So the ICC proposed to end handouts to Boards!

[Junaids]

I have just spent the last couple of hours reading the following magnificent document.

http://icc-live.s3.amazonaws.com/cm...Woolf of Barnes and PricewaterhouseCooper.pdf

This is the report that the ICC commissioned from Price Waterhouse Cooper, and which was delivered in 2012. It was a world class governance and funding document which addressed the development of the game, funding for cricket at all levels down to the grassroots and ethical behaviour - especially conflicts of interest.

Most significant is page 45, and especially Proposals F2 and F3:

F2: The distribution model should be revised so that amounts distributed to Members are on a needs basis as opposed to an automatic entitlement.

F3: The ICC should develop a clear funding strategy to ensure an appropriate allocation of revenue between distribution to Members, funding of development of global cricket and targeted assistance to Members.

In other words, no more free money for Boards with no strings attached.

The ICC owns the revenue it gets for TV broadcast of its tournaments just as FIFA does, just as the IOC does.

At that stage, every full member of the ICC received 7.5% of ICC surplus money, and the associates received 25%.

The proposal meant that no longer would England or Zimbabwe or India get free money.

If they had a spending proposal - say Ranji Trophy player salaries - they would have to cost it, submit a request for funding, and the ICC would then fund it and demand proof of its use before that Board would see any more payments.

You might be surprised to hear that this was blocked by.......the BCCI.

The BCCI bravely and valiantly fought for the right to spend the ICC's money in secret on whatever they choose, rather than to be accountable for its use.

http://www.news18.com/cricketnext/news/bcci-rejects-icc-changes-in-woolf-report-580635.html

And while they were defending the right to spend another organisation's money without accountability, they also allocated themselves a 400% increase in their share.

But it is back on the agenda again now, as Suresh Menon wrote in The Hindu recently.

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/col...fight-to-stay-in-the-19th/article13982939.ece

 

[dildildalwalla]

Once again, a good post! I completely agree with the new/proposed ICC model.

 

[Ph_11]

This is not ICCs money. This is Indian money. Which part of that you dont get?

 

[bleaf27]

I have just spent the last couple of hours reading the following magnificent document.

http://icc-live.s3.amazonaws.com/cm...Woolf of Barnes and PricewaterhouseCooper.pdf

This is the report that the ICC commissioned from Price Waterhouse Cooper, and which was delivered in 2012. It was a world class governance and funding document which addressed the development of the game, funding for cricket at all levels down to the grassroots and ethical behaviour - especially conflicts of interest.

Most significant is page 45, and especially Proposals F2 and F3:

F2: The distribution model should be revised so that amounts distributed to Members are on a needs basis as opposed to an automatic entitlement.

F3: The ICC should develop a clear funding strategy to ensure an appropriate allocation of revenue between distribution to Members, funding of development of global cricket and targeted assistance to Members.

In other words, no more free money for Boards with no strings attached.

The ICC owns the revenue it gets for TV broadcast of its tournaments just as FIFA does, just as the IOC does.

At that stage, every full member of the ICC received 7.5% of ICC surplus money, and the associates received 25%.

The proposal meant that no longer would England or Zimbabwe or India get free money.

If they had a spending proposal - say Ranji Trophy player salaries - they would have to cost it, submit a request for funding, and the ICC would then fund it and demand proof of its use before that Board would see any more payments.

You might be surprised to hear that this was blocked by.......the BCCI.

The BCCI bravely and valiantly fought for the right to spend the ICC's money in secret on whatever they choose, rather than to be accountable for its use.

http://www.news18.com/cricketnext/news/bcci-rejects-icc-changes-in-woolf-report-580635.html

And while they were defending the right to spend another organisation's money without accountability, they also allocated themselves a 400% increase in their share.

But it is back on the agenda again now, as Suresh Menon wrote in The Hindu recently.

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/col...fight-to-stay-in-the-19th/article13982939.ece

Let's focus on the first step. I'v seen arguments here regarding who's blocking what and how the regulation should be and blah blah.

Can you provide ICC's revenue contribution from each board ? Where is the ICC making the billions from ?

 

[spade]

I have just spent the last couple of hours reading the following magnificent document.

http://icc-live.s3.amazonaws.com/cm...Woolf of Barnes and PricewaterhouseCooper.pdf

This is the report that the ICC commissioned from Price Waterhouse Cooper, and which was delivered in 2012. It was a world class governance and funding document which addressed the development of the game, funding for cricket at all levels down to the grassroots and ethical behaviour - especially conflicts of interest.

