ICC committee may propose 37% revenue share for BCCI from 2024-2027 cycle

cricketjoshila

ODI Captain
Joined
Mar 16, 2011
Runs
46,187
Post of the Week
1
New Delhi: In what could be a landmark move to further strengthen India’s standing in cricket, the International Cricket Council’s (ICC) all-powerful Finance & Commercial Affairs Committee (F&CA) is learnt to be working towards putting a working group in place to propose a new revenue sharing model. Those in the know say the Indian cricket board is likely to pocket 37% of ICC’s revenue from the 2024-2027 cycle should the proposal go ahead as planned.

This is a major jump from the 22.8% BCCI received in the previous cycle which ran from 2016-2023. During that period, the Indian cricket board pocketed $405 million.

The ICC has steadfastly believed that the Indian market alone contributes for more than 75% of the global body’s revenue.

However, the sale of media rights for the upcoming 2024-2027 cycle have disproved the theory, and instead underlined how India’s contribution is even larger than perceived.

For the first time the ICC decided to sell the rights territory-wise. In that, the India market alone fetched $3.04 billion. By ICC’s own “75% theory", this $3.04 billion should be 75% of all their global revenues right? But do you think the rest of the world, collectively, is contributing 25%?" say those tracking developments.
The Australian rights are believed to have been sold for approximately US$60m for four years.

In the case of the UK & Europe, the ICC has closed an eight-year deal with broadcaster Sky instead of four years — like in every other market — and those tracking this space say “This happened because the four-year deal was hardly fetching the ICC anything."
The rest of the world, all put together, is not bringing even US$500m to the table.

That means the Indian market alone is contributing 88 to 90% of ICC’s revenues. You go asking around in the industry and those who run the finances of the game will tell you — there was never any Big 3. There’s always been only Big 1", sources say.
Disney Star won both the digital and TV rights for the cycle and later signed a licensing agreement with Zee for the TV rights. The agreement enables Zee to broadcast ICC men’s and U-19 events falling in the 2024-2027 cycle.


Look at the amount coming in just for the media rights sold for the Indian market for 2024-2027 cycle. The number is humongous and is clearly filling up ICC coffers considerably. There will be two T20 World Cups, one Champions Trophy and one 50-over World Cup in the next cycle. Plenty of big-ticket tournaments will be played," industry sources tracking developments said.

The BCCI has also internally discussed the ongoing tax issue ahead of the 50-over World Cup in India, which begins in October. It is reliably learnt that the Indian cricket board is likely to ask the ICC to deduct Rs 955 crore – 21.84% tax surcharge on ICC’s broadcast revenue from the World Cup – from BCCI’s revenue share of the current cycle.
As per ICC’s norm, every host nation is required to get an exemption from their government for hosting tournaments organised by cricket’s global body. The BCCI and ICC were swimming in rough waters due to the contentious tax issue and with the Indian government not providing, or even indicating, a relief, the BCCI is likely to inform the ICC about its stand soon.

Under the proposed revenue share of 37%, BCCI should earn close to Rs 10,000 crore from ICC’s revenue share for the next cycle and the tax amount deducted will in a way be compensated from the gains of the 2024-2027 cycle.
A similar tax-related issue had cropped up ahead of the 2016 T20 World Cup and the BCCI didn’t get any relief from the government back then too. The BCCI lost close to Rs 193 crore as the tax exemption didn’t come their way in 2016 and the Indian cricket board is still fighting that case in the ICC tribunal.
“How can the government be asked to bend its rules? Even in 2016, during the T20 World Cup in India, a similar request was turned down by the Indian government so there was no point going that way again," added the source.

https://www.news18.com/cricketnext/...i-from-2024-2027-cycle-exclusive-7544935.html

FYI, one of the most credible cricket websites has reported that the 8 year deal with SKY is worth 260mn

So in next 4 years

Indian territory will contribute $3bn
UK and Europe $130mn( Half of the $260mn 8 year deal)
Australia will contribute $60mn

Looks like The rest of the world will contribute far lesser amount.
 
Wow, 90% of revenues. Absolutely right, there is no Big3. It is just Big1.

90% in, only 37% out. Dare I say it's unfair.
 
88 to 90 % of the revenue from India? That's crazy. They should reduce the number of ICC tournaments being played in the next cycle.

A World T20 should happen only once every 4 years and CT should remain scrapped. Unless other countries start generating revenue , BCCI should take a firm decision to reduce the number of ICC tournaments.
 
India is "America" of cricket,dictate world how it should be :ravi
 
If only there was a trophy for balance sheets, India might actually win something at cricket.
 
So to summarize the OP, India is contributing 90% of ICC revenue but getting only 22% in return now which will be increased to 37%.

Why people call BCCI evil then?

:inti
 
So to summarize the OP, India is contributing 90% of ICC revenue but getting only 22% in return now which will be increased to 37%.

Why people call BCCI evil then?

:inti

Actually they were earlier getting 15 per cent. Since they asked more they are evil.
 
