The FIFA versus ICC comparison

[msb314]

Just wanted to start this thread following upon my reply to [MENTION=129948]Bilal7[/MENTION] in the other thread.

We can try to hide from reality but the facts are that the ICC is a big mess today. BCCI dictates terms as it is their cash cow whilst the likes of Pakistan, SAF, WI, SL are scrapping the bottom of the barrel... Teams do not get a chance to evenly play the same number of matches as the Big 3 - just looking at the ICC World Test Championship table makes me sick..

However - lets look at how well run and organized FIFA. It MANDATES international friendlies across all soccer nations and EVERY country gets a chance to play in regional qualifiers to qualify for the World Cup Unlike the top 8 nonsense that the ICC has.

The domestic leagues are very well run with thousands of supporters attending each game and and massive TV deals. Compare that with how all the T20 leagues are a big mess. IPL is very well run whilst the PSL is somewhat lukewarm among Pakistani fans but all the other T20 leagues are a joke. Never heard of an Englishman watching country cricket or an Australian watching the BBL. The Caribbean and the SL leagues are a joke as well..

The major soccer nations have an almost equal standing in the game. Everyone plays in equal number of friendly matches. Less said about cricket the better.. BCCI is running the show in cricket whilst everyone else is an afterthought.

On top of that - cricket is only watched among desi's. Lets face it - no Australia, Englishman, South African etc. barely have any interest in cricket.. It is a sport that only maintains interest in the subcontinent - and that too is dying as barely anyone wants to watch Test cricket (except the purists..). Kids nowadays don't care anymore and it is only the millennials / baby boomers who maintain viewership in ODI's and T20's.

Compared that with soccer - most people in Europe, Latin America, South America and even Africa and the Middle East passionately follow their national team across the continental championships and of course the World Cup.

Why is FIFA / soccer such a well run sport whilst ICC / cricket always in an endless cycle of inequality and lack of interest.

What gives?

 

[Junaids]

FIFA is far, far better run than the ICC - and it's still not good.

Good things about FIFA:

1. Governments are not allowed to interfere - if the BJP or BCCI tried to refuse to play Pakistan, they would be thrown out.

2. FIFA is scrupulous about the difference between revenue and distribution. Most of its money comes from TV rights in order, in:

1. Germany
2. UK
3. USA
4. Japan
5. France

But when Uruguay (population 3 million) usually go further at the World Cup than England (66 million, and TV revenue 6000% higher), Uruguay receives more FIFA money in that 4 year cycle than England does.

Cricket has ended up being taken hostage by the BCCI, and that's a problem.

By the way, I totally disagree with the OP.

Cricket is on a sustainable and positive economic footing because the interest in TEST CRICKET in 3 affluent countries (Australia, England, New Zealand) subsidises those countries to run economically unviable white ball competitions which grown ups couldn't care less about but which bring younger viewers to the game.

Beyond that, we have one country - India - in which large numbers of unsophisticated and undiscerning fans follow a dumbed-down version of the game, and the sheer size of the population makes TV companies from that country economically valuable.

 

[hoshiarpurexpress]

Just wanted to start this thread following upon my reply to [MENTION=129948]Bilal7[/MENTION] in the other thread.

We can try to hide from reality but the facts are that the ICC is a big mess today. BCCI dictates terms as it is their cash cow whilst the likes of Pakistan, SAF, WI, SL are scrapping the bottom of the barrel... Teams do not get a chance to evenly play the same number of matches as the Big 3 - just looking at the ICC World Test Championship table makes me sick..

However - lets look at how well run and organized FIFA. It MANDATES international friendlies across all soccer nations and EVERY country gets a chance to play in regional qualifiers to qualify for the World Cup Unlike the top 8 nonsense that the ICC has.

The domestic leagues are very well run with thousands of supporters attending each game and and massive TV deals. Compare that with how all the T20 leagues are a big mess. IPL is very well run whilst the PSL is somewhat lukewarm among Pakistani fans but all the other T20 leagues are a joke. Never heard of an Englishman watching country cricket or an Australian watching the BBL. The Caribbean and the SL leagues are a joke as well..

The major soccer nations have an almost equal standing in the game. Everyone plays in equal number of friendly matches. Less said about cricket the better.. BCCI is running the show in cricket whilst everyone else is an afterthought.

On top of that - cricket is only watched among desi's. Lets face it - no Australia, Englishman, South African etc. barely have any interest in cricket.. It is a sport that only maintains interest in the subcontinent - and that too is dying as barely anyone wants to watch Test cricket (except the purists..). Kids nowadays don't care anymore and it is only the millennials / baby boomers who maintain viewership in ODI's and T20's.