Most significant is page 45, and especially Proposals F2 and F3:

F2: The distribution model should be revised so that amounts distributed to Members are on a needs basis as opposed to an automatic entitlement.

F3: The ICC should develop a clear funding strategy to ensure an appropriate allocation of revenue between distribution to Members, funding of development of global cricket and targeted assistance to Members.

In other words, no more free money for Boards with no strings attached.

The ICC owns the revenue it gets for TV broadcast of its tournaments just as FIFA does, just as the IOC does.

At that stage, every full member of the ICC received 7.5% of ICC surplus money, and the associates received 25%.

The proposal meant that no longer would England or Zimbabwe or India get free money.

If they had a spending proposal - say Ranji Trophy player salaries - they would have to cost it, submit a request for funding, and the ICC would then fund it and demand proof of its use before that Board would see any more payments.

You might be surprised to hear that this was blocked by.......the BCCI.

The BCCI bravely and valiantly fought for the right to spend the ICC's money in secret on whatever they choose, rather than to be accountable for its use.

http://www.news18.com/cricketnext/news/bcci-rejects-icc-changes-in-woolf-report-580635.html

And while they were defending the right to spend another organisation's money without accountability, they also allocated themselves a 400% increase in their share.

But it is back on the agenda again now, as Suresh Menon wrote in The Hindu recently.

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/col...fight-to-stay-in-the-19th/article13982939.ece

Not only should the ICC bar BCCI from participating in CT but also cancel the extra 100 million offered to them by Manohar which was a very bad decision. The players are earning a hell of a lot more than their peers in other sports. Despite all the resources at their disposal all we have is a bunch of mediocre cricketers when ideally we should be invincible.

 

[Junaids]

Let's focus on the first step. I'v seen arguments here regarding who's blocking what and how the regulation should be and blah blah.

Can you provide ICC's revenue contribution from each board ? Where is the ICC making the billions from ?

Yes, I can confirm that I can list the ICC's contribution from each Board.

They discontinued annual subscriptions after the Woolf Report, so here is the precise contribution of each Board to the ICC:

BCCI contribution: ZERO
ECB contribution: ZERO
CA contribution: ZERO
CSA contribution: ZERO
NZC contribution: ZERO
SLC contribution: ZERO
WICB contribution: ZERO
BCB contribution: ZERO
PCB contribution: ZERO

Do not confuse private TV stations with national federations.

They are not the same - ask FIFA, UEFA, the IOC or any other global governing body.

The BCCI is desperate for cash so it tries to pretend that it is its money. It isn't.

The BCCI gets money for hosting bilateral events in India. But that money never goes to the ICC.

The ICC's money is for hosting global tournaments. And it belongs to nobody other than the ICC.

 

[Ph_11]

That's what happens when you have nothing else to do. Posting the same thing over and over and across different threads. I think he claims to be a doctor though.

Junaid has developed a reputation on this board as a wise man on top of the hill.

He keeps on regurgitating the same nonsense again and again without any facts.

BCCI has channeled the Indian market and that is where this money is coming from.

I have explained to him that people never go to see opponent of Iron Mike in a fight. It was always Mike and that is where the money came from.

In short Junaids posts are all carbs no proteins in case he is a doctor.

 

[the Great Khan]

Junaid has developed a reputation on this board as a wise man on top of the hill.

He keeps on regurgitating the same nonsense again and again without any facts.

BCCI has channeled the Indian market and that is where this money is coming from.

I have explained to him that people never go to see opponent of Iron Mike in a fight. It was always Mike and that is where the money came from.

In short Junaids posts are all carbs no proteins in case he is a doctor.

sorry but Im confused. Can any of you refute his claims above? he has actually bothered to do some reading which is rare on this forum where members generally follow the gossip and rumour mill band wagon.

If the above is accurate then the BCCi should not be trying to impose its version on the ICC.

 

[Ph_11]

sorry but Im confused. Can any of you refute his claims above? he has actually bothered to do some reading which is rare on this forum where members generally follow the gossip and rumour mill band wagon.

If the above is accurate then the BCCi should not be trying to impose its version on the ICC.

