does not make sense, Suarez earns 800,000 euro more than Morata and Suarez plays in the Spanish league.

Are you trying to say FIFA allocates the same amount of money to NZ as they allocate to Spain and if they do not then why?.

Uruguay with a population of 3 million (and whose TV stations pay FIFA 5% of what Spain's TV stations pay FIFA for TV rights) was allocated more money from FIFA than Spain (population 47 million) in the last 4 years.

It is purely based upon:

1. Performance in the FIFA World Cup.
2. Extra payments for poorer national federations.

NZ did not reach the last World Cup, so FIFA gave them less money than Spain.

But Uruguay got more FIFA money in the last 4 year cycle than Germany (population 80 million).
 
Uruguay with a population of 3 million (and whose TV stations pay FIFA 5% of what Spain's TV stations pay FIFA for TV rights) was allocated more money from FIFA than Spain (population 47 million) in the last 4 years.

It is purely based upon:

1. Performance in the FIFA World Cup.
2. Extra payments for poorer national federations.

NZ did not reach the last World Cup, so FIFA gave them less money than Spain.

But Uruguay got more FIFA money in the last 4 year cycle than Germany (population 80 million).

Just to be clear about how the FIFA model would work in cricket.

FIFA would say that India has plenty of TV income from its own TV deals. So FIFA would divide up the FIFA revenue pot as follows:

1. 10% of surplus given to minor (non-Test) nations.
2. 20% of surplus reserved for prize money at World Cup, World Test Championship and World T20.
3. 20% of surplus reserved for the four Full Members with the lowest total revenue (Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, West Indies given 5% each.)
4. 50% of surplus distributed between the 10 Full Member countries, each receiving 5%.

So under the FIFA model:

10% of surplus given to Zimbabwe
10% of surplus given to West Indies
10% given to Bangladesh
10% given to Sri Lanka
5% given to Australia
5% given to England
5% given to South Africa
5% given to India
5% given to Pakistan
5% given to New Zealand
4% prize money for each of 2 World Test Championships
3% prize money for each of 2 World T20s
4% prize money for 50 over World Cup
2% prize money for Champions Trophy

And the prize money is not Winner Takes All.

So there would be no way - even if they won every ICC trophy - that India could end up with more than 10% of ICC profits. And if they won no ICC trophies they would end up with 5%.
 
Uruguay with a population of 3 million (and whose TV stations pay FIFA 5% of what Spain's TV stations pay FIFA for TV rights) was allocated more money from FIFA than Spain (population 47 million) in the last 4 years.

It is purely based upon:

1. Performance in the FIFA World Cup.
2. Extra payments for poorer national federations.

NZ did not reach the last World Cup, so FIFA gave them less money than Spain.

But Uruguay got more FIFA money in the last 4 year cycle than Germany (population 80 million).

You still dont make sense, Australia are ranked higher in world soccer than Scotland, Russia, Norway, Turkey, Venezuela, Ireland and Greece so they get more funding from FIFA, is that how it works?.
 
Just to be clear about how the FIFA model would work in cricket.

FIFA would say that India has plenty of TV income from its own TV deals. So FIFA would divide up the FIFA revenue pot as follows:

1. 10% of surplus given to minor (non-Test) nations.
2. 20% of surplus reserved for prize money at World Cup, World Test Championship and World T20.
3. 20% of surplus reserved for the four Full Members with the lowest total revenue (Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, West Indies given 5% each.)
4. 50% of surplus distributed between the 10 Full Member countries, each receiving 5%.

So under the FIFA model:

10% of surplus given to Zimbabwe
10% of surplus given to West Indies
10% given to Bangladesh
10% given to Sri Lanka
5% given to Australia
5% given to England
5% given to South Africa
5% given to India
5% given to Pakistan
5% given to New Zealand
4% prize money for each of 2 World Test Championships
3% prize money for each of 2 World T20s
4% prize money for 50 over World Cup
2% prize money for Champions Trophy

And the prize money is not Winner Takes All.

So there would be no way - even if they won every ICC trophy - that India could end up with more than 10% of ICC profits. And if they won no ICC trophies they would end up with 5%.

