What's new

ICC agrees new constitution and financial model in Dubai meeting

MenInG

PakPassion Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Runs
217,977
REVISED FINANCIAL MODEL PASSED AND NEW CONSTITUTION AGREED AND WILL NOW GO BEFORE ICC FULL COUNCIL

The International Cricket Council (ICC) concluded five days of Board and Committee meetings in Dubai with a number of decisions passed, including a revised financial model. In addition, agreement on a new constitution to be put before the ICC Full Council was also reached.

With a Board meeting, Chief Executives’ Committee, Development Committee, Audit Committee, Financial and Commercial Affairs Committee and Women’s Committee and Forum, it was a full week of meetings.

Governance and Financial Model

Following the decision in February 2017 to reverse the 2014 resolutions, a revised financial model was presented to the Board and passed. The Board appointed a working group which proposed the model has continued to be guided by the following principles:

· Equity

· Good conscience

· Common sense and simplicity

· Enabling every Member to grow

· Revenue generated by Members

· Greater transparency

· Recognition of interdependency amongst Members, that cricket playing nations need each other and the more strong nations there are, the better for the sport

As such the revenue distribution for the cycle 2016-2023 will be as follows:

Based on current forecasted revenues and costs, BCCI will receive $293m across the eight year cycle, ECB $143m, Zimbabwe Cricket $94m and the remaining seven Full Members $132m each. Associate Members will receive funding of $280m. This model was passed 13 votes to one.

A revised constitution was also approved by 12 votes to two. This takes into account the Board’s feedback following extensive discussion at the February meeting and further input from the working group. It will now be presented to the ICC Full Council in June for adoption. The constitution reflects good governance, expands on and clarifies the roles and objectives of the ICC to provide leadership in international cricket. Further constitutional changes proposed include:

o The potential to include additional Full Members in the future subject to meeting Membership criteria

o Removal of the Affiliate level of Membership so only two categories; Full Member and Associate Member

o The introduction of an independent female director

o The introduction of Membership criteria and a Membership Committee established to consider membership applications

o The introduction of a Deputy Chairman of the Board who will be a sitting director elected by the Board to stand in for the Chairman in the event that he or she is unable to fulfil their duties

o Equal weight of votes for all Board Members regardless of Membership status

o All Members to be entitled to attend the AGM

Under the revised version that will be presented to the Annual Conference and in an effort to support existing Full Members, the potential for reclassification of Full Membership was removed. The Board acknowledged the need to sustain and grow the number of members competing at the top level.

ICC Chairman Shashank Manohar said: “This is another step forward for world cricket and I look forward to concluding the work at the Annual Conference. I am confident we can provide a strong foundation for the sport to grow and improve globally in the future through the adoption of the revised financial model and governance structure.”

Other decisions of note also include:

Cricket

· Work on bringing more context to international bilateral cricket is ongoing with the matter discussed at the Chief Executives’ Committee and in an additional workshop. The ICC Board noted the collective will to resolve the current calendar congestion in order to bring a clear framework to all three formats.

· The ICC Board has considered an update following the ICC delegation to the PSL final in Lahore as part of its commitment to support the return of international bilateral cricket to Pakistan as long as it is safe for players, officials, media and fans.

· The feasibility of further matches in Pakistan involving a World XI is now being considered from a security and budget perspective.


· The eight top ranked ODI teams competing in the second edition of the Women’s Championship commencing later this year, will be required to play a fixed set of three ODI fixtures against each of the other teams. The Women’s Committee has also recommended that any additional matches played (up to five) should be T20Is in recognition of the role the format can play in the growth of the game.

· It was agreed that a separate rankings system for Women’s ODI and T20I cricket be developed with the latter being fully inclusive of all international teams playing that format.

It was agreed that DRS can be used in women’s televised bilateral ODIs if host Member boards choose to do so.
Development

· The principles behind a revised ICC World T20 2020 global qualification structure were endorsed by the Development Committee and ICC management will now develop a more detailed proposal for consideration at the ICC Board in June.

· Following consideration of a report on ICC activities in China, the Board agreed to the development of a detailed China Growth Strategy for consideration by the ICC Board in June in consultation with the Asian Cricket Council and Hong Kong Cricket Association.

· The ICC Board also agreed to a recommendation from the Development Committee to pay the outstanding salaries to national contracted players whilst the Cricket Association of Nepal is suspended and undergoing constitutional reform and reinstatement process.


Governance

· The ICC Board, on the recommendation of the Audit Committee and Financial and Commercial Affairs Committee approved the unqualified audited financial statements for the year ending 31 December 2016.

· The Board approved a new Code of Ethics in line with global best practice to join together most effective practices from sport and other industry.

· Noting the BCCI’s commitment to reconsidering the matter in the near future, the Chief Executives’ Committee reconfirmed its support for cricket’s inclusion in the Olympics.