As if we dont read. This goes back to what I said of before.

His last source of facts were his call to his dad.

The revenue coming from India is around $2 bm mark. We are asking for 25%.

 

[the Great Khan]

As if we dont read. This goes back to what I said of before.

His last source of facts were his call to his dad.

The revenue coming from India is around $2 bm mark. We are asking for 25%.

is this in the other thread? I'm not sure I'm following the whole discussion properly....

 

[A.A.Z]

Junaids is actually backing everything he's saying with facts and logic. Other people have pre-conceived notions and are blind to the very simple things he's putting across. It might be hard to believe that your country is not a super power of some sort and can't monopolise cricket like you thought. Understand this logic, bring about structural changes and reform within your cricketing power structure and you may be able to become the super power in cricket. Star is not the bcci, sky is not the fa or ecb. Sky shows all NZ and WI tests, this has nothing to do with England playing in them or the Indian market.

 

[Junaids]

As if we dont read. This goes back to what I said of before.

His last source of facts were his call to his dad.

The revenue coming from India is around $2 bm mark. We are asking for 25%.

Ouch.

In the other thread I actually posted the link to the BCCI's own Annual Financial Report and even the pages from which I found the following facts in their own audited financial statements:

1. BCCI financial contribution to ICC = ZERO.

2. BCCI combined payments on player wages and ex-player retirement benefits were 24 times smaller than its payments to state associations, for which no financial justification, breakdown or receipts were published.

Their own financial report disproved two oft-repeated lies:

"It's BCCI money that the ICC has",

"The BCCI spends its money on current players' wages and past players' pensions."

 

[Junaids]

This is not ICCs money. This is Indian money. Which part of that you dont get?

Pardon?

This is money that Star TV paid the ICC for the right to broadcast ICC global tournaments.

Yet you say that is not the ICC's money! You say that it is Indian money!

By the same logic, the money that the British networks BBC and ITV pay FIFA to show the World Cup "isn't FIFA's money. It's England's money".

You buy a product from the seller, and the sale price then belongs to the seller. Surely?

 

[USofA]

Judging by this thread and few others, it is clear that the ICC has/is doing a great dis-service to the game of cricket.

If all the money belongs to the ICC and yet they give away disproportionate amounts to different boards, then shame on the ICC. I have to come to a conclusion that they are a bunch of incompetent clowns. Not only are they dragging themselves down but also the so called "lesser" boards and the associates with them. The ICC is the one stifling the growth of the game.

 

[sshakir411]

As if we dont read. This goes back to what I said of before.

His last source of facts were his call to his dad.

The revenue coming from India is around $2 bm mark. We are asking for 25%.

would genuinely love to see where people are getting these numbers from. I've been trying to find this for a while. Please do share if you can.

 

[Major]

[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION]
Great thread bro. Plus everyone argument you have presented is with a source and facts.

Also I wanted to ask, how do other international sporting countries fund thei teams?
Do they receive hand outs or are they suppose to make their own profits?

 

[bleaf27]

Yes, I can confirm that I can list the ICC's contribution from each Board.

They discontinued annual subscriptions after the Woolf Report, so here is the precise contribution of each Board to the ICC:

BCCI contribution: ZERO
ECB contribution: ZERO
CA contribution: ZERO
CSA contribution: ZERO
NZC contribution: ZERO
SLC contribution: ZERO
WICB contribution: ZERO
BCB contribution: ZERO
PCB contribution: ZERO

Do not confuse private TV stations with national federations.

They are not the same - ask FIFA, UEFA, the IOC or any other global governing body.

The BCCI is desperate for cash so it tries to pretend that it is its money. It isn't.

The BCCI gets money for hosting bilateral events in India. But that money never goes to the ICC.

The ICC's money is for hosting global tournaments. And it belongs to nobody other than the ICC.

Mate, I'm quite an avid reader myself so let's produce the sources here and we can go through them together.
So I am goingthrough the PWC document and let's say whether it backs up your statements or again it's your pure emotion talking .

"For example, the ICC is currently funded through a subscription model that requires the Full Members to fundthe annual budget of the ICC. This implicitly encourages the Full Members to think and act as ‘shareholders’ ofthe ICC. This means that the ICC is financially dependent on the Full Members, which inhibits its ability to beseen and to act independently of the Full Members."

