ICC strategic group report fears formation of rebel governing body

[giri26]

A breakaway rebel governing body, the proposed T10 format and lack of interest from broadcasters are among “18 threats” that international cricket faces right now, according to a report of the ICC’s Strategic Working Group (SWG) which will discuss these issues with the BCCI in New Delhi on Thursday.

The report, which is in possession of PTI, claims to be a SWOT analysis of the issues confronting world cricket.

The SWG comprises Cricket Australia’s David Peever, BCCI CEO Rahul Johri, Singapore’s Imran Khwaja, Cricket South Africa’s Patricia Karambami, West Indies Cricket Board’s Dave Cameron and women’s representative Clare Connor.

The Group will update BCCI office-bearers — Acting President CK Khanna, Acting Secretary Amitabh Choudhary and Treasurer Aniruddh Chaudhry — on global strategy for cricket.

“Yes, there has been threat to ICC. A very well-known former cricket administrator (currently banned) along with an Indian TV channel and an Australian lawyer had approached a lot of players and officials in order to form a parallel global body. They had named it ‘Operation Watershed’ then,” a senior BCCI official told PTI on condition of anonymity.

“They wanted to form parallel associations in each country and were offering a lot of money to the players. The project didn’t take off but there’s no reason that it won’t take off once again,” the official said.

The ICC analysis does not take names. However, it is interesting to note that in 2016, there were reports of sacked IPL commissioner Lalit Modi approaching officials from England and Australia to form a parallel body, a speculation that dies down as qucikly as it took off.

Another matter of concern is the proposed T10 format amid statements from stars such as former New Zealand skipper Brandon McCullum that Test cricket will not be sustainable in the long run.

“The T10 league is also a matter of concern. More so, it was organised by Emirates Cricket Board (last December) with a lot of current players like Eoin Morgan, Shoaib Malik, Dwayne Bravo taking part,” the official said.

These threats could be directly linked to point No.8 in the report which states: “Uncontrolled private investment into sports by commercial operators whose interests are aligned with short term financial gains rather than long term health and growth of sports.”

Also, football’s growth in traditional cricket nations is also listed as a threat in the SWG analysis along with a “lack of competitive tension in broadcast market”.

“In a way, it is true. Save Star and Sony (networks), there aren’t many who are ready to invest huge sums in cricket. So if it’s a two-horse race, then you know that there aren’t new broadcasters coming in,” the official pointed out.

The report also speaks about “Collapse of traditional broadcast/sponsorship.”

Add to this, the threat from unspecified “political uncertainties”.

It is to be noted that India and Pakistan have not been not playing each other in bilateral series owing to the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks and the volatile diplomatic ties.

http://indianexpress.com/article/sp...rs-formation-of-rebel-governing-body-5179320/

 

[MenInG]

Like anything, adapt or die is what drives everyone forward.

T10 a threat? Not sure.

 

[MenInG]

The ICC are set to discuss an ambitious global strategy plan with BCCI and Supreme Court-appointed Committee of administrators today in Delhi. It will present a SWOT analysis. They have identified eight key areas: Fans, Particpants, Women and Girls in cricket, Financial Sustainability, Cricket’s Products. Integrity & Values, Technology, Cricket’s purpose. SRIRAM VEERA looks at the salient features in the strategy document.

The document lists financial overreliance on Indian cricket and its fans as a weakness in the SWOT. They state that cricket is “not a truly global sport – heavy dependence on revenues and fans from India” and further add that “Lack of aggressive expansion/growth strategy to counter overreliance on India.” Outside the SWOT, they frame the Indian question thus: “How does cricket diversify its existing commercial revenue profile and/or better exploit rights (e.g. collective sales, OTT platforms, develop new markets, develop new revenue streams) to reduce over-reliance on key individual markets (e.g. India broadcast income, ICC distributions)? “


Moving away from the Anglo-Saxon view of cricketing world

Spirit of cricket features in the strategy document with an interesting twist. Listed under weakness in the swot analysis is “Anglocentric norms”. It states that “the Spirit of Cricket is often seen as a fundamental part of the sport’s attraction but does not always translate identically in different cricketing cultures. Furthermore, the regulation of the international game is exclusively in English and decision-making is undertaken in English.” There isn’t much else on the topic in the document but the fact that they plan to address it would be welcomed in the cricketing world. It will be interesting to see how they plan to address the cultural differences. Recently we have seen Australia talk about an imaginary line in behavioural terms, but the others saw it as a hypocrisy on part of Australians in drawing that line.

How to tackle the cricket’s demand for turf pitches at higher levels

Turf pitches is listed as weakness, and ICC is looking for ways to counter it—be it through drop-in pitches, artificial turfs to take cricket beyond the traditional markets where cricketing turf pitches are a luxury and not easily available, and can act as a deterrent in kids picking up the sport.


Time for shortened forms of games?

The document lists “time it takes to complete the game” as weakness, and it’s difficult to presume what they mean by that. Are they talking about four-day Tests? Or they stressing the need to introduce really short versions like T10. T10 does feature separately under threats, and also gets a mention as opportunity. ICC believes T10 can be great for attracting new audiences in non-traditional cricket markets. In their words, “cricket as a sport should continue to capitalise on shortened format opportunities like T10”. They also mention the need to tap the “relatively high disposable income of south Asian migrants in the US and some other markets (more revenue per fan)”. They also ask this question: “What other formats of the game should cricket focus on to increase participation (e.g. T10, Indoor, Street, Tape Ball, Beach, Disability, eSports etc.) and why?”

How to better use digital mediums like Amazon and Twitter?

The ICC mentions the new entrants in commercial space—digital and data driven companies, and gives examples of Facebook, Twitter and Amazon. The ICC is looking at them for two things: to drive fan engagement and for commercial monetising the game through these mediums. The ICC is also looking to tap younger audience through various mediums and new technologies. “Increasingly young population in developing countries provides opportunity to engage with new fans and participants.” They want to enable new technologies to help “provide new and engaging ways to view, consume, engage with, innovate and monetize the sport”. ICC seems keen on E-sports/ gaming and believe it would “drive new fans”.

Gender equality in cricket— batters in, batsmen out?

The ICC wants to work out a way to better integrate women and girls across all aspects— structures, management, committees, formats and terminology. There are a few questions that the documents asks: “How do we get more females in key decision making positions? • How do we encourage more women and girls to play the game? • How do we encourage more women and girls to become fans of the game? • How do we create more, better qualified female coaches and match officials? • What are the optimal structures, calendar, products and playing conditions for women’s games?” Should World Cricket aspire to have more competitive teams and if so why and how? ICC is now asking a fundamental question: “Should cricket aspire to have more competitive teams, and if so why and how?” And months after they decided to restrict world cup to 10 teams, they have also listed this under weakness: “10 team Men’s ODI World Cup i.e. not a global ‘World’ Cup. Through the document, the effort to try spread the game outside traditional markets has been stressed but it’s more about increasing fan base, using the diaspora of south Asians, and also get kids from new markets to start playing the game. All that is different from inclusion of more associate teams at the highest level – ICC is trying to answer that question. The misgivings come across in another “weakness” topic: “Lack of strength and depth of competition beyond top nations.”