ICC Chief Executive David Richardson said: “It has been a very productive week. Progress has been made on a number of significant issues, in particular around international cricket structures. Efforts to find a solution, enhancing the context of international bilateral cricket and retaining the relevance of the international game, will continue.”
 
Shashank monohar would be remembered for his revolutionary works for ever by all cricket playing nations (may be except ind)
 
Now icc needs to find a way to extend times of bilateral series by reducing all Mickey Mouse T20 leagues and reducing all test series to maximum 3 tests series. 4/5/7 test series should be banned.
 
BCCI has received an appropriate reward for failing to honour the multiple MOUs they made in order to form the BIG 3. The other boards shouldn't have agreed to those MOUs in the first place (Pakistan didn't until it virtually had no choice). They realized later that the BCCI was using dirty negotiation tactics and making promises they never intended to fulfil.

I have a tremendous amount of respect for Shashank Manohar - the sensible man who has humbled his arrogant cricket board and many arrogant fans.
 
Last edited:
We 6.5 times more population than Pakistan or Bangla and getting only 2 times more money? How game will be developed in India then?
 
We 6.5 times more population than Pakistan or Bangla and getting only 2 times more money? How game will be developed in India then?

This is ICC's "common sense" and "good conscience". Forget Pak/Bangla, things become even more ridiculous when Ireland and Afganistan walk away with $110 million.
 
This is ICC's "common sense" and "good conscience". Forget Pak/Bangla, things become even more ridiculous when Ireland and Afganistan walk away with $110 million.
Afghans need more money for their cricketing infrastructures and other developments than india where everything is already established.
 
We 6.5 times more population than Pakistan or Bangla and getting only 2 times more money? How game will be developed in India then?

This is basically vote buying.Cut BCCI's share,give it to other boards and get their votes.Simple.Point is if BCCI withdraws then revenues will fall,where will they get the money to buy the votes.
 
Afghans need more money for their cricketing infrastructures and other developments than india where everything is already established.

Not at all. India isn't just Delhi or Maharashtra. My home state has Cricket crazy population and the infrastructure is non-existent. And mine isn't the only state, there are several more.

BCCI hasn't even reached closed to realizing India's potential, and ICC wants to end that expansion just because you have 200 Irish people who care about Cricket?
 
This is basically vote buying.Cut BCCI's share,give it to other boards and get their votes.Simple.Point is if BCCI withdraws then revenues will fall,where will they get the money to buy the votes.

Then maybe BCCI should do that.
 
Shashank monohar would be remembered for his revolutionary works for ever by all cricket playing nations (may be except ind)

He won't be remembered by anyone,he is mistaken if he thinks so, look at Dalmiya people don't remember him much in India ,only the hardcore cricket fans would remember such stuff.
 
Afghans need more money for their cricketing infrastructures and other developments than india where everything is already established.

But let them take that from Pak/Bangla share why from India which has to ctaer to more than Billion people?

Both Pakistan & Bangla take less than 100 million then its easier to give same amount of money to Afgnaistan & Ireland , even Netherlands can be give some amount.
 
BCCI has received an appropriate reward for failing to honour the multiple MOUs they made in order to form the BIG 3. The other boards shouldn't have agreed to those MOUs in the first place (Pakistan didn't until it virtually had no choice). They realized later that the BCCI was using dirty negotiation tactics and making promises they never intended to fulfil.

I have a tremendous amount of respect for Shashank Manohar - the sensible man who has humbled his arrogant cricket board and many arrogant fans.

Think we fulfilled it with others, remember touring Zim as well.
 
Then maybe BCCI should do that.

They can.Problem is that some of the members are not sure whether the BCCI will be able to fulfill the promise as the power is now divided between the BCCI officials and the CoA.Earlier whatever the BCCI official said would be the final say.
 
i guess bcci now knows how every other nation felt when they were pulling and bullying few years back.

No 1 should be allowed to bully the other.
 
Wondering what Australia/England would have done if they would have been in place of India.
 
Yes, to start with, BCCI should withdraw from the Champions trophy. It's been a real long season for Indian cricketers, they thoroughly deserve a very long break.
 
Now icc needs to find a way to extend times of bilateral series by reducing all Mickey Mouse T20 leagues and reducing all test series to maximum 3 tests series. 4/5/7 test series should be banned.

Why? The Ashes is such a huge financial boost to the ECB and CA there is no chance of this happening. Plus, I would not want it too either.

I do however believe that 3 tests should be the MINIMUM played, none of this 2 test or 1 test match nonsense.

Also, there needs to be new stipulation that the test nations at the very least need to play each other, home and away over this current financial model at least once. If any of the teams refuses, then they must pay up a fine, which should be agreed upon beforehand.
 
Yes, to start with, BCCI should withdraw from the Champions trophy. It's been a real long season for Indian cricketers, they thoroughly deserve a very long break.

Better still, why not just stay away from the wc 2019 and only play IPL. I for one believe they should not have to play cricket outside of the arduous IPL.
 