Compared that with soccer - most people in Europe, Latin America, South America and even Africa and the Middle East passionately follow their national team across the continental championships and of course the World Cup.

Why is FIFA / soccer such a well run sport whilst ICC / cricket always in an endless cycle of inequality and lack of interest.

What gives?

Because India is dominating and running the show.
If it was Pakistan running the show it would have been the most well run organisation in the world.

Jokes apart, FIFA is highly corrupt. Well run organisation my foot. Lol that is the joke in this post.
They don’t contribute to soccers success. Popularity does.
Football Is life and players are gods even in dirt poor countries in Latin America to richest nations of Europe.
Cricket is only popular in subcontinent and to a small extent in 3-4 SENA countries.
It is an odd sport with some archaic rules and long time, which I love and most of the other may love, but not everyone gets the point of playing for 5 days.
Cricket will never be popular in Latin America and European mainland and trying to do so is a futile and waste of time and money.
India will remain Center and spiritual home of cricket of Cricket and will remain so for next 40-50 years.
Accept the reality and move on.

 

[hoshiarpurexpress]

FIFA is far, far better run than the ICC - and it's still not good.

Good things about FIFA:

1. Governments are not allowed to interfere - if the BJP or BCCI tried to refuse to play Pakistan, they would be thrown out.

2. FIFA is scrupulous about the difference between revenue and distribution. Most of its money comes from TV rights in order, in:

1. Germany
2. UK
3. USA
4. Japan
5. France

But when Uruguay (population 3 million) usually go further at the World Cup than England (66 million, and TV revenue 6000% higher), Uruguay receives more FIFA money in that 4 year cycle than England does.

Cricket has ended up being taken hostage by the BCCI, and that's a problem.

By the way, I totally disagree with the OP.

Cricket is on a sustainable and positive economic footing because the interest in TEST CRICKET in 3 affluent countries (Australia, England, New Zealand) subsidises those countries to run economically unviable white ball competitions which grown ups couldn't care less about but which bring younger viewers to the game.

Beyond that, we have one country - India - in which large numbers of unsophisticated and undiscerning fans follow a dumbed-down version of the game, and the sheer size of the population makes TV companies from that country economically valuable.

Your premise is completely at fault.
Ahmedabad pink test match is fully sold out as Ganguly told yesterday.
Chennai allowed 20,000 fans and all the days we have good attendance.
Kolkata pink test match against Bangladesh was a packed stadium, even though Bangladesh did not provide enough quality.
IPL stadiums are full, any ODI INDIA plays full. Same for T20Is.
I went to see test match against Bangladesh in 2016 to Hyderabad pretty good attendance then as well. Lots of school kids as well.
If a domestic game is going on and some star player like Kohli / Tendulkar comes it is pretty Crowded as well.
So much for discerning and unsophisticated fans.
You have no idea about our love for cricket, and we don’t care.
We will enjoy and play and run the game the way we want to.
Challenge us if you can.

 

[msb314]

FIFA is far, far better run than the ICC - and it's still not good.

Good things about FIFA:

1. Governments are not allowed to interfere - if the BJP or BCCI tried to refuse to play Pakistan, they would be thrown out.

2. FIFA is scrupulous about the difference between revenue and distribution. Most of its money comes from TV rights in order, in:

1. Germany
2. UK
3. USA
4. Japan
5. France

But when Uruguay (population 3 million) usually go further at the World Cup than England (66 million, and TV revenue 6000% higher), Uruguay receives more FIFA money in that 4 year cycle than England does.

Cricket has ended up being taken hostage by the BCCI, and that's a problem.

By the way, I totally disagree with the OP.

Cricket is on a sustainable and positive economic footing because the interest in TEST CRICKET in 3 affluent countries (Australia, England, New Zealand) subsidises those countries to run economically unviable white ball competitions which grown ups couldn't care less about but which bring younger viewers to the game.

Beyond that, we have one country - India - in which large numbers of unsophisticated and undiscerning fans follow a dumbed-down version of the game, and the sheer size of the population makes TV companies from that country economically valuable.

Sorry buddy but Test cricket doesn't subsidize anything..

Big 3 tests do make some money but I am almost a 100% sure IPL, WC World T20 and mega-TV rights that BCCI have subsidize everything else.

All of the other nations don't make a dime playing Tests. In theory - Asia Cup should also be a cash cow but its importance has dwindled over the years to the point that BCCI do not even want to field their best team.