Lack of context/structure to international cricket scheduling

The ICC admit that there is a “lack of context/structure to international cricket scheduling”. They are also wondering how to address it: “How do we create a co-ordinated global calendar for the game that enables the ideal structure and balance to be implemented?” is how the document puts it. They are trying to find the right positioning of all the three formats, and want to first identify and add other “traditional or shorter formats of cricket (if any) that can be included”.

Cricket, what is it good for?

They are even posing existential questions such as the purpose of cricket. They want to “explore and understand the overall purpose of cricket in society and leverage the power and influence of cricket for the greater good”. The document asks whether cricket should be usued to influence health, lifeskills, economic empowerment, education, racism, child Welfare/poverty, teamwork, tolerance, inclusion (ethnic, religious, gender). In a nutshell, they want to seek the answer to – “Why does cricket exist – what’s its primary purpose in society?” If you have the answers, send a postcard to ICC.

http://indianexpress.com/article/sp...is-on-t10-twitter-and-womens-cricket-5179669/

 

[Flat_Track_Bully]

This indian centric approach is whats killing cricket.

 

[USofA]

Why discuss it with only the BCCI? Why not with other boards as well?

The ICC once again being incompetent, total lack of vision or will power to take any action on their own. They have pretty much admitted who the real boss is - BCCI.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Why discuss it with only the BCCI? Why not with other boards as well?

The ICC once again being incompetent, total lack of vision or will power to take any action on their own. They have pretty much admitted who the real boss is - BCCI.

Because thats where the money is. The CoA's term is coming to an end and icc fears a backlash from BCCI post that.

 

[Hitman]

Over-reliance on BCCI hampering growth: ICC

The International Cricket Council (ICC), cricket’s world governing body, has started a drive to build its ‘independent identity’. In its update on the global strategy for cricket, the council’s Strategy Working Group (SWG) has cited over-reliance on India as its biggest weakness in in its effort to make cricket a global game.

The SWG has also pointed out that ICC isn’t exclusively responsible for regulation of world cricket as the game is governed by laws formulated by the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC).

The SWOT analysis in the report, a copy of which is with TOI, says that cricket is not a truly global sport because of heavy dependence on revenues and fans from India. It also asserts that there is lack of aggressive expansion/growth strategy to counter over-reliance on India.

The report is set to be discussed at a meeting of the ICC working group and the Indian cricket board (BCCI) officials in New Delhi on Thursday. Interestingly, BCCI CEO Rahul Johri is a part of the SWG which has pointed out high disparity in distribution of world cricket’s income along with lack of financial sustainability of leading members.

BCCI got into a heated negotiation with ICC over revenues last year. And if the report is anything to go by, then the ICC is looking at further cutting BCCI’s share from its income to sustain other members. “There is an attempt to cut BCCI to size. How can a body which generates maximum revenue be asked to let go of what it deserves? The report hasn’t been backed up by numbers,” a senior BCCI official told TOI. It is learnt that board members are planning a meeting to counter ICC’s stance.

The report has mentioned that there is a lack of engagement by other communities (non-south Asian, Caribbean) in non-traditional ‘growth’ markets. The report also states that competitive tension in broadcast markets is diminishing and the sport is seeing uncontrolled private investments by “commercial operators whose interests are aligned with short-term financial gain”. It can be recalled that Star has bagged mega deals in Indian cricket this year.

ICC has also noted Anglocentric norms as one of its weaknesses. “The Spirit of Cricket is often seen as a fundamental part of the sport’s attraction but does not always translate identically in different cricketing cultures. Furthermore, the regulation of the international game is exclusively in English and decisionmaking is undertaken in English,” the report stated.

Interestingly, BCCI and the English and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) and Cricket Australia (CA) had formed the Big Three in world cricket when it came to revenue sharing. That model was later abandoned.

Sources said ICC is clearly driven to be a global sport and hence it has identified the reliance on a small pool of cricket players to drive audiences and revenues as a hindrance. It also talks about the need for the game to be included in multisport events.

According to the report, the game is hampered by the lack of common vision/unity on key areas and context/ structure to international cricket scheduling.

Torn between Tests and shorter formats

While the ICC is striving to sustain Test cricket, it is still uncertain about short-format leagues. Interestingly, the report has listed events like T10, a ten-over event, as one of its threats but it has also accepted that the format is as an opportunity to popularize the game.

The report also cited the time taken to complete a game and the short attention span to be a hindrance.

Link: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...hampering-growth-icc/articleshow/64199408.cms

 

[Tusker]

[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION]

Surely this is all wrong ehh ? They perhaps got it all backwards . You should send them your analysis where you proved that India depends on handouts from the benevolent ICC to survive.

The SWOT analysis in the report, a copy of which is with TOI, says that cricket is not a truly global sport because of heavy dependence on revenues and fans from India. It also asserts that there is lack of aggressive expansion/growth strategy to counter over-reliance on India

[MENTION=142162]Napa[/MENTION]

 

[kuskash]

I suggest whoever has problems with it, should take over from BCCI. Continue to complain never gonna solve any problems.

 

[Hitman]

Become self dependent and simply boycott the BCCI. No more complaining, no more whining, no more BCCI bullying! You more or less completely depend on the BCCI, and then continue to wine over them 24/7. Now that's something @ICC

 

[Mp812]

They way I see it they should remove BCCI . Let them form their own parallel ICC and let's see who joins ICC orjoins newly formed world body by BCCI. After all if change is necessary then think out of box and make huge radical changes

 

[USofA]

The ICC can easily stop relying on the BCCI. They just have to adopt a different revenue model. All full members pay a certain annual fee to the ICC. This fee should be the same for all the full member boards. This will serve as the primary revenue and the ICC can do all the game development using these $$$.

WC revenues go to the host nation only. Everyone takes turn hosting WC. The boards themselves generate revenues on their own through bilaterals. No more "handouts" from the ICC to the boards.

 

[Napa]

[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION]

Surely this is all wrong ehh ? They perhaps got it all backwards . You should send them your analysis where you proved that India depends on handouts from the benevolent ICC to survive.