Do you understand this ? ICC is not an financial entity by itself. It is making it's revenues from the cricketing boards contribution to it.

 

[Napa]

Pardon?

This is money that Star TV paid the ICC for the right to broadcast ICC global tournaments.

Yet you say that is not the ICC's money! You say that it is Indian money!

It is indeed Indian money as it is money that is paid to networks by firms that recover the money (and more) by selling stuff to Indians. If Indians tomorrow kicked ICC out from games that had Indian teams, the games would go on but with ICC receiving nothing. That is where we are headed, if not this year then in the future.
[MENTION=143230]Ph_11[/MENTION] [MENTION=142864]bleaf27[/MENTION]

 

[Gilly]

I think the biggest flaw in Junaids "facts" is how he calls payments "handouts". The ICC do get income from ICC tournaments but its on the back of services provided by the boards. The Indian, Australian, England cricket teams do not belong to the ICC and must be paid for being in ICC tournaments.

The BCCI have every right to negotiate with the ICC for how much they expect in return for their services in ICC tournaments, the ICC also have the right to include or exclude the BCCI from any tournaments if they don't wish to meet the BCCI's expectations.

Good business sense will always see teams with ability to increase profits get higher returns. The iCC is a subsidiary of the Cricket boards who created the ICC. The ICC did not form itself then create the individual boards.

But the silliest thing overall is calling the payments from the ICC as handouts, the ICC itself is a living form of a handout. I know Junaids only uses that term to make it sound like the BCCI is receiving some sort of payment it is not deserving or warranted but the fact is the ICC are dependent on the BCCI and can only derive profit from utilising the services provided by the boards. In other words the ICC only lives due to the handouts from the big three boards.

 

[AlizeeFan]

Yes, I can confirm that I can list the ICC's contribution from each Board.

They discontinued annual subscriptions after the Woolf Report, so here is the precise contribution of each Board to the ICC:

BCCI contribution: ZERO
ECB contribution: ZERO
CA contribution: ZERO
CSA contribution: ZERO
NZC contribution: ZERO
SLC contribution: ZERO
WICB contribution: ZERO
BCB contribution: ZERO
PCB contribution: ZERO

Do not confuse private TV stations with national federations.

They are not the same - ask FIFA, UEFA, the IOC or any other global governing body.

The BCCI is desperate for cash so it tries to pretend that it is its money. It isn't.

The BCCI gets money for hosting bilateral events in India. But that money never goes to the ICC.

The ICC's money is for hosting global tournaments. And it belongs to nobody other than the ICC.

and ICC fields it's own teams to play in the tournament.

By this logic, contribution of each employee in the organization is 0 as the money is paid by the client to the employer and thus salary paid to them is handout.

Never heard such bizzare logic before.

 

[Napa]

and ICC fields it's own teams to play in the tournament.

<b>By this logic, contribution of each employee in the organization is 0 as the money is paid by the client to the employer and thus salary paid to them is handout.</b>

Never heard such bizzare logic before.

Please don't tell my employer, they might just cut my "handout" by 50% like ICC did to BCCI.

Of course that may result in me no longer working for my employer like BCCI is currently threatening to quit ICC events.

 

[AlizeeFan]

[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] How much salary does ICC pay to cricketers for playing in ICC tournaments?

 

[Junaids]

I think the biggest flaw in Junaids "facts" is how he calls payments "handouts". The ICC do get income from ICC tournaments but its on the back of services provided by the boards. The Indian, Australian, England cricket teams do not belong to the ICC and must be paid for being in ICC tournaments.

The BCCI have every right to negotiate with the ICC for how much they expect in return for their services in ICC tournaments, the ICC also have the right to include or exclude the BCCI from any tournaments if they don't wish to meet the BCCI's expectations.

Good business sense will always see teams with ability to increase profits get higher returns. The iCC is a subsidiary of the Cricket boards who created the ICC. The ICC did not form itself then create the individual boards.

But the silliest thing overall is calling the payments from the ICC as handouts, the ICC itself is a living form of a handout. I know Junaids only uses that term to make it sound like the BCCI is receiving some sort of payment it is not deserving or warranted but the fact is the ICC are dependent on the BCCI and can only derive profit from utilising the services provided by the boards. In other words the ICC only lives due to the handouts from the big three boards.

So why doesn't FIFA distribute its revenue to the national federations?