Already posted on this topic enough before so will just skip to the usual comment:

As with other sports the ICCs revenue distribution should not be linked to the broadcast revenue they bring in. Countries with larger broadcast markers will have that reflected in their own revenue sources, the ICCs funds should be focused on developing the game further globally.
 
Already posted on this topic enough before so will just skip to the usual comment:

As with other sports the ICCs revenue distribution should not be linked to the broadcast revenue they bring in. Countries with larger broadcast markers will have that reflected in their own revenue sources, the ICCs funds should be focused on developing the game further globally.

If it was only linked to broadcast revenues that a country brings in BCCI would take 80-90 Percent. No? But they are taking only 37 per cent to leave the rest for the global game.

Look at ECB they can't even bring 10 percent of BCCI.
CA in the same condition.

The less said about the other boards the better.

At the end of the day if someone is bringing 90 per cent of the revenue, they should have some incentive.
 
If it was only linked to broadcast revenues that a country brings in BCCI would take 80-90 Percent. No? But they are taking only 37 per cent to leave the rest for the global game.

Look at ECB they can't even bring 10 percent of BCCI.
CA in the same condition.

The less said about the other boards the better.

At the end of the day if someone is bringing 90 per cent of the revenue, they should have some incentive.

Their incentive is to continue to develop their own local market to continue to be able to maximise their own revenue from it. As I said above, the primary focus of the ICCs revenue should be the wider global development of the game, just like other major sports, rather than massive handouts to boards who already have their own developed income streams.
 
Their incentive is to continue to develop their own local market to continue to be able to maximise their own revenue from it. As I said above, the primary focus of the ICCs revenue should be the wider global development of the game, just like other major sports, rather than massive handouts to boards who already have their own developed income streams.

This is not soviet republic that you take from those who earn more and give to those who are incompetent.

What's the excuse of developed economies like England and Australia for contributing so little?

What's the excuse of a 230mn strong pakistani fan base?

Every other day Bangladeshis thump their chest regarding how well their country is doing economically. Yet they don't even contribute 5 percent.

If someone is contributing 90 per cent of the revenues he needs to be compensated for doing the hard work in developing and monetising the game in their territory. They cannot be punished for the incompetency of others.
 
needs to be compensated for doing the hard work in developing and monetising the game in their territory.

Which again, is exactly what they'll get of our their own revenue sources. To repeat myself yet again, the primary focus of the ICCs revenue should be the wider global development of the game, just like other major sports, rather than massive handouts to boards who already have their own developed income streams.
 
Which again, is exactly what they'll get of our their own revenue sources. To repeat myself yet again, the primary focus of the ICCs revenue should be the wider global development of the game, just like other major sports, rather than massive handouts to boards who already have their own developed income streams.

Their own revenue sources are immaterial. Thats not ICC's income.

ICC is drawing 90 per cent of their revenue from one territory. The board that has developed that territory needs to be adequately compensated for this. Its plain and simple business.

Other major sports don't depend on one country to bring 90 percent of the revenue. So that comparison is futile.

Why a SKY that is paying ECB £1bn plus for domestic rights for 5-6 years not even paying 20 percent for icc rights?

Same with CA.

While Star after paying 3bn plus for IPL tv rights ( Viacom 18 paid another 3bn plus for digital rights) is still ready to pay another 3bn?

Are other boards selfishly milking their broadcasters dry for domestic rights? Leaving very little for ICC?

Why should one board pay for the incompetence of others?
 
Really poor article, it discusses nothing about game development, [MENTION=139981]HitWicket[/MENTION] has rightly mentioned this, ICC needs to focus on that.

At the end of the day, BCCI and other boards exists under ICC, they are not independant.
 
Really poor article, it discusses nothing about game development, [MENTION=139981]HitWicket[/MENTION] has rightly mentioned this, ICC needs to focus on that.

At the end of the day, BCCI and other boards exists under ICC, they are not independant.

ICC exists because of the boards. The boards made ICC.

Why are the other boards not contributing to ICC revenue? All are content with eating out of BCCI'S hands?

May be other boards should try to be competent, then their fans won't have to find excuses.
 
lol icc exists due to board?

You get memebrship from ICC not from board.
 
lol icc exists due to board?

You get memebrship from ICC not from board.

There was no ICC when India started playing test cricket. There was only imperial cricket conference. England Australia South Africa decided to form a coalition and in 1909 called it imperial cricket conference. The president of MCC would automatically become its president.

India joined in 1926.

The ICC you know today came only in 1989.
 
There was no ICC when India started playing test cricket. There was only imperial cricket conference. England Australia South Africa decided to form a coalition and in 1909 called it imperial cricket conference. The president of MCC would automatically become its president.

India joined in 1926.

The ICC you know today came only in 1989.

wrong, it was renamed to International cricket council.

Its the same one from 1909 just renamed
 
So let me get this straight, BCCI (a Indian private organization that has no public affiliation) wants to take credit for the revenue brought in by other Indian private organizations that have no public or BCCI affiliation?