[MENTION=142162]Napa[/MENTION]

Become self dependent and simply boycott the BCCI. No more complaining, no more whining, no more BCCI bullying! You more or less completely depend on the BCCI, and then continue to wine over them 24/7. Now that's something @ICC

This report tells us what the ICC wishes the world to be. "Growing" the game to become independent of BCCI is ICC's fantasy, however you cannot suddenly develop a larger fan base and increased revenues with essentially the same product.

ICC and BCCI will continue clashing till one surrenders and withers away, and my money is on BCCI winning. IPL is already cricket's greatest festival, where the very best from the world come to play and give their very best. They try their hardest to perform in IPL as otherwise, like Tymal Mills it is "one and gone".

 

[bujhee kom]

This is nonsense. India cant go it alone, they need teams to play.
India dominates the finances owing to its sheer size. Nothing can change that.
Cricket has to find a middle ground.
I do not mind the model [MENTION=141580]USofA[/MENTION] suggests. Paying into a pool for ICC costs and then going solo.
Sadly, that model would sink the boards who get little coverage - including BCB.

 

[Shutdown Corner]

The CoA's term is coming to an end and icc fears a backlash from BCCI post that.

I'm sorry but there is no evidence to back up this claim. Both the ICC and BCCI had to compromise something in order to gain something else in last year's re-structuring...which is by definition how negotiations are supposed to work.

 

[Hitman]

Because thats where the money is. The CoA's term is coming to an end and icc fears a backlash from BCCI post that.

When will it end?

 

[Itachi]

I'm sorry but there is no evidence to back up this claim. Both the ICC and BCCI had to compromise something in order to gain something else in last year's re-structuring...which is by definition how negotiations are supposed to work.

Lol yeah. ICC taking advantage of a straitjacketed BCCI and when the tables are about to be turned, the fear of a repercussion is glooming around.... Then start to talk about compromise from both the sides.... Nice diplomatic strategy. Hypocrisy but a good one indeed.

 

[cricketjoshila]

I'm sorry but there is no evidence to back up this claim. Both the ICC and BCCI had to compromise something in order to gain something else in last year's re-structuring...which is by definition how negotiations are supposed to work.

Bcci was in no mood to compromise. But the CoA forced it to. As you see ICC is heavily dependent on bcci for money. If Lalit Modi could send shivers down the Icc, think what will happen if Bcci leads such a charge.

 

[cricketjoshila]

When will it end?

Soon. The new bcci constitution has been finalised and supreme court will soon impose it on the bcci and the CoA will leave.Likely after the vacation.

After that SC will hear via a constitutional bench if SC can actually interfere in functionings of bcci.

 

[Shutdown Corner]

Bcci was in no mood to compromise. But the CoA forced it to. As you see ICC is heavily dependent on bcci for money. If Lalit Modi could send shivers down the Icc, think what will happen if Bcci leads such a charge.

The financial success of the BCCI and IPL comes after international cricket, it didn't precede it nor was it the cause. Therefore, the interests of the game at large need to be protected. If international cricket doesn't exist. The IPL will just consist of no-name players like Billy Stanlake.

 

[cricketjoshila]

The financial success of the BCCI and IPL comes after international cricket, it didn't precede it nor was it the cause. Therefore, the interests of the game at large need to be protected. If international cricket doesn't exist. The IPL will just consist of no-name players like Billy Stanlake.

BCCI isnt responsible for feeding other boards, esp if some of them try to hurt BCCI's interests. Without BCCI and Indian fans ICC revenues will fall to such levels that the boards that dependent on ICC rveneues will find it hard to sustain themselves. Only CA and ECB will be self sufficient.

So you cannot take money from BCCI and India and then try to hurt them. Both cannot happen.

Btw Billy Stanlake has been playing regularly for Aus T20 team in last year. Most cricket followers will know him as AUS is a major cricketing power.

 

[Shutdown Corner]

Lol yeah. ICC taking advantage of a straitjacketed BCCI and when the tables are about to be turned, the fear of a repercussion is glooming around.... Then start to talk about compromise from both the sides.... Nice diplomatic strategy. Hypocrisy but a good one indeed.

Big 3 took advantage of a straitjacketed ICC in 2014, so this is just restoring the balance. If its an untenable situation or if either the ICC or BCCI doesn't find the present terms acceptable, the issue will be fixed automatically just as it was in 2014 and again in 2017. There's no reason for name calling.

 

[USofA]

I cannot believe that a single individual has the ICC peeing in their pants. I can only imagine what will happen if BCCI acts on their threats. It will be the end of the ICC.

Judging by ICC's reaction to this threat, the BCCI is much more powerful than I thought. Especially now that that the COA is near it's end and the BCCI will take over it's own affairs. The ICC must/has realized and accepted this. Perhaps diplomacy is the only way to keep cricket together.

 

[BreadPakoda]

Imagine where cricket would be if Indians didn't take the sport seriously. Perhaps the game would have been dead by now due to lack of money, going by the comments from ICC.

 

[CricketAnalyst]

I cannot believe that a single individual has the ICC peeing in their pants. I can only imagine what will happen if BCCI acts on their threats. It will be the end of the ICC.

Judging by ICC's reaction to this threat, the BCCI is much more powerful than I thought. Especially now that that the COA is near it's end and the BCCI will take over it's own affairs. The ICC must/has realized and accepted this. Perhaps diplomacy is the only way to keep cricket together.

The only reason ICC has been emboldened is that there is no BCCI thanks to the unaware, unprofessional and naive COA that had taken over.

The moment COA is gone and there are professionals running Indian cricket, retribution will be swift. It's a fact that Indian cricket generates much more revenue and therefore is much more powerful than everyone else put together.

 

[the Great Khan]

This indian centric approach is whats killing cricket.

Its slowly killing the game..ever since the drive to run after the indian dollar started the game has been beset by existential challenges. The India centric model needs to be jettisoned as quickly as possible and replaced by a more egalitarian model..

 

[the Great Khan]

The only reason ICC has been emboldened is that there is no BCCI thanks to the unaware, unprofessional and naive COA that had taken over.

The moment COA is gone and there are professionals running Indian cricket, retribution will be swift. It's a fact that Indian cricket generates much more revenue and therefore is much more powerful than everyone else put together.

and this is why cricket is dying..the never ending desire for India to prove to the world that it has big cahoonas..

 

[CricketAnalyst]

and this is why cricket is dying..the never ending desire for India to prove to the world that it has big cahoonas..

It's not about any such thing.

We don't. We just have a natural economic advantage that we haven't used at all intelligently or ruthlessly.

 

[USofA]

Its slowly killing the game..ever since the drive to run after the indian dollar started the game has been beset by existential challenges. The India centric model needs to be jettisoned as quickly as possible and replaced by a more egalitarian model..