We 6.5 times more population than Pakistan or Bangla and getting only 2 times more money? How game will be developed in India then?

Use some of that 500 million$ of annual BCCI revenue, instead of crying for 30 million$ a year from ICC events that can be used to spread cricket in Afg and Ire.....
 
This is basically vote buying.Cut BCCI's share,give it to other boards and get their votes.Simple.Point is if BCCI withdraws then revenues will fall,where will they get the money to buy the votes.

Cut BCCI's share which they earned with unfair Big 3 model.... Nobody is stealing your money, you broke cricket in 2014...
 
We 6.5 times more population than Pakistan or Bangla and getting only 2 times more money? How game will be developed in India then?

This is ICC's "common sense" and "good conscience". Forget Pak/Bangla, things become even more ridiculous when Ireland and Afganistan walk away with $110 million.

Nobody is stopping you from using your other 96.5% lol
 
Use some of that 500 million$ of annual BCCI revenue, instead of crying for 30 million$ a year from ICC events that can be used to spread cricket in Afg and Ire.....

Since BCCI earns more money because of its efficiency screw BCCI.This is not socialism.
 
REVISED FINANCIAL MODEL PASSED AND NEW CONSTITUTION AGREED AND WILL NOW GO BEFORE ICC FULL COUNCIL

The International Cricket Council (ICC) concluded five days of Board and Committee meetings in Dubai with a number of decisions passed, including a revised financial model. In addition, agreement on a new constitution to be put before the ICC Full Council was also reached.

With a Board meeting, Chief Executives’ Committee, Development Committee, Audit Committee, Financial and Commercial Affairs Committee and Women’s Committee and Forum, it was a full week of meetings.

Governance and Financial Model

Following the decision in February 2017 to reverse the 2014 resolutions, a revised financial model was presented to the Board and passed. The Board appointed a working group which proposed the model has continued to be guided by the following principles:

· Equity

· Good conscience

· Common sense and simplicity

· Enabling every Member to grow

· Revenue generated by Members

· Greater transparency

· Recognition of interdependency amongst Members, that cricket playing nations need each other and the more strong nations there are, the better for the sport

As such the revenue distribution for the cycle 2016-2023 will be as follows:

Based on current forecasted revenues and costs, BCCI will receive $293m across the eight year cycle, ECB $143m, Zimbabwe Cricket $94m and the remaining seven Full Members $132m each. Associate Members will receive funding of $280m. This model was passed 13 votes to one.

A revised constitution was also approved by 12 votes to two. This takes into account the Board’s feedback following extensive discussion at the February meeting and further input from the working group. It will now be presented to the ICC Full Council in June for adoption. The constitution reflects good governance, expands on and clarifies the roles and objectives of the ICC to provide leadership in international cricket. Further constitutional changes proposed include:

o The potential to include additional Full Members in the future subject to meeting Membership criteria

o Removal of the Affiliate level of Membership so only two categories; Full Member and Associate Member

o The introduction of an independent female director

o The introduction of Membership criteria and a Membership Committee established to consider membership applications

o The introduction of a Deputy Chairman of the Board who will be a sitting director elected by the Board to stand in for the Chairman in the event that he or she is unable to fulfil their duties

o Equal weight of votes for all Board Members regardless of Membership status

o All Members to be entitled to attend the AGM

Under the revised version that will be presented to the Annual Conference and in an effort to support existing Full Members, the potential for reclassification of Full Membership was removed. The Board acknowledged the need to sustain and grow the number of members competing at the top level.

ICC Chairman Shashank Manohar said: “This is another step forward for world cricket and I look forward to concluding the work at the Annual Conference. I am confident we can provide a strong foundation for the sport to grow and improve globally in the future through the adoption of the revised financial model and governance structure.”

Other decisions of note also include:

Cricket

· Work on bringing more context to international bilateral cricket is ongoing with the matter discussed at the Chief Executives’ Committee and in an additional workshop. The ICC Board noted the collective will to resolve the current calendar congestion in order to bring a clear framework to all three formats.

· The ICC Board has considered an update following the ICC delegation to the PSL final in Lahore as part of its commitment to support the return of international bilateral cricket to Pakistan as long as it is safe for players, officials, media and fans.

· The feasibility of further matches in Pakistan involving a World XI is now being considered from a security and budget perspective.


· The eight top ranked ODI teams competing in the second edition of the Women’s Championship commencing later this year, will be required to play a fixed set of three ODI fixtures against each of the other teams. The Women’s Committee has also recommended that any additional matches played (up to five) should be T20Is in recognition of the role the format can play in the growth of the game.

· It was agreed that a separate rankings system for Women’s ODI and T20I cricket be developed with the latter being fully inclusive of all international teams playing that format.

It was agreed that DRS can be used in women’s televised bilateral ODIs if host Member boards choose to do so.
Development

· The principles behind a revised ICC World T20 2020 global qualification structure were endorsed by the Development Committee and ICC management will now develop a more detailed proposal for consideration at the ICC Board in June.