Also you take in to the fact that if you eliminate all Indian organizations and business that create revenue for ICC, there will be other non Indian organizations and businesses that would create this revenue for the ICC (not the same amount but will still be huge). The only reason Indian market is creating 90% of the revenue is because they are bidding the highest and ICC is rewarding them with the contracts.

ICC tournaments and revenue from the those tournaments should be equally distributed as all teams participated in the event equally. Without the other boards contribution in the tournament, there would be no rights to sell in the first place.
 
Really poor article, it discusses nothing about game development, [MENTION=139981]HitWicket[/MENTION] has rightly mentioned this, ICC needs to focus on that.

At the end of the day, BCCI and other boards exists under ICC, they are not independant.

Perhaps because there is nothing to talk about. When was the last time ICC did any kind of developing? Or, any kind of good governing? Being that they are the governing body.

All they do and are interested in doing is, sell broadcasting rights to India every 4-5 years, pocket the money and sit on their rear ends.
 
Their incentive is to continue to develop their own local market to continue to be able to maximise their own revenue from it. As I said above, the primary focus of the ICCs revenue should be the wider global development of the game, just like other major sports, rather than massive handouts to boards who already have their own developed income streams.

I agree. It should be. But it is not. There is pretty much no development. The ICC currently is nothing but some kind of broker that takes $$$$ from BCCI, fills it's pockets. Then re-distributes part of the $$$$ to other boards to keep them happy.

Then sits and waits for 4-5 years so it can do this all over again.
 
So let me get this straight, BCCI (a Indian private organization that has no public affiliation) wants to take credit for the revenue brought in by other Indian private organizations that have no public or BCCI affiliation?

Also you take in to the fact that if you eliminate all Indian organizations and business that create revenue for ICC, there will be other non Indian organizations and businesses that would create this revenue for the ICC (not the same amount but will still be huge). The only reason Indian market is creating 90% of the revenue is because they are bidding the highest and ICC is rewarding them with the contracts.

ICC tournaments and revenue from the those tournaments should be equally distributed as all teams participated in the event equally. Without the other boards contribution in the tournament, there would be no rights to sell in the first place.

I have to disagree. You take out BCCI $$$ the amount coming from other countries is going to be miniscule. Not anywhere enough for majority of the boards to even survive. The amounts involved are not going to be enough to encourage talents to take up the sport. Let alone pay for the fat salaries of the "administrators".

Equal distribution, or any distribution of $$$ is a bad thing. Especially without checks and balances. It encourages boards to just cash in those checks and do absolutely nothing. This is exactly what has happened to Zim, WI, SLC, BD. I should also add CSA to this list. The same can also be said to some extent of the PCB.

A very good example is CWI. The board does nothing. Is corrupt to the core. No matter how many millions of $$ you pour in, it will be soaked up by this bottomless pit. But nothing will change.
 
So let me get this straight, BCCI (a Indian private organization that has no public affiliation) wants to take credit for the revenue brought in by other Indian private organizations that have no public or BCCI affiliation?

Also you take in to the fact that if you eliminate all Indian organizations and business that create revenue for ICC, there will be other non Indian organizations and businesses that would create this revenue for the ICC (not the same amount but will still be huge). The only reason Indian market is creating 90% of the revenue is because they are bidding the highest and ICC is rewarding them with the contracts.

ICC tournaments and revenue from the those tournaments should be equally distributed as all teams participated in the event equally. Without the other boards contribution in the tournament, there would be no rights to sell in the first place.

Indian organisations pay because Indian team is involved. Else they won't pay. Indian team is involved because BCCI is involved.

Why are organisations in UK or Australia not paying for the rights in those respective countries? They are not paying even 10 per cent of what a company is ready to pay for Indian territory rights. So no there is no alternative.

The reason Indian market is getting the highest bid is because the ROI from that investment justifies it.

Let other territories bring atleast 50 per cent and then talk about equal distribution. If there is no India the value of rights is 10 per cent of what it's today.
 
Btw this puts to rest the oft repeated theory that India Pakistan matches bring disproportionate revenue.

Its only India that brings in disproportionate revenue. Rest are only contributing 10 per cent.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I fully agree.

If I am working as a physician and bringing 90 percent of revenue, why should remaining 5 doctors who dont bring a paycheck get equal profts and revenue from my performance?

Everyone else is not competent.

But we should clap our hands and reward them for being a part of the clinic.
 
I fully agree.

If I am working as a physician and bringing 90 percent of revenue, why should remaining 5 doctors who dont bring a paycheck get equal profts and revenue from my performance?

Everyone else is not competent.

But we should clap our hands and reward them for being a part of the clinic.

If I was you I would quit my job and work for a different clinic

Or even stuff everyone else and open my own clinic
 
While you could say BCCI deserves more, the revenue should go more towards development of cricket and that will bring more revenue in the future for all countries. If the sport becomes global, there will be more money eventually.
 
While you could say BCCI deserves more, the revenue should go more towards development of cricket and that will bring more revenue in the future for all countries. If the sport becomes global, there will be more money eventually.

Who do you suggest do the developing?
 
Back
Top