The big question is, how can this be accomplished? Or can it be accomplished at all?

There does not seem to be any desire/willingness on the part of the ICC and all the other boards to make any changes at all. They are all perfectly happy taking and filling their coffers with India $$.

If a change has to be made to move away from the India centric approach, the initiative, action has to come from the ICC and rest of the boards. It will not be from BCCI. I do not see that happening though.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Its slowly killing the game..ever since the drive to run after the indian dollar started the game has been beset by existential challenges. The India centric model needs to be jettisoned as quickly as possible and replaced by a more egalitarian model..

So who will bring the money?

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

Its slowly killing the game..ever since the drive to run after the indian dollar started the game has been beset by existential challenges. The India centric model needs to be jettisoned as quickly as possible and replaced by a more egalitarian model..

Indian Pyjama League has made BCCI and some indian fans arrogant. If this continues then I won't be surprised to see a T10 World Cup comprising of teams like India A-Z.

 

[Peshwa]

Too much hate for IPL and BCCI
And the irony is all ths cricket boards like PCB still surviving bcoz of Handout from BCCI...Stop whinning and Find the alternative to BCCI

 

[HussainRx8]

The crux of the issue is simple. Cricket is losing viewership and interest in Western countries, including South Africa. While, the viewership may be growing in the sub-continent, only India is able to properly monetize it. This is where India's bargaining power comes from.

 

[Itachi]

Big 3 took advantage of a straitjacketed ICC in 2014, so this is just restoring the balance. If its an untenable situation or if either the ICC or BCCI doesn't find the present terms acceptable, the issue will be fixed automatically just as it was in 2014 and again in 2017. There's no reason for name calling.

There isn't any name calling. Its just a pure case of hypocrisy.

Balancing is a concept where you have to take a frame of reference.

Your frame reference for balancing is, when most teams leech out the money from the one who brings the lion share.

For me, balancing is when, the greater the contribution, greater the return.

BCCI holds grudge. It's a well known.

And beating BCCI at its weakest moment, ICC will have to pay the price...

.... And perhaps that time isn't that far.

 

[Itachi]

The big question is, how can this be accomplished? Or can it be accomplished at all?

There does not seem to be any desire/willingness on the part of the ICC and all the other boards to make any changes at all. They are all perfectly happy taking and filling their coffers with India $$.

If a change has to be made to move away from the India centric approach, the initiative, action has to come from the ICC and rest of the boards. It will not be from BCCI. I do not see that happening though.

The desire is there. But no one wants to take the responsibility and the repercussion that it may bring.

 

[zn426]

The other problem has been that only Pakistan has worked on expanding the game to new countries in recent years. Afghanistan got established and gained credibility because of Pakistan (current situation aside, India playing the finished product does little to actually grow the game).
Now ICC is trying to work on the USA as a market, which I get, but why do it when you haven't even touched China or South Korea? If ICC had put half the effort they'd put in developing Chinese cricket over the last 10 years that they have done in trying to hold India and Pakistan down then you have a strong, viable sport for years to come.
It's time to accept that cricket is now an Asian sport. WICB is on its way out, Zimbabwe is essentially done, South Africa is struggling, and the last outpost of cricket in the west is the ECB-which only wants to play the Ashes and India every year. Meanwhile, all the fan bases, growth, and media markets are in South Asia.
Of course, the two biggest cricketing countries in Asia not talking or playing to each other dampens that growth quite a bit, but there's little that can be done to change that.
I personally think there's two short term strategies that can be done to boost cricket-first, create a WI-like cricket confederation for Oceania, which gives you an opportunity to have a competitive third team in Australia and New Zealand's region. Second, make the HK team China's national team and give them provisional Full Member status so there's a reason to start growing the game in China.

 

[USofA]

So who will bring the money?

Very good question. The money has to come from somewhere. Everything costs $$ and lots of it.

Show me the money!

 

[USofA]

The desire is there. But no one wants to take the responsibility and the repercussion that it may bring.

Then status quo, it is.

 

[Shutdown Corner]

For me, balancing is when, the greater the contribution, greater the return.

BCCI holds grudge. It's a well known.

And beating BCCI at its weakest moment, ICC will have to pay the price...

.... And perhaps that time isn't that far.

BCCI is still getting the lion's share. 10 full members were once getting 7.5% equal shares, after Big 3 BCCI was getting about 22 % or so, while the smallest nations were getting less than 1%. BCCI's share was thus about 25 times bigger than Zimbabwe's share. Thats fairly fair, IMO.

Currently, BCCI's share is around 15%, still a lion's share, even though ICC revenue hinges on ICC events in which other teams have to play in order for sponsors to fork out the big bucks.

BCCI already has IPL which other boards aren't getting any shares in, except for a fee for using their players.

The fact that you and some others want the BCCI to damage the sport itself means that you guys aren't real fans to begin with.

 

[Itachi]

BCCI is still getting the lion's share. 10 full members were once getting 7.5% equal shares, after Big 3 BCCI was getting about 22 % or so, while the smallest nations were getting less than 1%. BCCI's share was thus about 25 times bigger than Zimbabwe's share. Thats fairly fair, IMO.

Currently, BCCI's share is around 15%, still a lion's share, even though ICC revenue hinges on ICC events in which other teams have to play in order for sponsors to fork out the big bucks.

BCCI already has IPL which other boards aren't getting any shares in, except for a fee for using their players.

The fact that you and some others want the BCCI to damage the sport itself means that you guys aren't real fans to begin with.

I don't understand this line of thought.

IPL is BCCIs product. Why should other boards get a share?

Secondly, when you bring 70% revenue to the house (effectively), 15% is what is called leeching by other Boards.

And third, ICC =! CRICKET. It's not even the organization who owns the cricket.

Even if i do voice against ICC, it doesn't mean I want damage to the sport. If you go by that logic, no one could even remotely criticize a government or otherwise he will be regarded as traitor to the country.

 

[cricketjoshila]

BCCI is still getting the lion's share. 10 full members were once getting 7.5% equal shares, after Big 3 BCCI was getting about 22 % or so, while the smallest nations were getting less than 1%. BCCI's share was thus about 25 times bigger than Zimbabwe's share. Thats fairly fair, IMO.

Currently, BCCI's share is around 15%, still a lion's share, even though ICC revenue hinges on ICC events in which other teams have to play in order for sponsors to fork out the big bucks.

BCCI already has IPL which other boards aren't getting any shares in, except for a fee for using their players.

The fact that you and some others want the BCCI to damage the sport itself means that you guys aren't real fans to begin with.

IPL is BCCI's and not ICCs so why should anyone get share from it? It is not BCCI's fault that other leagues cant generate the same amount of money.

