We all know that for many years cricket was effectively ruled by England's MCC, and that subsequently economic power has shifted towards India.
Perhaps now is a timely moment to compare the clout of the major cricketing markets.
Let's look at each country's GDP (wealth), and wealth per capita, population, ranked by GDP.
1. UK $3,124,650 million, 68 million people, $46,344 per person.
2. India $3,049,704 million, 1,353 million people, $2,191 per person
3. Australia $1,617, 543 million, 25 million people, $62,723 per person
4. Bangladesh $409,584 million, 161 million people, $2,544 per person
5. South Africa $329,529 million, 60 million people, $5,444 per person
6. Pakistan $286,340 million, 221 million people, $1,260 per person
7. New Zealand $243,332 million, 5 million people, $47,499 per person
8. West Indies (Caricom) $145,300 billion, 18 million people, $12,608 per person
9. Sri Lanka $$84,352 million, 22 million people, $3,830 per person
Obviously the source of power is neither total national wealth, nor wealth per person.
India has less money than the UK and less money per person. Its middle-classes do not pay an extra subscription fee of $45 per month for cricket channels like in the UK, or $50 per month in Australia.
In fact, when you look a the relative poverty of the Indian market it quickly becomes obvious that the financial value of cricket lies squarely in the form of advertising, and indeed that if cricket was restricted to subscription channels (like in the wealthy markets of England, Australia, New Zealand and, for want of a less-offensive expression, white South Africa) it would actually ruin the advertising revenue.
So we effectively have a neat divide, which mirrors the per capita GDP:
Group A - Poor countries where advertising pays for TV rights acquisitions
India $2,191
Bangladesh $2,544
Pakistan $1,260
Sri Lanka $3,830
Group B - Affluent countries where subscriptions pay for TV rights acquisitions
England $46,340
Australia $62,723
New Zealand $47,499
West Indies $12,608
South Africa (mainly white demographics) approx $25,000 for SuperSport subscribers
Even that, however, does not fully explain the outsized influence of India.
There must clearly be another influence here - what other sports people watch. In the UK, cricket's popularity is far behind football and in New Zealand and white South African demographics it is far behind rugby (and even rugby league in NZ's largest market of Auckland.)
All of this raises a couple of important questions:
1. Why do Bangladesh and Pakistan in combination not exercise far more financial power than they do?
2. As India's middle-class grows in wealth, will a transition to subscription-based cricket on TV actually weaken the economic stranglehold that India has on the game?
Currently in the UK there are 3 million subscribers paying $45 per month for access to Sky Sports. It's difficult to imagine India reaching a point where there is more revenue available from selling something like 40 million monthly subscriptions at $10 per month instead of relying upon advertising revenue.
Overall, the balance of power looks as if it will depend upon the future acceleration in the size and wealth of India's middle-classes. If and when they are viewed as a mature market for subscription TV services, it seems reasonable to assume that - as has already happened with England and Australia - the transition to a subscription model will actually enrich the TV stations but sacrifice the cricket board's level of power.
Perhaps now is a timely moment to compare the clout of the major cricketing markets.
Let's look at each country's GDP (wealth), and wealth per capita, population, ranked by GDP.
1. UK $3,124,650 million, 68 million people, $46,344 per person.
2. India $3,049,704 million, 1,353 million people, $2,191 per person
3. Australia $1,617, 543 million, 25 million people, $62,723 per person
4. Bangladesh $409,584 million, 161 million people, $2,544 per person
5. South Africa $329,529 million, 60 million people, $5,444 per person
6. Pakistan $286,340 million, 221 million people, $1,260 per person
7. New Zealand $243,332 million, 5 million people, $47,499 per person
8. West Indies (Caricom) $145,300 billion, 18 million people, $12,608 per person
9. Sri Lanka $$84,352 million, 22 million people, $3,830 per person
Obviously the source of power is neither total national wealth, nor wealth per person.
India has less money than the UK and less money per person. Its middle-classes do not pay an extra subscription fee of $45 per month for cricket channels like in the UK, or $50 per month in Australia.
In fact, when you look a the relative poverty of the Indian market it quickly becomes obvious that the financial value of cricket lies squarely in the form of advertising, and indeed that if cricket was restricted to subscription channels (like in the wealthy markets of England, Australia, New Zealand and, for want of a less-offensive expression, white South Africa) it would actually ruin the advertising revenue.
So we effectively have a neat divide, which mirrors the per capita GDP:
Group A - Poor countries where advertising pays for TV rights acquisitions
India $2,191
Bangladesh $2,544
Pakistan $1,260
Sri Lanka $3,830
Group B - Affluent countries where subscriptions pay for TV rights acquisitions
England $46,340
Australia $62,723
New Zealand $47,499
West Indies $12,608
South Africa (mainly white demographics) approx $25,000 for SuperSport subscribers
Even that, however, does not fully explain the outsized influence of India.
There must clearly be another influence here - what other sports people watch. In the UK, cricket's popularity is far behind football and in New Zealand and white South African demographics it is far behind rugby (and even rugby league in NZ's largest market of Auckland.)
All of this raises a couple of important questions:
1. Why do Bangladesh and Pakistan in combination not exercise far more financial power than they do?
2. As India's middle-class grows in wealth, will a transition to subscription-based cricket on TV actually weaken the economic stranglehold that India has on the game?
Currently in the UK there are 3 million subscribers paying $45 per month for access to Sky Sports. It's difficult to imagine India reaching a point where there is more revenue available from selling something like 40 million monthly subscriptions at $10 per month instead of relying upon advertising revenue.
Overall, the balance of power looks as if it will depend upon the future acceleration in the size and wealth of India's middle-classes. If and when they are viewed as a mature market for subscription TV services, it seems reasonable to assume that - as has already happened with England and Australia - the transition to a subscription model will actually enrich the TV stations but sacrifice the cricket board's level of power.
