What's new

"Ind, Eng and Aus retain a disproportionate control over cricket’s finances" : Fazeer Mohammed

MenInG

PakPassion Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Runs
218,133
"Ind, Eng and Aus retain a disproportionate control over cricket’s finances" : Fazeer Mohammed

In his latest blog for PakPassion.net, Trinidadian cricket commentator and journalist Fazeer Mohammed writes about the efforts being made to restart international cricket with the imminent tours by West Indies and Pakistan of England, and why cricket's long-term sustainability is challenged by the refusal of the Big-3 to facilitate a level playing field for all.


big_3_logo.jpg


In the ongoing effort to get major sporting competitions re-started even as the Covid-19 pandemic continues to present a major threat to health and safety worldwide, cricket has emerged with a distinct advantage, one that we never thought would have actually been viewed as an advantage.

While players, fans and officials of other disciplines cringe at the prospect of games being reduced essentially to made-for-TV events with no-one in the stands and therefore no atmosphere or background noise to give context to the action, Test cricket suffers from no such challenges because it’s been played for decades around the world against the backdrop of rows and rows of empty seats.

Except of course for England, the birthplace of the sport, where full houses for the traditional format of the game are standard, whether it is an Ashes battle or a duel with one of the lower-ranked teams. Now though, they are set to join the family of nations for whom Test cricket in deserted stadia is standard fare, assuming that the postponed series against the West Indies and then Pakistan do go ahead.

At the time of writing, it looks as if everything is being put in place to facilitate what is being described as a “bio-secure” environment for both teams to play three Tests each in a country where the impact of the coronavirus has been the most devastating in all of Europe. However, there is still no guarantee, even with a provisional squad of 30 named, that the Caribbean side will embark upon this unique campaign given the lingering concerns about players being exposed to the virus.

Whether or not the series goes ahead, with the Pakistan series expected to follow close on its heels, the main driving force for this contest – certainly from a Cricket West Indies point of view – is the same issue which is prompting sporting administrations throughout the world to explore every which way they can get competition going again: money.

Cricket West Indies is in deep, deep financial trouble to the extent that they were late in making payments to players and staff coming into the new year. Ricky Skerritt, the president of the organisation, has described its financial state as the equivalent of being in an intensive care unit while his CEO, Englishman Johnny Grave, underscored the grim reality in an interview on May 5:

“We are no different to any other business or organisation and if we are not able to play cricket, we’re not going to get the revenue…so our ability to continue to operate as we would normally becomes increasingly challenging.”

What this situation highlights is the continuing unsustainability of the global financial model for international cricket, which is presumably overseen by the International Cricket Council but in reality is determined by the three major powers in the game – India, England and Australia. Having backpedalled from the shameless attempt to hijack the sport five years ago, they retain a disproportionate control over cricket’s administration, including its finances.

While many readers may be tired of me highlighting this point, it doesn’t change its relevance or the reality that it ensures a continuing imbalance which inhibits the development of a more competitive environment for international cricket on and off the field. So let me leave it to two respected cricket broadcasters, two former England captains, Nasser Hussain and Mike Atherton, to give their perspectives in the context of the efforts to have the West Indies and Pakistan series played in England in the coming months.

“I find it ironic that the two sides who’ve probably been hard done by the most by the Big Three, two great cricketing nations – Pakistan and West Indies – who have been hardest hit, now we’re asking them to come over to England,” said Hussain on Sky Sports on May 14.

Atherton went into greater detail in his column in “The Times” of London that same week:

“…West Indies and Pakistan find themselves in an unusually strong bargaining position. Top of their wish list would be two things: Pakistan want to see a return of full international cricket to their country and would like to persuade England (and Australia) to end their long absences from touring, while West Indies have been pushing for a more equitable distribution of television monies in order to sustain international cricket’s competitive balance. As yet there is no sense that either wish to leverage their advantage.

“It is a hypothetical question, of course, and impossible to know the answer, but would England be so swift to help if the situation were reversed? If West Indies and Pakistan do travel this summer, their generosity should not be forgotten.”

So, while there are issues about the administration of cricket in Pakistan and West Indies and quite a few other Full Member nations, we cannot simply ignore the continuing imbalance which puts the other nine Test-playing nations at a distinct disadvantage.

Will this change in the aftermath of the unprecedented impact of Covid-19? Will we see a real effort to create an environment, both in terms of the financial structure and international itinerary, which treats every nation equitably?

I doubt it. All this talk of a “new normal” will not be extended to cricket’s global governance. Yes, there may be further disruption to come with the Men’s World T20 scheduled for October-November in Australia and the Inaugural World Test Championship, but these are logistical issues which will eventually be resolved.

Cricket’s biggest challenge for its long-term sustainability, with or without the coronavirus, is the steadfast refusal of the game’s powerbrokers to facilitate a level playing field for all participants.
 