ICC events have other teams, but the biggest draw is India. Without India ICC's revenue will likely fall by 50%(Conservative estimate as almost 70 to 80% of the revenues come from India). Now if other countries cannot carry their weight, its their fault.

Think about this, All ICC income estimates from 2015 to 2023 is around 2.5bn.

BCCI's telecast rights only, not including the other sponsorships is worth 3.5bn from 2018 to 2023.

That tells you the value sponsors attach to India and to the rest of the world combined.

 

[USofA]

BCCI is still getting the lion's share. 10 full members were once getting 7.5% equal shares, after Big 3 BCCI was getting about 22 % or so, while the smallest nations were getting less than 1%. BCCI's share was thus about 25 times bigger than Zimbabwe's share. Thats fairly fair, IMO.

Currently, BCCI's share is around 15%, still a lion's share, even though ICC revenue hinges on ICC events in which other teams have to play in order for sponsors to fork out the big bucks.

BCCI already has IPL which other boards aren't getting any shares in, except for a fee for using their players.

The fact that you and some others want the BCCI to damage the sport itself means that you guys aren't real fans to begin with.

If the BCCI is still getting the lion's share of ICC "handout", why is Mr. Manohar considered the best thing since sliced bread? Especially on this forum, he is the second coming of..

Is it because he reduced the lion's share a whole 7%? Whoopi-doo, that difference is barely even a rounding error as far as BCCI's revenues go.

As far as IPL revenue sharing, are you serious or just kidding.

 

[HARKS]

At least BCCI is giving 10% of players auction rate to his home board, what other leagues are giving wooden spoon

 

[Junaids]

[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION]

Surely this is all wrong ehh ? They perhaps got it all backwards . You should send them your analysis where you proved that India depends on handouts from the benevolent ICC to survive.


[MENTION=142162]Napa[/MENTION]

What on earth are you talking about? What happened to the rigour in your thinking?

My position is proven by this, not undermined. As Manohar has shown the ICC:

1. The Indian public, via private Indian TV stations, bankrolls world cricket.

2. The BCCI is a parasite that wastes colossal amounts of money on buying off State Cricket Association votes, and is dependent upon ICC welfare handouts to remain solvent.

3. The BCCI essentially adopts a Mafia-like Protection Racket approach, holding world cricket to ransom and dishonestly purporting to generate the revenue which is actually delivered by Sony and Star, not the BCCI!

 

[Peshwa]

What on earth are you talking about? What happened to the rigour in your thinking?

My position is proven by this, not undermined. As Manohar has shown the ICC:

1. The Indian public, via private Indian TV stations, bankrolls world cricket.

2. The BCCI is a parasite that wastes colossal amounts of money on buying off State Cricket Association votes, and is dependent upon ICC welfare handouts to remain solvent.

3. The BCCI essentially adopts a Mafia-like Protection Racket approach, holding world cricket to ransom and dishonestly purporting to generate the revenue which is actually delivered by Sony and Star, not the BCCI!

2.4 billion dude...2.4 billion

 

[USofA]

What on earth are you talking about? What happened to the rigour in your thinking?

My position is proven by this, not undermined. As Manohar has shown the ICC:

1. The Indian public, via private Indian TV stations, bankrolls world cricket.

2. The BCCI is a parasite that wastes colossal amounts of money on buying off State Cricket Association votes, and is dependent upon ICC welfare handouts to remain solvent.

3. The BCCI essentially adopts a Mafia-like Protection Racket approach, holding world cricket to ransom and dishonestly purporting to generate the revenue which is actually delivered by Sony and Star, not the BCCI!

The problem here is that Sony and Star have absolutely no control on the product they try to market, sell and generate $$. Zip, Zilch, Nada. That product belongs to the BCCI. This position is not unique by the way. Same is the case with CA, ECB et all.

 

[USofA]

2.4 billion dude...2.4 billion

$2.4 Billion? Try north of $4 Billion. Between IPL and International broadcasting and various other sources of revenue BCCI's intake over the next 5 years will be that. This before even getting to the ICC "handouts".

 

[Peshwa]

$2.4 Billion? Try north of $4 Billion. Between IPL and International broadcasting and various other sources of revenue BCCI's intake over the next 5 years will be that. This before even getting to the ICC "handouts".

First let him comprehend 2.4 billion

 

[Itachi]

What on earth are you talking about? What happened to the rigour in your thinking?

My position is proven by this, not undermined. As Manohar has shown the ICC:

1. The Indian public, via private Indian TV stations, bankrolls world cricket.

2. The BCCI is a parasite that wastes colossal amounts of money on buying off State Cricket Association votes, and is dependent upon ICC welfare handouts to remain solvent.

3. The BCCI essentially adopts a Mafia-like Protection Racket approach, holding world cricket to ransom and dishonestly purporting to generate the revenue which is actually delivered by Sony and Star, not the BCCI!

I would have respected had you stuck to your previous argument of ICC handing out money to bcci. But as it turns out, reality is different and like a political leader does, you changed your tone to bring Sony and star in order to put the focus away from the handouts which was clearly the prime point in your argument in past.

Nice going. But it is pp where you cannot dodge a bullet.

 

[Shutdown Corner]

I don't understand this line of thought.

IPL is BCCIs product. Why should other boards get a share?

Other boards shouldn't get anything, aside from the 10% for releasing their players.

Secondly, when you bring 70% revenue to the house (effectively), 15% is what is called leeching by other Boards.

That 70% only exists because there are 9 other teams to make up a World Cup. If India alone is generating that money then broadcasters should be willing to pay 70% just to air Indian team's net sessions, no? Alternatively, What is stopping BCCI from making their own World Cup with 10 Indian teams named Australia, West Indies, England, etc? You could keep 100% of the revenue that way.


The way an economy works is that money goes around in circles. If all the money stays in the hands of one person, the economy doesnt just stagnate, it ceases to exist. right now cricket is stagnating in WI, SL, NZ because they dont have enough money. 15% is cuasing stagnation. 70% will be the end of the sport.

And third, ICC =! CRICKET. It's not even the organization who owns the cricket.

Even if i do voice against ICC, it doesn't mean I want damage to the sport. If you go by that logic, no one could even remotely criticize a government or otherwise he will be regarded as traitor to the country.[/QUOTE]

IPL is BCCI's and not ICCs so why should anyone get share from it? It is not BCCI's fault that other leagues cant generate the same amount of money.

ICC events have other teams, but the biggest draw is India. Without India ICC's revenue will likely fall by 50%(Conservative estimate as almost 70 to 80% of the revenues come from India). Now if other countries cannot carry their weight, its their fault.

Think about this, All ICC income estimates from 2015 to 2023 is around 2.5bn.