Are we going football model of sport? I'm down. Only one ICC event per 4 year. Year round domestic cricket and no bilateral cricket.
 
You still dont make sense, Australia are ranked higher in world soccer than Scotland, Russia, Norway, Turkey, Venezuela, Ireland and Greece so they get more funding from FIFA, is that how it works?.

Yes, in the last 4 year cycle Australia got more than Scotland, Norway, Turkey, Venezuela, Ireland and Greece from FIFA because they reached the First Round of the Men's World Cup.

Richer federations don't get given more FIFA money than poorer federations - they get given LESS. (In 2019, $150 million was divided up between 211 national federations).

And the only way to top it up is by doing well in FIFA tournaments.

And even then the money is not divided as you might expect.

At the 2018 World Cup:

Winner $38 million - France
Runner-up $28 million - Croatia
Third place $24 million - Belgium
Fourth Place $22 million - England
Losing Quarter Finalists $16 million each - Uruguay, Brazil, Russia, Sweden
Round of Eighteen losers $12 million each
First Round eliminees $8 million each

So Uruguay got twice as much FIFA money as Germany.

And Australia got more FIFA money in the last four year cycle than Italy did.

That's why the Big Three model is so disgraceful.

They are the 3 Boards which should get the least ICC money, indeed should only really get ICC money in the form of prize money.

But India actually extorts the majority of the ICC's surplus from it. Yet still, in August 2020, the BCCI had mismanaged its funds so badly and was so insolvent that it hadn't paid its mens' national team players for 10 months!
 
Last edited:
Yeah, it's pretty evident why you'd want that.

Again, it's not too difficult to gauge why you hate India being clubbed with Australia and England as far as calling shots in the cricket world is concerned!

You were happy being ruled by Australia & England but angry when India joined them as a dominant partner!
If you had any sense of awareness you'd realize England and Australia don't legislate policies against Pakistan cricket, they don't lobby against Pakistan cricket and try to isolate it and neither do they discriminate based off national origin on who plays in their leagues so yes of course any Pakistani would prefer a more impartial and apolitical ECB and CA ruling world cricket than the petty BCCI which has politicized world cricket and brought in their infantile prejudices.
 
Yes, in the last 4 year cycle Australia got more than Scotland, Norway, Turkey, Venezuela, Ireland and Greece from FIFA because they reached the First Round of the Men's World Cup.

Richer federations don't get given more FIFA money than poorer federations - they get given LESS. (In 2019, $150 million was divided up between 211 national federations).

And the only way to top it up is by doing well in FIFA tournaments.

And even then the money is not divided as you might expect.

At the 2018 World Cup:

Winner $38 million - France
Runner-up $28 million - Croatia
Third place $24 million - Belgium
Fourth Place $22 million - England
Losing Quarter Finalists $16 million each - Uruguay, Brazil, Russia, Sweden
Round of Eighteen losers $12 million each
First Round eliminees $8 million each

So Uruguay got twice as much FIFA money as Germany.

And Australia got more FIFA money in the last four year cycle than Italy did.

That's why the Big Three model is so disgraceful.

They are the 3 Boards which should get the least ICC money, indeed should only really get ICC money in the form of prize money.

But India actually extorts the majority of the ICC's surplus from it. Yet still, in August 2020, the BCCI had mismanaged its funds so badly and was so insolvent that it hadn't paid its mens' national team players for 10 months!

I dont know where you get your facts from, just as an example FIFA gave Brazil $100mil so you tell me how much FIFA gave the poorer countries.
 
If you had any sense of awareness you'd realize England and Australia don't legislate policies against Pakistan cricket, they don't lobby against Pakistan cricket and try to isolate it and neither do they discriminate based off national origin on who plays in their leagues so yes of course any Pakistani would prefer a more impartial and apolitical ECB and CA ruling world cricket than the petty BCCI which has politicized world cricket and brought in their infantile prejudices.
And if you didn't have a memory of a goldfish, you'd remember who started it all. Don't want to get into it, its been done to death so many times.

Btw, what was it that dictated England not playing Zimbabwe? Morals? Ethics?
 
All governing bodies have the veto. It's better for ICC, IOC or FIFA to have veto power than the federation of one country.