· Following consideration of a report on ICC activities in China, the Board agreed to the development of a detailed China Growth Strategy for consideration by the ICC Board in June in consultation with the Asian Cricket Council and Hong Kong Cricket Association.

· The ICC Board also agreed to a recommendation from the Development Committee to pay the outstanding salaries to national contracted players whilst the Cricket Association of Nepal is suspended and undergoing constitutional reform and reinstatement process.


Governance

· The ICC Board, on the recommendation of the Audit Committee and Financial and Commercial Affairs Committee approved the unqualified audited financial statements for the year ending 31 December 2016.

· The Board approved a new Code of Ethics in line with global best practice to join together most effective practices from sport and other industry.

· Noting the BCCI’s commitment to reconsidering the matter in the near future, the Chief Executives’ Committee reconfirmed its support for cricket’s inclusion in the Olympics.

ICC Chief Executive David Richardson said: “It has been a very productive week. Progress has been made on a number of significant issues, in particular around international cricket structures. Efforts to find a solution, enhancing the context of international bilateral cricket and retaining the relevance of the international game, will continue.”

· The feasibility of further matches in Pakistan involving a World XI is now being considered from a security and budget perspective.

Superb news!
 
Now icc needs to find a way to extend times of bilateral series by reducing all Mickey Mouse T20 leagues and reducing all test series to maximum 3 tests series. 4/5/7 test series should be banned.

Can't believe I am going to say this, but I agree with Nil. :))
 
Since BCCI earns more money because of its efficiency screw BCCI.This is not socialism.

It is..... ICC is not a business (nor BCCI for that matter), their objective is the health of cricket in world and in India respectively.....

The difference is that BCCI has become greedy and can't see how this money will help cricket India grow.... Already you can see how having Rashid Khan playing in IPL is good.... 10 years ago, there was no Afghanistan player.... Imagine in 20-30 years when Afghanistan is touring India how much money you can earn.... But BCCI is being short-sighted!!!
 
This is ICC's "common sense" and "good conscience". Forget Pak/Bangla, things become even more ridiculous when Ireland and Afganistan walk away with $110 million.

We are losing 3.5% of our total income. For teams like Afghanistan and Ireland that's a big step. We can always increase ticket prices, advertisement charges and make up for the loss. No point in crying over a small amount of our total income.
 
It is..... ICC is not a business (nor BCCI for that matter), their objective is the health of cricket in world and in India respectively.....

The difference is that BCCI has become greedy and can't see how this money will help cricket India grow.... Already you can see how having Rashid Khan playing in IPL is good.... 10 years ago, there was no Afghanistan player.... Imagine in 20-30 years when Afghanistan is touring India how much money you can earn.... But BCCI is being short-sighted!!!

ICC didn't help Afghanistan, it was their government who helped them. ICC can go jump in a lake if they think they helped Afghanistan become a decent side.
 
We are losing 3.5% of our total income. For teams like Afghanistan and Ireland that's a big step. We can always increase ticket prices, advertisement charges and make up for the loss. No point in crying over a small amount of our total income.

The crying here isn't just for money, but also for transparency in the distribution methodology used. BCCI's revenues being cut to half while ECB's remaining the same does deserve some explaining. ICC messed up by not collaborating with BCCI here, together they could have worked something out. But instead, they chose to keep BCCI in dark, almost in a challenging manner.
 
The crying here isn't just for money, but also for transparency in the distribution methodology used. BCCI's revenues being cut to half while ECB's remaining the same does deserve some explaining. ICC messed up by not collaborating with BCCI here, together they could have worked something out. But instead, they chose to keep BCCI in dark, almost in a challenging way.

Indian fans. An ostrich their head in the sand. :)))

They did collaborate. Are you forgetting they offered you more revenue. You turned it down because of arrogance cause you thought you could bully the other boards. You didn't see that your two lackeys turned on you too?

I hope BCCI pulls out. Then the 9 other boards band together and stop playing with India. Then we will see truly just how much revenue India really pulls in. If it can pull in the $570M without the help of the other boards. Love to see how Rising Pune whoever generate 10% of that amount needed.
 
The crying here isn't just for money, but also for transparency in the distribution methodology used. BCCI's revenues being cut to half while ECB's remaining the same does deserve some explaining. ICC messed up by not collaborating with BCCI here, together they could have worked something out. But instead, they chose to keep BCCI in dark, almost in a challenging manner.

ECB and ACB aren't taking much from ICC revenue either. Take a look at ACB, they are taking same cut as Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, both teams with 2 small stadiums, smaller country and low operating cost. Now compare that to the operating cost of Melbourne Cricket Ground alone, they need to pay each ground staff alone $50,000 a year. Only a fool would think ACB and ECB came up with this model to benefit them.
 