BCCI's telecast rights only, not including the other sponsorships is worth 3.5bn from 2018 to 2023.

That tells you the value sponsors attach to India and to the rest of the world combined.

 

[Shutdown Corner]

I don't understand this line of thought.

IPL is BCCIs product. Why should other boards get a share?

Secondly, when you bring 70% revenue to the house (effectively), 15% is what is called leeching by other Boards.

Other boards should not get anythig from the IPL, asides from a 10% cut for using their players.


The reason that 70% exists is because of the other 9 countries that make up the WC. If its just Indian players alone, then broadcatsing an Indian team's net session would be as lucrative as the Ind-Pak game. But obviosly its not.


Additionally why not have BCCI host their own WC and keep 100% of the revenue?

Even if i do voice against ICC, it doesn't mean I want damage to the sport. If you go by that logic, no one could even remotely criticize a government or otherwise he will be regarded as traitor to the country.

some countries do operate on that logic.

IPL is BCCI's and not ICCs so why should anyone get share from it? It is not BCCI's fault that other leagues cant generate the same amount of money. K

see reply above.

ICC events have other teams, but the biggest draw is India. Without India ICC's revenue will likely fall by 50%(Conservative estimate as almost 70 to 80% of the revenues come from India). Now if other countries cannot carry their weight, its their fault.

Think about this, All ICC income estimates from 2015 to 2023 is around 2.5bn.

BCCI's telecast rights only, not including the other sponsorships is worth 3.5bn from 2018 to 2023.

That tells you the value sponsors attach to India and to the rest of the world combined.

Yes but sponsors attach value to watching India play other teams, not just to the presence of India. Otherwise you could make money simply by broadcasting Indian players taking a nap.

BCCI deserves the lions share, I agree. But only as much as makes the game sustainable. we aren't asking BCCI to finance cricket in Brazil or Russia. perfectly reasonable to ask the wealthiest board to ensure the 15 or so countries where the game has a foothold don't wither away. Anyone who cant agree needs to discover things like altruism and charity.

 

[USofA]

Other boards should not get anythig from the IPL, asides from a 10% cut for using their players.


The reason that 70% exists is because of the other 9 countries that make up the WC. If its just Indian players alone, then broadcatsing an Indian team's net session would be as lucrative as the Ind-Pak game. But obviosly its not.


Additionally why not have BCCI host their own WC and keep 100% of the revenue?




some countries do operate on that logic.



see reply above.



Yes but sponsors attach value to watching India play other teams, not just to the presence of India. Otherwise you could make money simply by broadcasting Indian players taking a nap.

BCCI deserves the lions share, I agree. But only as much as makes the game sustainable. we aren't asking BCCI to finance cricket in Brazil or Russia. perfectly reasonable to ask the wealthiest board to ensure the 15 or so countries where the game has a foothold don't wither away. Anyone who cant agree needs to discover things like altruism and charity.

I agree. Boards like WI, SL maybe even Zim, perhaps others too, should be given financial support. So they can be set on a path for self sustainability. But a timeline should be attached to it. You cannot just keep giving free money for ever.

I would say set a 5-7 year timeline. The boards receiving $$ should be given 2 years to format and start executing a plan to achieve self sufficiency. At the end of 2 years a full inspection/audit of how the money has been used and what progress has been made should be done. This should be followed by doing this on yearly basis for the next 3 years.

At the end of 5 years a decision can be made to extend support one year at a time for years 6 and 7. If the board(s) are not self sufficient by then, well....end of the road for them. No more other people's money.

Any $$ help without accountability and a timeline to achieve targets will be a total waste.

 

[Shutdown Corner]

I agree. Boards like WI, SL maybe even Zim, perhaps others too, should be given financial support. So they can be set on a path for self sustainability. But a timeline should be attached to it. You cannot just keep giving free money for ever.

I would say set a 5-7 year timeline. The boards receiving $$ should be given 2 years to format and start executing a plan to achieve self sufficiency. At the end of 2 years a full inspection/audit of how the money has been used and what progress has been made should be done. This should be followed by doing this on yearly basis for the next 3 years.

At the end of 5 years a decision can be made to extend support one year at a time for years 6 and 7. If the board(s) are not self sufficient by then, well....end of the road for them. No more other people's money.

Any $$ help without accountability and a timeline to achieve targets will be a total waste.

ZIM just steal money and never use it for cricket. They are a waste.

I agree there should be audits and teams that get aid should demonstrate good management of that money. I don't think anyone benefits if cricket is only restricted to 4-5 nations.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Cricket won't be a professional sport in 21st century without India. ICC better keep that in mind.

 

[USofA]

ZIM just steal money and never use it for cricket. They are a waste.

I agree there should be audits and teams that get aid should demonstrate good management of that money. I don't think anyone benefits if cricket is only restricted to 4-5 nations.

I agree, Zim is a total waste. The door should shut on them. No more $$ going their way. This is what happens when there is no oversight and a requirement to produce results for the $$ being given.

It does not have to be 4-5 nations. Can be more. But what is important is oversight of the $$ being given, requirement to produce results and a hard cutoff time of free money. You cannot keep giving free money for ever.

 

[Itachi]

Other boards should not get anythig from the IPL, asides from a 10% cut for using their players.

So... just because BCCI was successful in establishing a domestic product and exploit its potential to the perfect measure, should BCCI be the savior of the rest of the nations? BCCI runs a business establishment, not a charity house and neither it should.

some countries do operate on that logic.

Yup, Hitler, Stalin ran the country on that same philosophy.

The reason that 70% exists is because of the other 9 countries that make up the WC. If its just Indian players alone, then broadcatsing an Indian team's net session would be as lucrative as the Ind-Pak game. But obviosly its not.

Yes but sponsors attach value to watching India play other teams, not just to the presence of India. Otherwise you could make money simply by broadcasting Indian players taking a nap.

what are the factors behind raising the offers of the sponsors?

BCCI deserves the lions share, I agree. But only as much as makes the game sustainable. we aren't asking BCCI to finance cricket in Brazil or Russia. perfectly reasonable to ask the wealthiest board to ensure the 15 or so countries where the game has a foothold don't wither away. Anyone who cant agree needs to discover things like altruism and charity.

Business doesn't run on charity. It runs on financial model where it can sustain itself. If there are nations who can't sustain, too bad. But the system don't need to put a bullet in its foot in order to sponsor them in the name of charity.

 

[Junaids]

What on earth are you talking about? What happened to the rigour in your thinking?

My position is proven by this, not undermined. As Manohar has shown the ICC:

1. The Indian public, via private Indian TV stations, bankrolls world cricket.

2. The BCCI is a parasite that wastes colossal amounts of money on buying off State Cricket Association votes, and is dependent upon ICC welfare handouts to remain solvent.