I would think the that Sharjah tri-series back in the late 90's / early 2000's were also cash cows but sadly those don't occur anymore.

An ODI tri-series or quad series between India, Pakistan, England and Australia would be the biggest cash cow outside of ICC tournaments and IPL - but sadly there is a slim to none chance of that happening..

 

[msb314]

Because India is dominating and running the show.
If it was Pakistan running the show it would have been the most well run organisation in the world.

Jokes apart, FIFA is highly corrupt. Well run organisation my foot. Lol that is the joke in this post.
They don’t contribute to soccers success. Popularity does.
Football Is life and players are gods even in dirt poor countries in Latin America to richest nations of Europe.
Cricket is only popular in subcontinent and to a small extent in 3-4 SENA countries.
It is an odd sport with some archaic rules and long time, which I love and most of the other may love, but not everyone gets the point of playing for 5 days.
Cricket will never be popular in Latin America and European mainland and trying to do so is a futile and waste of time and money.
India will remain Center and spiritual home of cricket of Cricket and will remain so for next 40-50 years.
Accept the reality and move on.

Corrupt or not - FIFA has ensured equality among most soccer nations and ensures the average joe in the public watches and maintains interest in soccer whenever their national or club team plays.

Something ICC cannot say there have done..

 

[Junaids]

Your premise is completely at fault.
Ahmedabad pink test match is fully sold out as Ganguly told yesterday.
Chennai allowed 20,000 fans and all the days we have good attendance.
Kolkata pink test match against Bangladesh was a packed stadium, even though Bangladesh did not provide enough quality.
IPL stadiums are full, any ODI INDIA plays full. Same for T20Is.
I went to see test match against Bangladesh in 2016 to Hyderabad pretty good attendance then as well. Lots of school kids as well.
If a domestic game is going on and some star player like Kohli / Tendulkar comes it is pretty Crowded as well.
So much for discerning and unsophisticated fans.
You have no idea about our love for cricket, and we don’t care.
We will enjoy and play and run the game the way we want to.
Challenge us if you can.

I don't think that matters.

The problem is that the BCCI has held world cricket to ransom with this insane argument that the country whose TV stations deliver the most TV revenue should get most of the ICC's money.

In reality, like football, it should be shared equally, with prize money distributed according to performance.

The best use of the ICC's money would be to employ the best 25 cricketers from EVERY country on a base international salary, perhaps with 3 brackets:

World Stars: 2 players per team on $1 million per year
International regulars: 20 players per team on $300,000
Development Players: 3 players per team under the age of 23, on $100,000 per year.

Each international team would have $8 million spent by the ICC on players.

Each player would be allowed to play 2 T20 leagues and be paid directly from them.

All bilateral series would end, and the ICC would sell the TV rights for all international cricket. National Cricket Boards would no longer have to employ and pay international players, but would only get revenue from T20 leagues and gate receipts.

That would really strengthen world cricket!

 

[hoshiarpurexpress]

I don't think that matters.

The problem is that the BCCI has held world cricket to ransom with this insane argument that the country whose TV stations deliver the most TV revenue should get most of the ICC's money.

In reality, like football, it should be shared equally, with prize money distributed according to performance.

The best use of the ICC's money would be to employ the best 25 cricketers from EVERY country on a base international salary, perhaps with 3 brackets:

World Stars: 2 players per team on $1 million per year
International regulars: 20 players per team on $300,000
Development Players: 3 players per team under the age of 23, on $100,000 per year.

Each international team would have $8 million spent by the ICC on players.

Each player would be allowed to play 2 T20 leagues and be paid directly from them.

All bilateral series would end, and the ICC would sell the TV rights for all international cricket. National Cricket Boards would no longer have to employ and pay international players, but would only get revenue from T20 leagues and gate receipts.

That would really strengthen world cricket!

Completely impractical and economically one of the worst ideas ever.
Why 1 Million to star player, not 4 Million or 50,000 Dollars.
ICC is not a communist global order organisation, where they decide the salaries of the players. Then instead of playing for India or Pakistan, may as well call it ICC X11.

TV Revenues are always decided by market forces. If a market is bigger, the players there will get better salaries... it is simple.
Same thing happens developers in USA/UK make much better salary then there Indian/Pakistan counterparts for doing the same work.

Salaries in any sport, heck in any kind of job depends on the market.
That is what Kerry Packer changed before monopoly of old school administrators who took handsome salaries and paid peanuts to the players.