Indian fans. An ostrich their head in the sand. :)))

They did collaborate. Are you forgetting they offered you more revenue. You turned it down because of arrogance cause you thought you could bully the other boards. You didn't see that your two lackeys turned on you too?

I hope BCCI pulls out. Then the 9 other boards band together and stop playing with India. Then we will see truly just how much revenue India really pulls in. If it can pull in the $570M without the help of the other boards. Love to see how Rising Pune whoever generate 10% of that amount needed.

Don't bother quoting me if you cannot comprehend a simple issue. BCCI's official stance is that it deserves an explanation on how new distribution came about. What decided the percentages of who loses how much?

A fair question or not? I bet you would be asking the same if your board lost $280 million.
 
ECB and ACB aren't taking much from ICC revenue either. Take a look at ACB, they are taking same cut as Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, both teams with 2 small stadiums, smaller country and low operating cost. Now compare that to the operating cost of Melbourne Cricket Ground alone, they need to pay each ground staff alone $50,000 a year. Only a fool would think ACB and ECB came up with this model to benefit them.

Again, all that is good. But what decided who gets how much? Why is ECB's share not down to 80 million? Why aren't Ireland or Afganistan getting a more modest 25 million ? Any maths or logic behind it or is it something they just cooked up in their heads?
 
Again, all that is good. But what decided who gets how much? Why is ECB's share not down to 80 million? Why aren't Ireland or Afganistan getting a more modest 25 million ? Any maths or logic behind it or is it something they just cooked up in their heads?

I am ok if Afgan get 100 Miliion but why can't that money given from Pakistan or Bangla share? Why should India only take the cut
 
I am ok if Afgan get 100 Miliion but why can't that money given from Pakistan or Bangla share? Why should India only take the cut

Exactly. They have turned the whole issue into BCCI Vs emerging nations, when the real issue is why India loses everything, and other established boards lose nothing in comparison.
 
Exactly. They have turned the whole issue into BCCI Vs emerging nations, when the real issue is why India loses everything, and other established boards lose nothing in comparison.

People here call BCCI money hungry but other boards with fraction pf India population gets more than what they deserve>
 
Again, all that is good. But what decided who gets how much? Why is ECB's share not down to 80 million? Why aren't Ireland or Afganistan getting a more modest 25 million ? Any maths or logic behind it or is it something they just cooked up in their heads?

Common sense decided to take our 3.5 % and give it to the rest. We already earn a lot, doesn't hurt to give a tiny % of our revenue. Ireland and Afghanistan are set to become full members and last thing ICC wants is another Bangladsh like scenario where a team takes 2 decades to become anything decent. Pakistan is not making anywhere close as us, no point in making them suffer more when they are border line broke. Why would ECB get 80 Million when Zimbabwe, WI, SL and PAK gets $132 Million ? Can't see why you are getting worked up over tiny % ?
 
Exactly. They have turned the whole issue into BCCI Vs emerging nations, when the real issue is why India loses everything, and other established boards lose nothing in comparison.

Because the other boards are poorer and with the big three gone, it was decided that more would go to these other boards. They are more dependent on this revenue as well, particularly West Indies for example.

The richer boards like England took a pay cut of 18% or so. Similar to India I think once the extra 100 mill is added to bring it up to 400 or so. Aus stayed the same as they did under the big three, so are as a result getting a lower percentage share than they were.

Before the argument was why India was getting a massive reduction like 30/40% which was far larger than the rest of the boards. But now that isn't really the case, England are getting a similar percentage cut. And as I said it makes sense the bigger/richer boards are getting cut more, as the plan was a more divided share after the big three.

I thought India was hard done with the first proposal but 400 million or so now instead offered, things change. It's no longer why are India getting a huge cut and others aren't (as England's getting roughly the same). It's more now that India are demanding the full big three equivalent amount because they feel they are entitled to it as they bring in the most money. Which is an argument that some will agree with or not but its not the same.

That is why I'm not surprised India asked for the extra 100 mill to come from the ICC administration budget and not the stuff allocated to the other countries. I don't think its about comparing the cuts from different countries anymore, it's what India feels they're entitled to, and whether or not the ICC administration really needs that much of a budget.
 
its not socialism but its also not supposed to be a for profit business- its supposed to be international sports for intent of competition and not to make profit. For profit making there is always the business world or T20 leagues
 
The crying here isn't just for money, but also for transparency in the distribution methodology used. BCCI's revenues being cut to half while ECB's remaining the same does deserve some explaining. ICC messed up by not collaborating with BCCI here, together they could have worked something out. But instead, they chose to keep BCCI in dark, almost in a challenging manner.

ECB's revenues were cut too....... BCCI got a bigger cut because it gained more under big three.... It's funny how Indians forget that BCCI took an extra 400 millions (!!!!) under Big three model...
 
Exactly. They have turned the whole issue into BCCI Vs emerging nations, when the real issue is why India loses everything, and other established boards lose nothing in comparison.

