Hi cricketjoshila,
Many thanks for that opening argument. Having looked at your opening statement, I can’t disagree with it. It is correct that India has justified the power it has, via intelligently utilising its domestic market. Australia and England also have to be credited for maintaining their positions in the hierarchy, albeit England with diminishing margins giving how cricket now is NOT the second most popular game in England. That position would easily go to rugby.
Thank you for your reply and apologies for my late counter.
However I read the topic a little bit differently to yourself. The question was, “is the power of the big three justified”. I took the term ‘justified ‘to not mean ‘fair’ as you have articulated, but more as ‘positive’.
The second bit of the topic relates to “Power”. What is the Big 3’s power and how does that manifest in the wider cricketing world?
So let me present my arguments on my reading of the subject “Are the effects of the power of the big 3 a positive or a negative for the wider cricketing fraternity?”. The answer to that question then answers “is the power of the Big 3 Justified?”
The problem with the power of the big three is not that it’s limited to their own domestic markets as you articulated. The biggest effect that their power has is within the realms of the ICC, which is supposedly a body that administers cricket as a global game. I think it’s quite clear that the ICC has in the past very much been a ‘members club’ as opposed to a separate entity that looks at the interests of the global game.
The most clear and damaging effect of the big threes influence, is the amounts that they take from the total ICC revenue. Now you may argue that this is justified based on the apparent viewing numbers that they pull. However what we have seen in the last 10 years has been a widening in the competition level between the big three, and the rest of the test playing nations. Because the big three have such a large ICC share, along with their already existing domestic revenue streams which are huge compared to the remaining test playing nations, they get stronger and stronger. The end result of this becomes that cricket will eventually become so uncompetitive, where the big three are not playing themselves, that it will affect the quality of the game and interest in the game in non-big three nations. We are already seeing a clear effect of this in Sri Lanka, where a greater ICC share could allow them to invest in the domestic structure, coaching, talent identification to raise their competitive levels.
What you say is only partially true. The big 3 model as it stands today Means
Bcci will get 293mn plus another 110mn
ECB 143mn
CA 132 mn
CA's share is equal to rest of the test playing nations.
ECB's share is only slightly higher.
BCCI'S share is the highest. It also has to cater to the highest cricket playing population. It is on the back of this population that international cricket is surviving. If cricket dies in India or its popularity falls like it has in England, there is no other country that can generate the same kind of revenue that India does. What will happen to world cricket then?
It doesn't end here. BCCI because of the sheer eyeballs it generates for its team, is immensely beneficial to any country it tours. The broadcast revenue and Ad revenues for the host country goes up. Hence its only sensible that the Bcci revenue stream isnt curtailed and they can nurture the actual population that pays the bill.
Bcci also lets Afghanistan host all its matches in India. For a very nominal cost.
Secondly not everyone should get the same money because they cant spend it properly or have the means to spend it. Look at ZCA, they have received millions from ICC yet they even fail to pay players salaries.
Then there is SLC, in last decade the elected board has been dismissed numerous times and superceded by the govt nominees. Look at their condition. No amount of money will change it as long as they dont change their way of functioning and people are held accountable.
Now coming to ECB and CA, both the boards have very high operation costs due to their economies. Both the boards have said that they depend heavily on the Ashes and India tours to generate profit. Both countries have a very limited number of days where they can play cricket. They promote the game immensely within their boundaries and ECB has promoted the game in places like Ireland and Scotland.
These three countries also have a far larger number of international stadiums to maintain than lets say a BCB or SLC.
You cannot suck a revenue stream dry by diverting it to other places, you have to keep investing in that stream so that the revenue keeps coming.
This can be seen, albeit anecdotally, with how other countries fare against the big three in the big threes home series. This can also be seen from the attitude of many Indian fans who, would like to see some competition for their team, aside from the big three, who they play all too often. How many series across all formats have Australia and India played in the last decade. As a neutral fan I’d say far too many, to the point where the ‘rivalry’ that they have has been diluted, due to oversaturation. Where the big three do lose at home to non-big three teams, this is seen more as a “flash in the pan”, then a consistent happening.
What you state is far from the facts here.
India toured England in
2007, 2011, 2014, 2019
India toured Aus in
2008, 2011, 2014 and 2018
Thats a tour every 3-4 years. Hardly over saturation.
BCCI arranges its calendar in phases, so a team visits separately for a Test and LOI leg there by splitting the tour. It gives Bcci the chance to host a strong team for a series more regularly.
This doesn't mean more matches, just the same matches played over a longer period.
Neutral fans cannot decide what a Indian or Aussie or English fan wants to watch. Growing up for me as a Indian fan, Indo Pak rivalry was big. Now as a fan i am more interested in India winning a test series in Eng SA NZ than a Indo Pak series.