I don't think anything will change soon honestly, this is the sad state of world cricket at the moment.
 
The BCCI, ECB, and ACB look after their cricket and find ways to earn revenue. They have put themselves in good financial positions. Why do other cricket boards always complain about it? These 3 boards aren't responsible for the failure of other boards.

These same comments from Fazeer are getting rather boring. West Indies are in the position they are in now due to their own failures. It isn't the big 3 responsibility to give handouts.
 
The BCCI, ECB, and ACB look after their cricket and find ways to earn revenue. They have put themselves in good financial positions. Why do other cricket boards always complain about it? These 3 boards aren't responsible for the failure of other boards.

These same comments from Fazeer are getting rather boring. West Indies are in the position they are in now due to their own failures. It isn't the big 3 responsibility to give handouts.

Yet the "failures" are now helping the Big 3 to keep their ships afloat - that is something they didnt have to do.
 
The West Indies and Pakistan situation will be interesting.

ECB need them in England this summer, but what will they give in return to WICB and PCB.
 
There are only 3 countries which have a trillion dollar plus economies in ICC. India UK Australia. So ofcourse they have more financial muscle.Whats their to complain? These boards do not have the responsibility to give handouts to the other boards.

If other boards have failed to manage their finances its not their fault. Everytime boards are in financial trouble its the Big 3's fault.

This is just useless finger pointing.
 
Yet the "failures" are now helping the Big 3 to keep their ships afloat - that is something they didnt have to do.

Fazeer needs to stop being bitter.

The success of the big 3 has nothing to do with the failures of the other test playing nation. They aren't holding the other countries back from having success.
 
Yet the "failures" are now helping the Big 3 to keep their ships afloat - that is something they didnt have to do.

Im sorry what?

Last time i checked BCCI donated $500K to WICB, not the other way around. WI visiting UK tour is part of FTP which they can pullout if they want. Typical of Fazeer to cry about Big 3 this big 3 that but never want to suggest ways of improving cricket in West Indies.

Please point me out when exactly did WICB helped BCCI?
 
Fazeer needs to stop being bitter.

The success of the big 3 has nothing to do with the failures of the other test playing nation. They aren't holding the other countries back from having success.
Smaller nations dont want to work hard but just want free handouts. When they are in all sort of trouble, lets blame big three for the mess.

Is it also fault of big three that 40% of the total income of WICB depends on ICC. Why aren’t they able to generate revenue?
 
Smaller nations dont want to work hard but just want free handouts. When they are in all sort of trouble, lets blame big three for the mess.

Is it also fault of big three that 40% of the total income of WICB depends on ICC. Why aren’t they able to generate revenue?

You are right.

Big 3 have earned their positions and wealth. Nothing is stopping the other nations from improving. It isn't the big 3 fault if companies and broadcasters want to give them more revenue compared to the other nations.

If I'm honest even if Sri Lanka and West Indies were earning more than they are , they still would not be able to compete with the big 3. They lack world class players. They need to find a way to produce more world class players rather than crying about the success of others.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Im sorry what?

Last time i checked BCCI donated $500K to WICB, not the other way around. WI visiting UK tour is part of FTP which they can pullout if they want. Typical of Fazeer to cry about Big 3 this big 3 that but never want to suggest ways of improving cricket in West Indies.

Please point me out when exactly did WICB helped BCCI?

Keep up with events please.

CWI are ready to send their team in a covid infested country to help out (and also help themselves)
 
Unfortunately all this will fall on deaf ears - money and covid - 2 things on people's head at the moment.
 
They also contribute disproportionately more
 
The ICC has got its priorities totally wrong with its funding model. Those countries that generate more will want a bigger slice, it may not be palatable to us but thats life. But what I find galling is millions have been given to Zimbabwe and that has been stolen by Mugabes henchmen, it has no future at all because cricket is not part of the black African culture and never will be and the Whites have left for Aus and NZ. They spend millions on Women's cricket, again outside the traditional countries it has no future, it costs millions to host tournaments involving Fiji etc. What an utter waste of money. The ICC should be spending money on WI and Afghanistan, in the WI because it is part of the culture and Afghanistan as the country has real passion and talent. But they should spend the money themselves as we know any money given to the Afghan board will into the Dubai property market sooner or later.
 
The ICC has got its priorities totally wrong with its funding model. Those countries that generate more will want a bigger slice, it may not be palatable to us but thats life. But what I find galling is millions have been given to Zimbabwe and that has been stolen by Mugabes henchmen, it has no future at all because cricket is not part of the black African culture and never will be and the Whites have left for Aus and NZ. They spend millions on Women's cricket, again outside the traditional countries it has no future, it costs millions to host tournaments involving Fiji etc. What an utter waste of money. The ICC should be spending money on WI and Afghanistan, in the WI because it is part of the culture and Afghanistan as the country has real passion and talent. But they should spend the money themselves as we know any money given to the Afghan board will into the Dubai property market sooner or later.