Or the IOC?

 

[Junaids]

[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] How much salary does ICC pay to cricketers for playing in ICC tournaments?

We were headed there under Woolf.

My belief is that the ICC should spend its money on the following and only distribute any surplus after this expenditure:

1. Contracting all international players.

2. Full TV coverage of all series, including full DRS.

3. Scheduling and funding all international tours, including budgeting for early enough arrival to pay for two First Class matches before the start of any Test series.

4. Grants for all worldwide grassroots cricket development, subject to strict auditing.

 

[Gilly]

So why doesn't FIFA distribute its revenue to the national federations?

Or the IOC?

Because they have a different structure to cricket, its like comparing chalk to car tyres. There is no relevance whatsoever in comparing the ICC to FIFA or the OIC.

 

[Gilly]

We were headed there under Woolf.

My belief is that the ICC should spend its money on the following and only distribute any surplus after this expenditure:

1. Contracting all international players.

2. Full TV coverage of all series, including full DRS.

3. Scheduling and funding all international tours, including budgeting for early enough arrival to pay for two First Class matches before the start of any Test series.

4. Grants for all worldwide grassroots cricket development, subject to strict auditing.

And who would be in control Seth Blatter?.

 

[Junaids]

Because they have a different structure to cricket, its like comparing chalk to car tyres. There is no relevance whatsoever in comparing the ICC to FIFA or the OIC.

Precisely, and currently cricket's distribution of ICC funds is arbitrary, unaccountable, inequitable and designed to allow patronage pay offs to national voters.

 

[Gilly]

Precisely, and currently cricket's distribution of ICC funds is arbitrary, unaccountable, inequitable and designed to allow patronage pay offs to national voters.

The current set up allows corruption, massive wastage and restriction of growth to the sport. The proposed set up encourages corruption, massive wastage and severely restricts the growth of the sport to the point of destruction.

 

[Napa]

Precisely, and currently cricket's distribution of ICC funds is arbitrary, unaccountable, inequitable and designed to allow patronage pay offs to national voters.

In contrast the operations of your favored organization FIFA, that you keep bringing into the discussion as a model, are the paragon of honesty, transparency, integrity, humanity, selfless work and all other ancient virtues that I cannot remember at the moment.

 

[Junaids]

In contrast the operations of your favored organization FIFA, that you keep bringing into the discussion as a model, are the paragon of honesty, transparency, integrity, humanity, selfless work and all other ancient virtues that I cannot remember at the moment.

Compared with cricket's administration, FIFA looks like best practice!

 

[Gilly]

Compared with cricket's administration, FIFA looks like best practice!

You have a closed mind Junaids, cricket administration in Aus, ENG and India has taken the game forward over the last two decades and your solution is to remove their power and dilute it so that the basket case boards like SL, WI and Zim have more control.

You seem to think that by reducing the quality of cricket to equal the lowest level instead of raising the quality to match the best is how to move forward.

Yes other boards want what India have but they don't want to work for it they want it given to them on a silver platter.

 

[Junaids]

You have a closed mind Junaids, cricket administration in Aus, ENG and India has taken the game forward over the last two decades and your solution is to remove their power and dilute it so that the basket case boards like SL, WI and Zim have more control.

You seem to think that by reducing the quality of cricket to equal the lowest level instead of raising the quality to match the best is how to move forward.

Yes other boards want what India have but they don't want to work for it they want it given to them on a silver platter.

CA and the ECB are well run.

But the international game is a basket case. Because 7 out of 10 teams are financially insecure.

I attended the last two Adelaide Tests, at which:

Peter Siddle was on an annual salary five times as high as Trent Boult.

And

Matthew Wade was on an annual salary seven times as high as Quinton De Kock, who earned less than an Australian registered nurse.

It's insane that the ICC gives away its money rather than addressing such a fundamental problem.

 

[Napa]

Compared with cricket's administration, FIFA looks like best practice!

The only thing that FIFA administrators can provide best practices for is survival in US jails.

 

[Gilly]

CA and the ECB are well run.

But the international game is a basket case. Because 7 out of 10 teams are financially insecure.

I attended the last two Adelaide Tests, at which:

Peter Siddle was on an annual salary five times as high as Trent Boult.

And

Matthew Wade was on an annual salary seven times as high as Quinton De Kock, who earned less than an Australian registered nurse.