England and Australia had veto in ICC. It was BCCI that got it removed. At least all boards have equal votes in ICC today.

The problem for some pakistanis is

1. Its an Indian board that is leading world cricket.

2. PCB cant do jack to BCCI.

3. While the world plays IPL, pakistanis dont.
 
If you had any sense of awareness you'd realize England and Australia don't legislate policies against Pakistan cricket, they don't lobby against Pakistan cricket and try to isolate it and neither do they discriminate based off national origin on who plays in their leagues so yes of course any Pakistani would prefer a more impartial and apolitical ECB and CA ruling world cricket than the petty BCCI which has politicized world cricket and brought in their infantile prejudices.

Australia and England refused to play Zimbabwe for years.

Pakistanis are not eligible to get work visas in India. Thats a government policy and BCCI cannot change that.

BCCI has not stopped anyone from doing any deals with pcb or pakistan. BCCI has the right to decide who plays for them and who doesn't.

Why should a pakistani get to play in India and earn money? So that tommorow he can return to pakistan and support the secessionist movement in Kashmir and bad mouth India. So that he can call people who have been designated terrorists in India as freedom fighters. India is better off without such people.
 
Just to be clear about how the FIFA model would work in cricket.

FIFA would say that India has plenty of TV income from its own TV deals. So FIFA would divide up the FIFA revenue pot as follows:

1. 10% of surplus given to minor (non-Test) nations.
2. 20% of surplus reserved for prize money at World Cup, World Test Championship and World T20.
3. 20% of surplus reserved for the four Full Members with the lowest total revenue (Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, West Indies given 5% each.)
4. 50% of surplus distributed between the 10 Full Member countries, each receiving 5%.

So under the FIFA model:

10% of surplus given to Zimbabwe
10% of surplus given to West Indies
10% given to Bangladesh
10% given to Sri Lanka
5% given to Australia
5% given to England
5% given to South Africa
5% given to India
5% given to Pakistan
5% given to New Zealand
4% prize money for each of 2 World Test Championships
3% prize money for each of 2 World T20s
4% prize money for 50 over World Cup
2% prize money for Champions Trophy

And the prize money is not Winner Takes All.

So there would be no way - even if they won every ICC trophy - that India could end up with more than 10% of ICC profits. And if they won no ICC trophies they would end up with 5%.

Your fantasies about 5% and 10% are very amusing, but why would BCCI accept the FIFA model for cricket?

Why should BCCI abandon market principles which dictate that the country producing revenues should get a proportionate amount?

Is FIFA some ideal to be emulated? Maybe so if you think corruption is a wonderful thing :)))

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_FIFA_corruption_case
 
Your fantasies about 5% and 10% are very amusing, but why would BCCI accept the FIFA model for cricket?

Why should BCCI abandon market principles which dictate that the country producing revenues should get a proportionate amount?

Is FIFA some ideal to be emulated? Maybe so if you think corruption is a wonderful thing :)))

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_FIFA_corruption_case

This model does not reflect FIFA and is false.
 
England and Australia had veto in ICC. It was BCCI that got it removed. At least all boards have equal votes in ICC today.

The problem for some pakistanis is

1. Its an Indian board that is leading world cricket.

2. PCB cant do jack to BCCI.

3. While the world plays IPL, pakistanis dont.

4. Given the size of the population and the popularity of the sport, Pakistan should have had as much clout in the ICC as the big three. They don't and only have themselves to blame.
 
I dont know where you get your facts from, just as an example FIFA gave Brazil $100mil so you tell me how much FIFA gave the poorer countries.

You know that that's a misleading comment.

FIFA paid $100 million to the Brazilian FA in 2015 as a one-off payment for staging the FIFA World Cup the previous year. That money came from the "2014 FIFA World Cup Legacy Fund".

By way of contrast, the BCCI in 2017 extorted the ICC to pay it $293 million while almost every other Full Member received $132 million.

Until the Big Three, the ICC disbursed its money like every other international sporting authority - equal payments to all member associations, plus prize money to be earned.