3. The BCCI essentially adopts a Mafia-like Protection Racket approach, holding world cricket to ransom and dishonestly purporting to generate the revenue which is actually delivered by Sony and Star, not the BCCI!

The problem here is that Sony and Star have absolutely no control on the product they try to market, sell and generate $$. Zip, Zilch, Nada. That product belongs to the BCCI. This position is not unique by the way. Same is the case with CA, ECB et all.

Except Indian cricketers don’t belong to the BCCI - that’s the whole point.

The moment alternative Packer-style management comes along and offers a better deal, the BCCI will be left with what the ACB was left with in 1977.

Packer took Lillee, the Chappell’s and everyone else.

The ACB was left with Toohey and Sleep and Hurst.

 

[USofA]

Except Indian cricketers don’t belong to the BCCI - that’s the whole point.

The moment alternative Packer-style management comes along and offers a better deal, the BCCI will be left with what the ACB was left with in 1977.

Packer took Lillee, the Chappell’s and everyone else.

The ACB was left with Toohey and Sleep and Hurst.

I agree. It could happen. Just not sure if, when or at all. It was tried once and failed/squashed. Perhaps another attempt might be made. Who knows.

But until then, status quo it is.

 

[cricketjoshila]

I agree. It could happen. Just not sure if, when or at all. It was tried once and failed/squashed. Perhaps another attempt might be made. Who knows.

But until then, status quo it is.

So which top 5 economy in the world will suddenly make cricket its top game and pour billions in it.
[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] forgets that IPL makes packer cricket look peanuts in terms of money. IPL as a brand is even more valuable than world cup or T20 world cup.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Except Indian cricketers don’t belong to the BCCI - that’s the whole point.

The moment alternative Packer-style management comes along and offers a better deal, the BCCI will be left with what the ACB was left with in 1977.

Packer took Lillee, the Chappell’s and everyone else.

The ACB was left with Toohey and Sleep and Hurst.

Indian cricketers do not belong to bcci? Lol. Who do they belong to?

You have no idea how nationalism works in India. If a Kohli leaves the Indian team he will not only lose the money from Bcci and IPL but also millions of dollars in endorsements.

This is India and BCCI, here cricket is a multi billion dollar industry not the chump change that ACB was.

But its good to watch the amount of burn that Bcci causes people like you. Long may it continue.

 

[CricketAnalyst]

Indian cricketers do not belong to bcci? Lol. Who do they belong to?

You have no idea how nationalism works in India. If a Kohli leaves the Indian team he will not only lose the money from Bcci and IPL but also millions of dollars in endorsements.

This is India and BCCI, here cricket is a multi billion dollar industry not the chump change that ACB was.

But its good to watch the amount of burn that Bcci causes people like you. Long may it continue.

This is entirely untrue. The IPL shows how popular star players and regional teams are when it has nothing to do with nationalism.

 

[CricketAnalyst]

I don't agree with Junaids at all, but players don't have to be attached to the national team to retain their popularity.

Especially in another 10 years or so, franchise identity will over-ride almost all else.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

IPL as a brand is even more valuable than world cup or T20 world cup.

So IPL is killing international cricket indeed.

 

[mohan11]

So IPL is killing international cricket indeed.

If you are richer than me it is not because of you that I am poor

 

[Vildoc]

At least BCCI is giving 10% of players auction rate to his home board, what other leagues are giving wooden spoon

Nope it’s 20%now.

 

[Itachi]

This is entirely untrue. The IPL shows how popular star players and regional teams are when it has nothing to do with nationalism.

Regionalism is just the building blocks of nationalism. CJ is right when he says the player will lose value once he is kicked out of the team india. He will be popular, but not on the same level and as time will pass, he will fade away.

 

[Itachi]

So IPL is killing international cricket indeed.

survival of the fittest. Even with all the best players from each country can't make international cricket survive, then it didn't have much longevity to start with.

 

[Shutdown Corner]

Business doesn't run on charity. It runs on financial model where it can sustain itself. If there are nations who can't sustain, too bad. But the system don't need to put a bullet in its foot in order to sponsor them in the name of charity.

I'm only talking about the ICC revenues here. BCCI already keeps all the revenue from IPL - as they should. No one is arguing for them to share that revenue with other countries. But even the IPL is just another domestic tournament without the leading players from other countries , whether those players are bought by the IPL franchises or merely loaned out via NOCs.

But in the World Cup, its not just BCCI who is bringing in the money. If it was than an India vs Rest of India match would bring in as much sponsorship as India vs Pakistan or India vs Australia. In fact, I would imagine sponsors would pay more money for India vs Zimbabwe than they would for India vs ROI. That is the beginning and the end of the argument.

 

[shaz619]

I don't mind if we adapt and have T5 premier world cup tournament or LOI bilaterals but Test Cricket needs to be kept alive and marketed to the new generation; good match making can help achieve this and by levelling the playing field to ensure competitive / entertaining cricket games.

 

[cricketjoshila]

This is entirely untrue. The IPL shows how popular star players and regional teams are when it has nothing to do with nationalism.

What has IPL go to do here?

Is a Packer type walk out by top players possible in India?

 

[Napa]

What on earth are you talking about? What happened to the rigour in your thinking?

My position is proven by this, not undermined. As Manohar has shown the ICC:

1. The Indian public, via private Indian TV stations, bankrolls world cricket.

It also bankrolls the Australian economy to the tune of a $8 billion trade surplus for Australia a year. According to the logic you use in 2. below, it therefore bankrolls Australian doctors etc. who are paid by the state like you.

2. The BCCI is a parasite that wastes colossal amounts of money on buying off State Cricket Association votes, and is dependent upon ICC welfare handouts to remain solvent.

I suppose this is similar to "handouts" from Indians to Australians for products which Australia sells to India.

3. The BCCI essentially adopts a Mafia-like Protection Racket approach, holding world cricket to ransom and dishonestly purporting to generate the revenue which is actually delivered by Sony and Star, not the BCCI!

I don't know if you are really that dense, or if this is just an act. Sony and Star could not generate the revenue without the cricket which BCCI delivers to them.
[MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] [MENTION=76058]cricketjoshila[/MENTION] [MENTION=142736]English August[/MENTION] [MENTION=143738]CanadianG00se[/MENTION] [MENTION=141520]troodon[/MENTION]

 

[Tusker]

It also bankrolls the Australian economy to the tune of a $8 billion trade surplus for Australia a year. According to the logic you use in 2. below, it therefore bankrolls Australian doctors etc. who are paid by the state like you.



I suppose this is similar to "handouts" from Indians to Australians for products which Australia sells to India.