I am ok if Afgan get 100 Miliion but why can't that money given from Pakistan or Bangla share? Why should India only take the cut

Because India took 400 millions under big three model???

This change is only reverting what happened....

You guys are clearly being dishonest by acting like ICC is victimizing BCCI... You guys are the ones who bullied everyone into giving you 400 millions.....
 
FICA Responds to ICC Meeting Outcomes

The Federation of International Cricketers’ Associations (FICA) today responded to the outcomes of this week’s ICC meetings in Dubai.

“Decisions made at this critical juncture are not only significant for the future of the game, but also impact directly, and indirectly, on players around the world” said FICA Executive Chairman Tony Irish.

Financial Model

In regard to the ICC’s financial model, FICA welcomes the unwinding of the ‘Big Three’ financial arrangement which promoted the interests of three countries above everyone else.

“FICA hopes that this will lead to greater financial clarity, consistency and transparency across all countries” said Irish. “The global game needs as many countries as possible to be economically healthy, but it will now be equally important to ensure that all countries apply sufficient resource to ensuring that their teams are competitive and that they are able to retain their best players in international cricket.”

Governance

In regard to the ICC’s governance, FICA welcomes the shift in the ICC’s constitution and governance structures, but believes changes should go further.

“We will continue to urge the ICC to make those changes necessary to ensure that it becomes a truly independent global governing body, making decisions for the good of the global game” said Irish.

International Structure

FICA notes that no decisions have been taken relating to new competition structures for the three formats of the men’s game and on a global scheduling framework.

“This is a critical time in the game for a new global playing structure and framework” said Irish. “This structure must provide the right balance between international cricket and domestic T20 leagues, and accommodate clear trends in the global player employment market and the global cricket economy. The discussions on this at the ICC have been going on for some time now and I can’t emphasise enough how important it is for players that a better structure is finalised. FICA continues to urge the ICC to prioritise this issue.”

FICA also notes the ongoing work by the ICC Women's Committee in developing and evolving clear competition structures for women’s cricket.

Development

FICA commends the ICC for committing to pay outstanding salaries for the national contracted players of Nepal while the Cricket Association of Nepal is suspended.

“FICA hopes that the ICC and Member Boards will take a similar approach in relation to the significant amounts which are due to players around the world for playing in events sanctioned by the ICC and/or Member Boards” said Irish.


“FICA and our member players’ associations have an important role to play, on behalf of all of the players we represent around the world, in working with key stakeholders in international cricket and domestic leagues and competitions to move the game forward in a positive way.”
 
Because the other boards are poorer and with the big three gone, it was decided that more would go to these other boards. They are more dependent on this revenue as well, particularly West Indies for example.

The richer boards like England took a pay cut of 18% or so. Similar to India I think once the extra 100 mill is added to bring it up to 400 or so. Aus stayed the same as they did under the big three, so are as a result getting a lower percentage share than they were.

Before the argument was why India was getting a massive reduction like 30/40% which was far larger than the rest of the boards. But now that isn't really the case, England are getting a similar percentage cut. And as I said it makes sense the bigger/richer boards are getting cut more, as the plan was a more divided share after the big three.

I thought India was hard done with the first proposal but 400 million or so now instead offered, things change. It's no longer why are India getting a huge cut and others aren't (as England's getting roughly the same). It's more now that India are demanding the full big three equivalent amount because they feel they are entitled to it as they bring in the most money. Which is an argument that some will agree with or not but its not the same.

That is why I'm not surprised India asked for the extra 100 mill to come from the ICC administration budget and not the stuff allocated to the other countries. I don't think its about comparing the cuts from different countries anymore, it's what India feels they're entitled to, and whether or not the ICC administration really needs that much of a budget.

Even with 400 we are getting 30% cut...why cant we get 15% cut and rest taken by England/Pakistan & Bangla?
 
Because India took 400 millions under big three model???

This change is only reverting what happened....

You guys are clearly being dishonest by acting like ICC is victimizing BCCI... You guys are the ones who bullied everyone into giving you 400 millions.....

We want 570 not 400.
 
Don't bother quoting me if you cannot comprehend a simple issue. BCCI's official stance is that it deserves an explanation on how new distribution came about. What decided the percentages of who loses how much?

A fair question or not? I bet you would be asking the same if your board lost $280 million.

It's really simple...... The ones who gained most under big three lost most under new model.....

You are not losing 280 million, you didn't have 280 millions in the last cycle..... You bullied your way into getting 400 million$, which means BCCI is gaining 120 millions compared to last cycle.....

Stop trying to hide the truth, everyone can see your little tactics to act like BCCI lost 280 millions when it gained 120 millions!!!!
 
It's really simple...... The ones who gained most under big three lost most under new model.....

You are not losing 280 million, you didn't have 280 millions in the last cycle..... You bullied your way into getting 400 million$, which means BCCI is gaining 120 millions compared to last cycle.....

Stop trying to hide the truth, everyone can see your little tactics to act like BCCI lost 280 millions when it gained 120 millions!!!!