Even Blin Freddie can see that the ICC has just become a cartel whereby the Big Three divert money from poorer boards to themselves, then share out hosting rights or every international tournament amongst themselves to complete the Reverse Robin Hood model.

Reverse Robin Hood, whereby the rich steal from the poor to make themselves even richer.
 
4. Given the size of the population and the popularity of the sport, Pakistan should have had as much clout in the ICC as the big three. They don't and only have themselves to blame.

To be fair, the "host keeps the TV revenue" model of revenue for Test and white ball bilateral series means that if India didn't have a BJP government, the PCB would be the second richest board.

India and Pakistan would presumably host one another in white ball series in each country each year, and in Test series every 4 years. And the Indian TV networks would pay squillions for the rights for the 50% of those series which would be played in Pakistan.

I must admit that that part of the story is actually rather hilarious for a neutral like myself. If India and Pakistan were playing regular bilateral series again the PCB would be richer than the ECB, and the BCCI would be far richer than it actually is.

In effect, we have a situation in which India forgoes quite a lot of money at cricket board level in order to ensure that Pakistan stays poor and weak. It's imbecilic and moronic, but it is rather funny.
 
To be fair, the "host keeps the TV revenue" model of revenue for Test and white ball bilateral series means that if India didn't have a BJP government, the PCB would be the second richest board.

India and Pakistan would presumably host one another in white ball series in each country each year, and in Test series every 4 years. And the Indian TV networks would pay squillions for the rights for the 50% of those series which would be played in Pakistan.

I must admit that that part of the story is actually rather hilarious for a neutral like myself. If India and Pakistan were playing regular bilateral series again the PCB would be richer than the ECB, and the BCCI would be far richer than it actually is.

In effect, we have a situation in which India forgoes quite a lot of money at cricket board level in order to ensure that Pakistan stays poor and weak. It's imbecilic and moronic, but it is rather funny.

Cricket matches were stopped by the previous government. And no government is going to start it unless they want to get a bashing in the media and losers the next elections.

BCCI doesn't need a pakistan series. They get paid on per match basis. $8mn per match. Opposition may be England or Pakistan or anyone else. Bcci gets their money.

ECB makes in excess of a billion dollars from its tv rights.

CA makes close to a billion dollars.

PCB said they will make 200mn. Which they most likely won't. So India tours or no tours pcb will not surpass ECB or CA. The economy of pakistan is not even 300bn.
 
To be fair, the "host keeps the TV revenue" model of revenue for Test and white ball bilateral series means that if India didn't have a BJP government, the PCB would be the second richest board.

India and Pakistan would presumably host one another in white ball series in each country each year, and in Test series every 4 years. And the Indian TV networks would pay squillions for the rights for the 50% of those series which would be played in Pakistan.

I must admit that that part of the story is actually rather hilarious for a neutral like myself. If India and Pakistan were playing regular bilateral series again the PCB would be richer than the ECB, and the BCCI would be far richer than it actually is.

In effect, we have a situation in which India forgoes quite a lot of money at cricket board level in order to ensure that Pakistan stays poor and weak. It's imbecilic and moronic, but it is rather funny.

Rather than point fingers at other governments, do it at your government for creating such a negative image of country. Pakistan and India playing regularly was in doubt from 2005 itself, not 10 years after current government came in
 
Rather than point fingers at other governments, do it at your government for creating such a negative image of country. Pakistan and India playing regularly was in doubt from 2005 itself, not 10 years after current government came in
Do you mean BoJo (my birth country, the UK) or ScoMo (my residence, Australia).

I’m not aware of either banning their national teams from playing against their neighbours. Is the UK boycotting Ireland (I wouldn’t like that) or France (on the other hand……).
 
With regards to the OP. well its true. Cricket is being systematically degarded to create a brahmin class where the brahmins play the most and make the most while the rest are given a lower status and provided peanuts.,

Every society when it gains prominence tries to govern in its own image. We had the colonial white mentality in the early 20th century with the rebels from the west indies and pakistan disrupting that process. Now we have the Brahmins and Jagga Seths in charge. Expect this to get worse..
 
Stick to cricket and the topic here please.
Taliban and Afghanistan thread may be found in the Time Pass forums
 
Back
Top