There are other ways in which the big three utilise their power which is not healthy in the ICC. The awarding of ICC tournaments largely to the big three, which is another revenue generator, again increases the wealth gap with the other teams. This again stops other teams from being as competitive as they can.
How many countries have the infrastructure to hold a full Icc tournament? SLC literally bankrupted itself by hosting icc tournaments. Pakistan cannot hold one due to security reasons. WI hosted quite a few in the last round and so did SA.
On top of that ICC rights are to be awarded to the highest bidder. And the money generated goes to Icc coffers and not to the host boards. Only a small hosting fee is paid to the hosting board. So no the major revenue streams like tv and Ad revenue does not got to the host board. So no its not a revenue generator as you say it is.
The big three have also resisted the governance recommendations made by the Woolf review in 2012. These recommendations would, in theory, put checks and balances in place which will limit the consistent presence of big three personnel, or any other personnel, in positions of power in the ICC.
The woolf report suggested that people with no stake in the game get into Icc. Manohar has tried to do it.
Pray tell me whats Indra Nooyis stake in how cricket flourishes and how she will be affected if ICC is bankrupt tommorow? She collects her cheque and will move to the next board of directors that will have her.
They have also appointed their own people to the most important committees in the ICC, example the technical committee, the Finance committee etc. thus the interests of the big three is what is further propagated, rather than the interest of Cricket as a whole. I can’t say that’s a positive.
A committee has a number of members. All from ICC member countries including associates. A big 3 member has the same right to be appointed to a committee as any other test nation. You need to look up the constitution of these committees.
Thus enclosing my initial argument, my point is that the big threes power and influence, in the ICC results in the wealth gap increasing from the remaining participants. This in the long run harms the competition level in the sport and will drive away fans in the long run, not just in those other countries, but also eventually in the big three itself, nor in the next five years, but in the long term. This in turn will affect the TV rights fees, and the revenue that the ICC can generate.
The wealth gap is increasing because other boards have been very incompetent in running their businesses. Its not anyones fault. Let me give a few examples.
SLC board superceded by govt nominees on a number of occasions.
CSA and how its CEO handled the defunct Global T20 event.
PCB and how it has had 8 chairman in 9 years from 2011. Its chairman changes with the changing govt.
The WICB has been at loggerheads with different govts and its own players.
The less said about the ZCA the better.
Sorry but other boards who have earned their wealth due to their sheer hard work cant be asked to give their money to these incompetent boards.
As a counterexample I give you, sports, or leagues where there is a sense of parity, or a more “socialist” structure to their sport. I give you the NFL, where their domestic television rights deal is a largely even split between the teams. I give you the English Premier league, where the international rights deal is an even split between all teams. These two products, and the sport for these two leagues, has flourished because of this “shared power”.
Your example doesn't apply here. Because test teans are neither franchisee or clubs. They are boards that run cricket in a entire country. Their responsibilities are far more and the costs far more varied. A board managing cricket in a population of 1bn in a country.
The cost of living, running operations and tax structure in each country is different.
Let me provide an example, the revenue generated by BCCI goes into paying salaries of international cricketers, domestic ones, league and club cricketers the number will go into 100s of thousands. They also maintain 23 international grounds and over 30 non international ones. They are taxed at very high rate.
As a further counterexample, La Liga had for many years, is skewed TV rights deal, where Barcelona and Real Madrid had a 70% split of the TV money, Atletico has a 10% share, with the remaining 17 teams getting scraps. The result has been very uncompetitive league where the top two are almost always guaranteed to win and upsets are generally uncommon. This has led to the actual La Liga TV rights product itself not appreciating in value.
Thus my point is that, whilst the big threes power is justified, in their utilising their domestic revenues, their use of their power, especially in the ICC sphere, has and will be detrimental to the wider game of cricket in the long run.
Again the comparison of running the game in a country to a club or franchisee doesn't work.
The revenues put into a big 3 country comes back to ICC in multiple folds. If that money isnt put back into these countries to keep the game alive and keep the revenue streams going, how will the money come back to ICC?
The same population and companies that a board captures to get its revenues also ensure that these same entities pay for ICCs revenues.
You invest in a high paying sector to re coup costs to offset the losses of a low paying sector. You dont take away money from a high paying sector and let it fend for itself and invest in a low paying sector. At the end of the day both sectors will die.
The big 3 by playing in the ICC tournament make sure that the revenues come to ICC from their countries and they get a very small chunk of that revenue. Where as countries which have done almost nothing to the table.
There has to be a equitable distribution not equal.
PS: I suggest that we keep the replies shorter so that the debate gets quicker replies.