It's insane that the ICC gives away its money rather than addressing such a fundamental problem.

The ICC cannot correct that imbalance with pays. You are delusional if you believe that the ICC can start to pay cricketers. Do FIFA make sure that soccer players in Portugal get paid the same as EPL players, have you sat down and thought about that.

Cricket in Australia pays its players because the sport is strong and well managed not because they get handouts from the ICC.

 

[KyoOne]

I have just spent the last couple of hours reading the following magnificent document.

http://icc-live.s3.amazonaws.com/cm...Woolf of Barnes and PricewaterhouseCooper.pdf

This is the report that the ICC commissioned from Price Waterhouse Cooper, and which was delivered in 2012. It was a world class governance and funding document which addressed the development of the game, funding for cricket at all levels down to the grassroots and ethical behaviour - especially conflicts of interest.

Most significant is page 45, and especially Proposals F2 and F3:

F2: The distribution model should be revised so that amounts distributed to Members are on a needs basis as opposed to an automatic entitlement.

F3: The ICC should develop a clear funding strategy to ensure an appropriate allocation of revenue between distribution to Members, funding of development of global cricket and targeted assistance to Members.

In other words, no more free money for Boards with no strings attached.

The ICC owns the revenue it gets for TV broadcast of its tournaments just as FIFA does, just as the IOC does.

At that stage, every full member of the ICC received 7.5% of ICC surplus money, and the associates received 25%.

The proposal meant that no longer would England or Zimbabwe or India get free money.

If they had a spending proposal - say Ranji Trophy player salaries - they would have to cost it, submit a request for funding, and the ICC would then fund it and demand proof of its use before that Board would see any more payments.

You might be surprised to hear that this was blocked by.......the BCCI.

The BCCI bravely and valiantly fought for the right to spend the ICC's money in secret on whatever they choose, rather than to be accountable for its use.

http://www.news18.com/cricketnext/news/bcci-rejects-icc-changes-in-woolf-report-580635.html

And while they were defending the right to spend another organisation's money without accountability, they also allocated themselves a 400% increase in their share.

But it is back on the agenda again now, as Suresh Menon wrote in The Hindu recently.

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/col...fight-to-stay-in-the-19th/article13982939.ece

I hope the proposal is accepted. Will help grow the game with funds invested with accountability and equitable distribution to players would be a very significant step in international cricket's history

 

[MenInG]

Leave personal attacks out and concentrate on arguments with proofs

 

[AlizeeFan]

We were headed there under Woolf.

My belief is that the ICC should spend its money on the following and only distribute any surplus after this expenditure:

1. Contracting all international players.

2. Full TV coverage of all series, including full DRS.

3. Scheduling and funding all international tours, including budgeting for early enough arrival to pay for two First Class matches before the start of any Test series.

4. Grants for all worldwide grassroots cricket development, subject to strict auditing.

Question wasn't how ICC should schedule everything. Question was how much salary does ICC pays to the player of ICC tournaments?

Is it 10,000 USD per player, 20k or 30k?

 

[AlizeeFan]

Junaids is actually backing everything he's saying with facts and logic. Other people have pre-conceived notions and are blind to the very simple things he's putting across. It might be hard to believe that your country is not a super power of some sort and can't monopolise cricket like you thought. Understand this logic, bring about structural changes and reform within your cricketing power structure and you may be able to become the super power in cricket. Star is not the bcci, sky is not the fa or ecb. Sky shows all NZ and WI tests, this has nothing to do with England playing in them or the Indian market.

Lacks both facts and logic and is based on random assumption that contribution of boards is 0 since money is paid by TV networks while ICC gets services of players for free and earns money from it.

Summay of this thread:

ICC decides to organize a tournament.
TV networks sign a contract with ICC and pay them millions.
ICC earns millions and it is ICC money.
ICC does a charity and donates money to boards.
ICC has finally decided to stop these handouts.

Looks good, but not when you think
Salary paid by ICC to Virat Kohli for WC 2015 - 0
Salary paid by ICC to Smith for WC 2015 - 0
Salary paid by ICC to ABDV for WC 2015 - 0
Salary paid by ICC to Wahab Riaz for WC 2015 - 0

So, basically they get services of players for free and still claim as their money.

ICC is actual freeloader here and somehow it's logical to call ICC money distribution as handout?