We just asking the the money we deserve.We are not asking any one pay back money which was stolen from us till now,past is past.
 
We want 570 not 400.

570 was 400 more than BCCI got in previous cycle where they got 170.... So with 280, BCCI gained 110 millions. If they accept the offer of 400 from ICC, they gained 230 millions.... You didn't lose anything, stop acting like ICC took away money from you with new changes.....
 
Even with 400 we are getting 30% cut...why cant we get 15% cut and rest taken by England/Pakistan & Bangla?

Because you got a 400% increase with big three, when Pakistan and Bangla got a 10% cut with big three.... It's not hard to understand.... Do you guys have selective amnesia that you forgot how you screwed everyone else in big three model??????
 
570 was 400 more than BCCI got in previous cycle where they got 170.... So with 280, BCCI gained 110 millions. If they accept the offer of 400 from ICC, they gained 230 millions.... You didn't lose anything, stop acting like ICC took away money from you with new changes.....

It's our money, we lost so much from decades due to others and you are saying we are getting favors. Lol you should run business :))
 
Even with 400 we are getting 30% cut...why cant we get 15% cut and rest taken by England/Pakistan & Bangla?

It was 440 what India were getting when the big three was around. And the 260 figure was a representative of the proposed cut before.

Hence I am comparing cuts with before. England got a 18% cut from big three and after big three. I don't know the new figure that England would get if the big three was still around and they got the same percentage. As they didn't demand for it. In fact if we compare India's value at 440 it's a 10% cut.

570 is what India feels it's entitled to now i guess ICC revenue has increased and they want the same percentage. But from what I assume, if England are pretty much in the similar position percentage wise. In fact they may be losing more. ICC admininistration's budget has increased too, so some of the money is going there.

You can read this: http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/1081598.html

But yeah that was the whole point I though India were upset that the percentage taken from them was much higher. But don't think that's the case anymore if you follow my logic.
 
It was 440 what India were getting when the big three was around. And the 260 figure was a representative of the proposed cut before.

Hence I am comparing cuts with before. England got a 18% cut from big three and after big three. I don't know the new figure that England would get if the big three was still around and they got the same percentage. As they didn't demand for it. In fact if we compare India's value at 440 it's a 10% cut.

570 is what India feels it's entitled to now i guess ICC revenue has increased and they want the same percentage. But from what I assume, if England are pretty much in the similar position percentage wise. In fact they may be losing more. ICC admininistration's budget has increased too, so some of the money is going there.

You can read this: http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/1081598.html

But yeah that was the whole point I though India were upset that the percentage taken from them was much higher. But don't think that's the case anymore if you follow my logic.

England is not getting cut or even less than 5%.
Why should BCCI follow your logic when it brings major revenues?
 
England is not getting cut or even less than 5%.
Why should BCCI follow your logic when it brings major revenues?

where is the evidence England isn't getting a cut? Look at that link, they are, they went from 145 to 120. Unless something has changed.

It's not literally my logic lol i'm not meaning to offend I'm just saying I don't understand how percentage wise India is getting a bigger cut than England. If there's some new evidence/updated figures you can post it, and I'll change my views.

Whether India want to demand that they deserve the full amount is up to them. I just don't see the argument of them getting a much bigger percentage cut than the rest of the boards anymore. That was what my original post was answering.
 
Last edited:
It's really simple...... The ones who gained most under big three lost most under new model.....

You are not losing 280 million, you didn't have 280 millions in the last cycle..... You bullied your way into getting 400 million$, which means BCCI is gaining 120 millions compared to last cycle.....

Stop trying to hide the truth, everyone can see your little tactics to act like BCCI lost 280 millions when it gained 120 millions!!!!

Firstly, the moment Big 3 was agreed to, it became the benchmark. The new earnings weren't thuggery, but a legitimate decided revenue, so it indeed is a loss. Secondly, let's say that ICC decided to roll back on the Big 3 model, fair enough. But even then, can your provide me the pre-Big 3 revenue sharing model, and compare it to how it is supposed to be now? I am aware that it might prove you right, but I would still love to ascertain if it really is a rollback or not.

Also, it would be better to talk in percentage terms. Net ICC revenues being twice as much in this cycle may have something to do with BCCI earning extra 120 million.
 
Last edited:
Firstly, the moment Big 3 was agreed to, it became the benchmark. The new earnings weren't thuggery, but a legitimate decided revenue, so it indeed is a loss. Secondly, let's say that ICC decided to roll back on the Big 3 model, fair enough. But even then, can your provide me the pre-Big 3 revenue sharing model, and compare it to how it is supposed to be now? I am aware that it might prove you right, but I would still love to ascertain if it really is a rollback or not.

Also, it would be better to talk in percentage terms. Net ICC revenues being twice as much in this cycle may have something to do with BCCI earning extra 120 million.