Excellent points. My only disagreement is with giving money to WI. There is rampant corruption there. The ICC should closely monitor and audit all $$ given. Put them on a path to self sufficiency.

Give them a 5 year time limit to get their house back in order. They should give them the first two years to implement changes. At the end of two years the ICC makes a detail followup to make sure things are progressing in the right direction. After second year, they should do it once a year for the next three years.

At the end of five years if WI are almost at the finish line, give them another 1-2 years of $$. If they do not get any changes done by year 6 or 7, then time to close shop in the WI and move on. Because at that point it will be a money pit. No amount of $$ can help.
 
Excellent points. My only disagreement is with giving money to WI. There is rampant corruption there. The ICC should closely monitor and audit all $$ given. Put them on a path to self sufficiency.

Give them a 5 year time limit to get their house back in order. They should give them the first two years to implement changes. At the end of two years the ICC makes a detail followup to make sure things are progressing in the right direction. After second year, they should do it once a year for the next three years.

At the end of five years if WI are almost at the finish line, give them another 1-2 years of $$. If they do not get any changes done by year 6 or 7, then time to close shop in the WI and move on. Because at that point it will be a money pit. No amount of $$ can help.

WI board is rubbish and although there is corruption, its on a low level, mismanagement is a bigger issue.
 
Fazeer has made some good points but there's some that lack in detail.

For example he wrote there needs to be "more equitable distribution of television monies".

Which television monies is he talking about?

I am assuming he is not mentioning let's say the broadcast rights money made by ECB on a tour to their shores by Australia for example.

So, I am not exactly sure which television money is he referring to? The ICC events' television money? I wish there was a clarification.
 
The ICC has got its priorities totally wrong with its funding model. Those countries that generate more will want a bigger slice, it may not be palatable to us but thats life. But what I find galling is millions have been given to Zimbabwe and that has been stolen by Mugabes henchmen, it has no future at all because cricket is not part of the black African culture and never will be and the Whites have left for Aus and NZ. They spend millions on Women's cricket, again outside the traditional countries it has no future, it costs millions to host tournaments involving Fiji etc. What an utter waste of money. The ICC should be spending money on WI and Afghanistan, in the WI because it is part of the culture and Afghanistan as the country has real passion and talent. But they should spend the money themselves as we know any money given to the Afghan board will into the Dubai property market sooner or later.

Completely disagree on this. Women's cricket has lot of potential and following is increasing. Quality of players is also very good. Watch HarmanPreet's 180+ innings/Mooney/Perry.

Back in 2005, I saw Mithali Raj bat in a Test Match. That was an awesome innings to watch, full of great drives and cut and pull shot. She is the top run getter.

Young leggie from NZ, Amelia Kerr.
And I would say the best of the lot.. Lady Tendulkar, Shefali Verma is an awesome young bat.
WI womens team play the same brand as the mens T20 team, hard and aggressive.
Nida Dar, Bismah Maharoof from Pakistan. These all are talented sportswomen who should be encouraged to play our beautiful game and more money should be spent.
Watch the loop and flight in the bowling of Poonam Yadav, Crisp Drives of Smriti Mandhana, All round Skills of Elise Perry, Doggedness of batting from Mithali Raj.. Plenty of skills and talent on showcase here.
Just because you don't watch or follow it does not mean it is a waste of time.
 
England an Australia are developed nations with a solid infrastructure.
They may not have as much cricketing talent as other nations, but there is a solid foundation of cricket coaching and development form county cricket onwards. This allows the elite players with strong coaching, training and health regimens.

Good Infrastructure in a developed nation will naturally allow secure financial stability.

India has good infrastructure at the highest level, but not all talent get's that far. India has an obscenely massive population with cricket enjoying a near monopoly in the country. Cheap advertising, broadcasting, sponsorship, merchandise etc. on a MASS scale = Money.

Pakistan enjoys good infrastructure at the highest level, not like India, not all talent gets harnessed. Up until recently, there has not been a proper upheaval of the infrastructure, system and financial stability for cricket careers. That said, it enjoys a strong population, that, if utilized, can showcase talent and provide financial incentives.

NZ is a funny one. They've struggled with finances but have streamlined their model with some success.

I don't see how West Indies, Sri Lanka, South Africa, Bangladesh can compete without the money and infrastructure.

Eng, Aus and India are happy with the status quo and who can blame them. Unless the ICC does something, cricket will die a sorry death in the few countries that play it.

I also can't believe the pathetic and asinine attitude of "Oh but those 3 bring in the most money".

We aren't board members, we are fans. We want to see cricket played on a level playing field.
 