I don't know if you are really that dense, or if this is just an act. Sony and Star could not generate the revenue without the cricket which BCCI delivers to them.
[MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] [MENTION=76058]cricketjoshila[/MENTION] [MENTION=142736]English August[/MENTION] [MENTION=143738]CanadianG00se[/MENTION] [MENTION=141520]troodon[/MENTION]

I deliberately avoided responding to that post. Cant be bothered to waste time responding to such tripe. I hope for the sake of [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] that he is actually trolling ...

 

[USofA]

I'm only talking about the ICC revenues here. BCCI already keeps all the revenue from IPL - as they should. No one is arguing for them to share that revenue with other countries. But even the IPL is just another domestic tournament without the leading players from other countries , whether those players are bought by the IPL franchises or merely loaned out via NOCs.

But in the World Cup, its not just BCCI who is bringing in the money. If it was than an India vs Rest of India match would bring in as much sponsorship as India vs Pakistan or India vs Australia. In fact, I would imagine sponsors would pay more money for India vs Zimbabwe than they would for India vs ROI. That is the beginning and the end of the argument.

At this point it is an assumption that every board is bringing in money. But not sure how much each board brings or any at all.

I think the best way to confirm the % of contribution of the boards is in the next ICC tournament, broadcast deal each individual match should bid separately. The broadcasters bid on each match like Ind vs Aus or SL vs WI etc. This will give us a good picture of where the $$ are coming from and which boards are bringing in $$ and how much.

 

[USofA]

I don't mind if we adapt and have T5 premier world cup tournament or LOI bilaterals but Test Cricket needs to be kept alive and marketed to the new generation; good match making can help achieve this and by levelling the playing field to ensure competitive / entertaining cricket games.

For test cricket to be kept alive, the most important thing is to find a way to make it profitable, or at the very least break even. Without this, there is no way boards can sustain test in the long run.

Sure, marketing it well will go some way to attract crowds and eyeballs. But only the Big3 are doing this. The rest of the boards seem more interested in cancelling and cutting tests in favor of the shorter version.

It is SL, Pak, SA, NZ, WI, Ban that need to do more for test cricket.

 

[Sidilicious]

What on earth are you talking about? What happened to the rigour in your thinking?

My position is proven by this, not undermined. As Manohar has shown the ICC:

1. The Indian public, via private Indian TV stations, bankrolls world cricket.

2. The BCCI is a parasite that wastes colossal amounts of money on buying off State Cricket Association votes, and is dependent upon ICC welfare handouts to remain solvent.

3. The BCCI essentially adopts a Mafia-like Protection Racket approach, holding world cricket to ransom and dishonestly purporting to generate the revenue which is actually delivered by Sony and Star, not the BCCI!

So, what you are saying the delivery mechanism (TV Channels in this case) is more important than the stakeholder that actually creates/organises the market.

Thus, Amazon should not claim the revenues it gets from creating the product, but it UPS/DHL should claim the majority of the revenue. Interesting analysis.

Why don't you present this idea to businessmen?

 

[Hitman]

So, what you are saying the delivery mechanism (TV Channels in this case) is more important than the stakeholder that actually creates/organises the market.

Thus, Amazon should not claim the revenues it gets from creating the product, but it UPS/DHL should claim the majority of the revenue. Interesting analysis.

Why don't you present this idea to businessmen?

) Couldn't resist myself.

 

[Sidilicious]

Except Indian cricketers don’t belong to the BCCI - that’s the whole point.

The moment alternative Packer-style management comes along and offers a better deal, the BCCI will be left with what the ACB was left with in 1977.

Packer took Lillee, the Chappell’s and everyone else.

The ACB was left with Toohey and Sleep and Hurst.

Poor logic.

Do indian cricketers belong to BCCI? No.

But, who is responsible for the development and organisation of cricket in India? BCCI

Who else has the financial basis and reach of providing the same development and organisation in India? No one.

Now lets assume, that some rich individuals such as Ambani or Tata decide to create their own parallel board. And lets even assume that they are able to sign in a few cricketers such as Kohli to their organisation. How will they keep attracting future talent? How will they create other grade tournaments without the structure? They will have no other option but to depend on stealing players developed by the BCCI or buying out BCCI or the Indian government. The latter will again leave with one cricket board running cricket in India leading to another monopoly. Nothing for ICC. Now, if its the former option, then all BCCI will do is add a few legal constraints in the contract. If its spending on cricketers at grade level cricket, they would need to pay significant amounts to leave the fold of BCCI. So, no proper alternative for ICC in the long run.

Another point you mentioned was that BCCI wastes money on state associations. The fact is most of the money goes in development of regional cricket and payments for the domestic cricketers.

 

[USofA]

So, what you are saying the delivery mechanism (TV Channels in this case) is more important than the stakeholder that actually creates/organises the market.

Thus, Amazon should not claim the revenues it gets from creating the product, but it UPS/DHL should claim the majority of the revenue. Interesting analysis.

Why don't you present this idea to businessmen?

Excellent point. Very well stated.

 

[Shutdown Corner]

At this point it is an assumption that every board is bringing in money. But not sure how much each board brings or any at all.

I think the best way to confirm the % of contribution of the boards is in the next ICC tournament, broadcast deal each individual match should bid separately. The broadcasters bid on each match like Ind vs Aus or SL vs WI etc. This will give us a good picture of where the $$ are coming from and which boards are bringing in $$ and how much.

Yeah that would give some idea. But here's the theoretical issue.

If India alone is bringing in all the money, then an India vs Zimbabwe game should be as lucrative as an India vs Pakistan match or an India vs Australia clash. Its the same Indian team and if viewers and sponsors are only interested in Indian team's presence, then it doesnt matter who India plays.

Clearly that is not the case.

So if an India vs Australia match fetches more money than India vs Zimbabwe, the difference would solely be attributable to the Australian team. Ditto for matches vs Pakistan, Australia, England, South Africa.

But...the same applies for the other teams as well. PAK vs ZIM would make no money, and PAK vs IND is a blockbuster bonanza. So who does the money belong to, IND or PAK? That is the question and the fair and balanced answer is that IND does deserve the lion's share but not so much that the other 10 or so teams collapse financially.

 

[Shutdown Corner]

So, what you are saying the delivery mechanism (TV Channels in this case) is more important than the stakeholder that actually creates/organises the market.

Thus, Amazon should not claim the revenues it gets from creating the product, but it UPS/DHL should claim the majority of the revenue. Interesting analysis.

Why don't you present this idea to businessmen?

But amazon isn't creating any products/services (apart from Prime, Kindles, Fires, etc of which they deserve to keep 100% of the money). Amazon is merely a medium from which other companies are selling their product.