Then new model is benchmark now... BCCI should deal with it...

infographics-graph-distribution-1.jpg
 
Then new model is benchmark now... BCCI should deal with it...
infographics-graph-distribution-1.jpg

Well yes, BCCI will either deal with it, or protest against it. It is to be seen.

However, my question to you was if it really is a rollback to pre-Big-3 model? Could have done it myself, but I am struggling to find revenue sharing model from the previous cycle.
 
Well yes, BCCI will either deal with it, or protest against it. It is to be seen.

However, my question to you was if it really is a rollback to pre-Big-3 model? Could have done it myself, but I am struggling to find revenue sharing model from the previous cycle.

I just posted the graph.... On the bottom you can see ''change compared to previous %''....

Under previous model (for same amount of 2.5 billions):

India: 125 millions
England: 123 millions
Australia: 117 millions
Pakistan: 117 millions
West Indies: 117 millions
New Zealand: 117 millions
Bangladesh: 117 millions
ZC: 117 milions
Associates: 530 millions

Under big three: See above

Under new model:

India: 260 millions
ECB: 130 millions
Everyone else: 110 millions
Zim: 80 millions
Associate: rest of the money (I think 260 millions)
 
Well yes, BCCI will either deal with it, or protest against it. It is to be seen.

However, my question to you was if it really is a rollback to pre-Big-3 model? Could have done it myself, but I am struggling to find revenue sharing model from the previous cycle.

CA's revenue has actually gone up.
 
* That is new model before the vote

262168.jpg


India: 290 millions
England: 140 millions
Everyone: 130 millions
Zim: 95 millions
Associates: 280
 
In conclusion:

Zim lost a lot of money.... As did associates.... All boards gained a bit of money (including CA).... ECB gained a bit more than others.... And India gained A LOT of money...
 
In conclusion:

Zim lost a lot of money.... As did associates.... All boards gained a bit of money (including CA).... ECB gained a bit more than others.... And India gained A LOT of money...

Because Indian fans contribute the most money?
 
I just posted the graph.... On the bottom you can see ''change compared to previous %''....

Under previous model (for same amount of 2.5 billions):

India: 125 millions
England: 123 millions
Australia: 117 millions
Pakistan: 117 millions
West Indies: 117 millions
New Zealand: 117 millions
Bangladesh: 117 millions
ZC: 117 milions
Associates: 530 millions

Under big three: See above

Under new model:

India: 260 millions
ECB: 130 millions
Everyone else: 110 millions
Zim: 80 millions
Associate: rest of the money (I think 260 millions)

You sure about these figures? I've seen multiple news agencies reporting the ECB have lost a $40mn cut?

Edit : Ignore me, just noticed the first list is pre-big 3.
 
Last edited:
You sure about these figures? I've seen multiple news agencies reporting the ECB have lost a $40mn cut?

No they havent.Both pie charts are from very credible sources.

Big 3 one from wisden and the latest one from cricinfo.
 
But let them take that from Pak/Bangla share why from India which has to ctaer to more than Billion people?

Both Pakistan & Bangla take less than 100 million then its easier to give same amount of money to Afgnaistan & Ireland , even Netherlands can be give some amount.

Do you realize how idiotic this sounds? All 9 boards voted for this, why single out BD/PAK for this? Either way, BCCI was offered to take 400M and I have a feeling this negotiation will go on till 420-430M is meet. BCCI wants 445 so all in all, should really accept that 420-430 if that negotiation comes into factor.

Also, did I just read a Billion people? Are you implying that 1B people are playing professional cricket or trying to be professional cricketer in India? Ha! Joke of the day ...
 
Do you realize how idiotic this sounds? All 9 boards voted for this, why single out BD/PAK for this? Either way, BCCI was offered to take 400M and I have a feeling this negotiation will go on till 420-430M is meet. BCCI wants 445 so all in all, should really accept that 420-430 if that negotiation comes into factor.

Also, did I just read a Billion people? Are you implying that 1B people are playing professional cricket or trying to be professional cricketer in India? Ha! Joke of the day ...

where will this extra money come from?From whose share?

Whose share will be reduced to give ZIM a $19mn and WI a $40mn grant?
 
No they havent.Both pie charts are from very credible sources.

Big 3 one from wisden and the latest one from cricinfo.

They're both for different expected total revenues. With the same total revenue in each year the ECB has received a cut of $40mn+
 
From Big 3... to this new model.

Everyone has gained including CA. ECB has lost only 30mn.

India's have been halved.Its ok.BCCI should pull out and let ICC keep the entire stuff.

Big 3 was approved for this cycle only a few years ago.... It's not the default situation and we have reverted to pre-big 3 (though BCCI still DOUBLED compared to pre-Big 3: they should count their blessings).

Yes, you're right, if BCCI can't play fair then they should leave.... Even if everybody earns less, it will be saner for everybody.... I don't mind that PCB only gets 50 millions if it means being rid of this unfair situation....
 
Back
Top