The Art of the Deal: The long game by BCCI

Aang_The_last_airbender

Local Club Regular
Joined
Jun 8, 2024
Runs
1,425
It was a historical spanking BCCI received in 2017 when it got outvoted by EVERY OTHER member of ICC voted unanimously 9-1, when the demanded a higher share which was about 33% of ICC share and got only17% share for the 2015-23 cycle.

----------------

It started with money, and it has ended with money. The "Big Three" financial model drawn up by the boards of India, England and Australia unveiled amid much consternation three years ago is no more, replaced by a plan to vastly reduce the BCCI's share of ICC revenue and offer identical amounts to seven of the game's Full Member nations.

After a week of intense negotiations that saw the BCCI's opposition to change outmaneuvered by the collective will of the rest, the amount of ICC revenue to be handed out to each nation is now as follows. The BCCI will receive US$293m across the eight-year cycle, the ECB US$143m, Zimbabwe Cricket US$94m and the remaining seven Full Members US$132m each. Associate Members will receive total funding of US$280m.

While this distribution is not a complete rollback to the equal funding from ICC events that Full Members used to receive, it is a considerable distance from the US$440 million the BCCI stood to earn under the Big Three model. The distribution to the ECB has reduced marginally from around $US150 million, while Cricket Australia's share is similar to what it previously received, albeit now in line with those afforded to South Africa, Pakistan, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and West Indies. These changes were passed by 14 votes to one, with the BCCI the sole dissenter.

Battles over the ICC events financial model have been drawn out over a period of years, starting with the ascension of Shashank Manohar as the governing body's chairman following the exit of his predecessor and rival N Srinivasan, widely considered the Big Three's chief architect. Manohar stunned the cricket world by stating his intent to resign earlier this year, but was cajoled into staying on until the ICC annual conference in June, where the above changes are set to be ratified.

"This is another step forward for world cricket and I look forward to concluding the work at the Annual Conference," Manohar stated in an ICC release. "I am confident we can provide a strong foundation for the sport to grow and improve globally in the future through the adoption of the revised financial model and governance structure."

The governance structure of which Manohar spoke was the other major outcome from this week's round of meetings in Dubai. The ICC's constitution is to be extensively redrawn, with numerous changes to the way the global game is run and the way that the performance and eligibility of member nations are assessed. These constitutional changes, which were passed by 12 votes to two, include:

  • Opening a pathway to include additional Full Members in the future subject to meeting membership criteria
  • Removing the Affiliate level of membership so there are only two levels; Full Member and Associate Member
  • Introducing an independent female director to the board
  • Introducing membership criteria and forming a Membership Committee to consider membership applications
  • Introducing a deputy chairman of the board who will be a sitting director elected by the board to stand in for the chairman in the event that he or she is unable to fulfil their duties
  • Equally weighting votes for all board members regardless of membership status
  • Entitling all members to attend the Annual General Meeting
At the same time as the financial and governance changes were being debated and ultimately passed, talks continued on greater context for international cricket, via the creation of a Test match Championship and an ODI league. Progress on this front has slowed, partly due to discussions around the impact of windows for domestic Twenty20 tournaments around the world, most recently the competition announced by South Africa.

More promising was an acknowledgement by the BCCI that it will reconsider its longstanding opposition to cricket's inclusion in the Olympics, a move that other members of the ICC Chief Executives Committee are strongly in favour of pursuing. There was also further discussion of efforts to return international cricket to Pakistan after a gap of eight years. The ICC's chief executive David Richardson was grateful for the amount of progress made.

"It has been a very productive week," he said. "Progress has been made on a number of significant issues, in particular around international cricket structures. Efforts to find a solution, enhancing the context of international bilateral cricket and retaining the relevance of the international game, will continue."

Reaction to the game's new landscape is likely to be varied, much as the Big Three model resulted in heated discussion around the world. In particular, the world awaits the BCCI's response with interest.


1720246701845.png

7 years later,


BCCI are expected to earn a colossal USD $231 million per year out of ICC’s projected annual earnings of USD $600 million from the 2024-27 cycle. For perspective, the ECB, will take home USD $41.33 million per year (6.89 per cent of the total ICC earnings – less than a fifth of the BCCI), and they are next on the list. Cricket Australia follow next, taking a share of USD $37.5 million – 6.25 per cent. With USD $34.51 million (5.75 per cent), the Pakistan Cricket Board come next. At the other end of the spectrum among the 12 Full Members is Zimbabwe Cricket, at a paltry USD $17.64 million (2.94 per cent). Though they will not fare better than the Associates. The 96 Associate Nations, will earn USD $67.16 million between them – in other words, about USD $700,000 each, or slightly more than a sixtieth of the BCCI’s projected revenue.