When England are rubbish at cricket again (and they will be, cricket is not popular enough in that small island population to guarantee talent will always be available) i wonder how the BIG 3 model is affected?

If England get to the point where they're really pathetic on the pitch like they were during parts of the 90's and 2000's then will it have enough implication to be harder to justify their larger slice of the pie?
 
England an Australia are developed nations with a solid infrastructure.
They may not have as much cricketing talent as other nations, but there is a solid foundation of cricket coaching and development form county cricket onwards. This allows the elite players with strong coaching, training and health regimens.

Good Infrastructure in a developed nation will naturally allow secure financial stability.

India has good infrastructure at the highest level, but not all talent get's that far. India has an obscenely massive population with cricket enjoying a near monopoly in the country. Cheap advertising, broadcasting, sponsorship, merchandise etc. on a MASS scale = Money.

Pakistan enjoys good infrastructure at the highest level, not like India, not all talent gets harnessed. Up until recently, there has not been a proper upheaval of the infrastructure, system and financial stability for cricket careers. That said, it enjoys a strong population, that, if utilized, can showcase talent and provide financial incentives.

NZ is a funny one. They've struggled with finances but have streamlined their model with some success.

I don't see how West Indies, Sri Lanka, South Africa, Bangladesh can compete without the money and infrastructure.

Eng, Aus and India are happy with the status quo and who can blame them. Unless the ICC does something, cricket will die a sorry death in the few countries that play it.

I also can't believe the pathetic and asinine attitude of "Oh but those 3 bring in the most money".

We aren't board members, we are fans. We want to see cricket played on a level playing field.

BD has money and infrastructure if you are putting Pakistan as having money and infrastructure. Both nations have a huge number of fans as well.
 
BD has money and infrastructure if you are putting Pakistan as having money and infrastructure. Both nations have a huge number of fans as well.

Afghanistan is the new upcoming nation with lots of young population to support the cricket culture and they already have some superstars who were probably born or learnt their cricket in Pakistan.
 
When England are rubbish at cricket again (and they will be, cricket is not popular enough in that small island population to guarantee talent will always be available) i wonder how the BIG 3 model is affected?

If England get to the point where they're really pathetic on the pitch like they were during parts of the 90's and 2000's then will it have enough implication to be harder to justify their larger slice of the pie?

Well everything suggests the opposite. The number of watchable, entertaining players they have churned out or adopted :srt has only increased with each passing generation.
 
Fazeer has made some good points but there's some that lack in detail.

For example he wrote there needs to be "more equitable distribution of television monies".

Which television monies is he talking about?

I am assuming he is not mentioning let's say the broadcast rights money made by ECB on a tour to their shores by Australia for example.

So, I am not exactly sure which television money is he referring to? The ICC events' television money? I wish there was a clarification.

He is referring to two separate things: The ICC distribution is heavily skewed towards the bigger boards (although CA and ECB have suffered a cut recently); and the fact that away teams get no share of the broadcast revenues from bilateral test tours. If there was more equitable distribution of these funds, international test cricket would become more competitive.
 
He is referring to two separate things: The ICC distribution is heavily skewed towards the bigger boards (although CA and ECB have suffered a cut recently); and the fact that away teams get no share of the broadcast revenues from bilateral test tours. If there was more equitable distribution of these funds, international test cricket would become more competitive.

Why should away teams get share of broadcast revenues? Home Boards broadcast revenues depends on their market and their ability to leverage that market. The away team has no right whatsoever on these funds. This is nothing but a desperate attempt by incompetent corrupt boards to grab the funds that efficient boards generate.

Coming to the ICC funds distribution

Except BCCI and ECB to a slight extent, rest of the major boards get the same amount. A WICB gets the same as a CA.

The three minnows Afg IRL and Zim get lesser amount.
 
BD has money and infrastructure if you are putting Pakistan as having money and infrastructure. Both nations have a huge number of fans as well.

Indian infrastructure has percolated to the grass roots now. Its far ahead of anyone else if you look at the sheer scale of it. Though i will still put them behind CA, though slightly.
 
Why should away teams get share of broadcast revenues? Home Boards broadcast revenues depends on their market and their ability to leverage that market. The away team has no right whatsoever on these funds. This is nothing but a desperate attempt by incompetent corrupt boards to grab the funds that efficient boards generate.

Coming to the ICC funds distribution

Except BCCI and ECB to a slight extent, rest of the major boards get the same amount. A WICB gets the same as a CA.

The three minnows Afg IRL and Zim get lesser amount.

International cricket's revenue model is broken, which is why there are now only 3 countries where cricket is sustainable in the long-run.

I don't necessarily think that away teams should get a share of the broadcast revenues, but a situation where the West Indies travelled to England last year without any reciprocal agreement with the ECB smacks of a skewed market structure which will break sooner rather than later.
 
Back
Top