BCCI wanted 33% of the ICC share 7 years ago but was rejected by everyone. But 7 years later, it managed to get approval for nearly 40% revenue share. What caused this change ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Zimbabwe used to earn $11 Million a year in the last cycle. Now it stands to earn over $17 million. For a team that has struggled to qualify for big ICC events and whose job is just to buffet Babar's numbers and provide practice for upcoming or discarded talents of big teams it's a big number.
 
ECB stands to benefit hugely - From $17.8 million pa to $41.33 million. PCB also from $16.5 million to $34.5 million.

So seems everyone's benefiting and hence they don't mind BCCI upping their own revenue %. About fair given how India drives all these revenues in the first place.

Win win for all.
 
Zimbabwe used to earn $11 Million a year in the last cycle. Now it stands to earn over $17 million. For a team that has struggled to qualify for big ICC events and whose job is just to buffet Babar's numbers and provide practice for upcoming or discarded talents of big teams it's a big number.
With Inflation, such an increase after 8 year should be expected
 
ECB stands to benefit hugely - From $17.8 million pa to $41.33 million. PCB also from $16.5 million to $34.5 million.

So seems everyone's benefiting and hence they don't mind BCCI upping their own revenue %. About fair given how India drives all these revenues in the first place.

Win win for all.
Same was the case last time too. Isn't it? But it was a unanimous vote against BCCI's demand for 33%.
I am looking at in terms of percentage share. BCCI went from 17% to 38.5% share. and this time everyone accepted.
 
Same was the case last time too. Isn't it? But it was a unanimous vote against BCCI's demand for 33%.
I am looking at in terms of percentage share. BCCI went from 17% to 38.5% share. and this time everyone accepted.
Biggest reason is that there is no longer Big3. There is only Big1.

BCCI has been smart enough to play their cards well since. They pretty much have ECB, CA, CSA, CNZ, CWI and Zim in their pockets. They will vote with the BCCI.

The rest, PCB, SLC and BD may now be the resistance. Though I may be wrong about the later two.
 
Biggest reason is that there is no longer Big3. There is only Big1.

BCCI has been smart enough to play their cards well since. They pretty much have ECB, CA, CSA, CNZ, CWI and Zim in their pockets. They will vote with the BCCI.

The rest, PCB, SLC and BD may now be the resistance. Though I may be wrong about the later two.
SLC BD vote with BCCI. They have little interest with PCB.

The reason why the earlier proposal got shot down was because BCCI was under court administration who had little idea regarding how to do anything.

And Manohar knew it.
 
Same was the case last time too. Isn't it? But it was a unanimous vote against BCCI's demand for 33%.
I am looking at in terms of percentage share. BCCI went from 17% to 38.5% share. and this time everyone accepted.
1. Stronger BCCI with a stronger Govt to back it
2. Humongous rise in ICC revenues, almost completely led by BCCI. What the heck has countries like Zimbabwe and all done ?

So the guy who earns the bread gets to eat first.
 
With Inflation, such an increase after 8 year should be expected
Perhaps. But again most of it is free money. What has a country like zimbabwe returned to cricket with this kind of money over 7 years ?

Also, during covid this was basically a free payout for nothing.

BCCI have underwritten all these during the tough 2-3 years completely, so it's only logical they get to dictate terms this time around. Not that it'd have mattered with someone like Jay Shah who has consolidated BCCi grip over world cricket. No more overt political correctness tmyhat ends up shooting up the backside of oneself
 
SLC BD vote with BCCI. They have little interest with PCB.

The reason why the earlier proposal got shot down was because BCCI was under court administration who had little idea regarding how to do anything.

And Manohar knew it.
Great point. Yes, the Administrators were just a mockery of leadership. Although ironically it led to an era when cricketing operations were least affected by politics and as a result Kohli and Shastri got the time and space to mold this colossus of an Indian team.
 
Perhaps. But again most of it is free money. What has a country like zimbabwe returned to cricket with this kind of money over 7 years ?

Also, during covid this was basically a free payout for nothing.

BCCI have underwritten all these during the tough 2-3 years completely, so it's only logical they get to dictate terms this time around. Not that it'd have mattered with someone like Jay Shah who has consolidated BCCi grip over world cricket. No more overt political correctness tmyhat ends up shooting up the backside of oneself
That's a bit harsh. Some laggards always get more than they deserve but they contribute directly, but you also pay compensation for the potential.
 
Back
Top