 

[U$ofA]

I don't think that matters.

The problem is that the BCCI has held world cricket to ransom with this insane argument that the country whose TV stations deliver the most TV revenue should get most of the ICC's money.

In reality, like football, it should be shared equally, with prize money distributed according to performance.

The best use of the ICC's money would be to employ the best 25 cricketers from EVERY country on a base international salary, perhaps with 3 brackets:

World Stars: 2 players per team on $1 million per year
International regulars: 20 players per team on $300,000
Development Players: 3 players per team under the age of 23, on $100,000 per year.

Each international team would have $8 million spent by the ICC on players.

Each player would be allowed to play 2 T20 leagues and be paid directly from them.

All bilateral series would end, and the ICC would sell the TV rights for all international cricket. National Cricket Boards would no longer have to employ and pay international players, but would only get revenue from T20 leagues and gate receipts.

That would really strengthen world cricket!

Interesting take.

But let's put aside the fact the this kind of proposal if it ever becomes reality, will be swatted away like fly by the BCCI. Let's take ECB and CA. Will these two be willing to lose all control over Ashes revenues? I seriously doubt it.

Ashes are a huge cash cow for these two boards than enables them to run cricket in their countries. Gate receipts will barely pay for keeping the utilities on. So they will have to rely on handouts from ICC. I am sure ECB and CA will not like that.

 

[hoshiarpurexpress]

Interesting take.

But let's put aside the fact the this kind of proposal if it ever becomes reality, will be swatted away like fly by the BCCI. Let's take ECB and CA. Will these two be willing to lose all control over Ashes revenues? I seriously doubt it.

Ashes are a huge cash cow for these two boards than enables them to run cricket in their countries. Gate receipts will barely pay for keeping the utilities on. So they will have to rely on handouts from ICC. I am sure ECB and CA will not like that.

Even PCB would not agree to such terms. That means letting go of Power over players and some of the finances. PCB would never agree to it.
Then fans will be after ICC's life that their countries players are not well paid and there is bias and blah blah..

 

[cricketjoshila]

Interesting take.

But let's put aside the fact the this kind of proposal if it ever becomes reality, will be swatted away like fly by the BCCI. Let's take ECB and CA. Will these two be willing to lose all control over Ashes revenues? I seriously doubt it.

Ashes are a huge cash cow for these two boards than enables them to run cricket in their countries. Gate receipts will barely pay for keeping the utilities on. So they will have to rely on handouts from ICC. I am sure ECB and CA will not like that.

Why should Bcci or CA or ECB subsidize, poorly run, corrupted, inefficient boards?

 

[Thunderbolt14]

Even PCB would not agree to such terms. That means letting go of Power over players and some of the finances. PCB would never agree to it.
Then fans will be after ICC's life that their countries players are not well paid and there is bias and blah blah..

Ignore the practicality of actually getting boards to agree. On a philosophical level, would a FIFA like model not be better for the growth of international cricket?

 

[hoshiarpurexpress]

Ignore the practicality of actually getting boards to agree. On a philosophical level, would a FIFA like model not be better for the growth of international cricket?

Define growth. I believe it is fruitless to grow cricket in Latin American countries and Europe.
Regarding Cricket in Zim/Kenya/Afg etc. I am all for ICC giving more funds there.
But the boards are really corrupt. SRL/SA/Zim/WI.. all these especially.. It is like giving Economic Aid to despot dictators who will build there own mansions.
There needs to be thoroughly regulated and audited development programs then in that case.

 

[Thunderbolt14]

Define growth. I believe it is fruitless to grow cricket in Latin American countries and Europe.
Regarding Cricket in Zim/Kenya/Afg etc. I am all for ICC giving more funds there.
But the boards are really corrupt. SRL/SA/Zim/WI.. all these especially.. It is like giving Economic Aid to despot dictators who will build there own mansions.
There needs to be thoroughly regulated and audited development programs then in that case.

Agreed. It would require good planning, a clear vision, and proper auditing. Would that make you more comfortable?

 

[hoshiarpurexpress]

Agreed. It would require good planning, a clear vision, and proper auditing. Would that make you more comfortable?

Yeah that would be a good solution.
India has already helped Afghans in terms of giving them facilities to practice and home ground in Noida. Such more initiatives will also help.

 

[JaDed]

True time to make club cricket the priority and destroy bilateral so players can actually make money FIFA model should be followed in absolute way.

ICC can have their intl tournaments once in 4 years.

 

[Last Monetarist]

Sorry buddy but Test cricket doesn't subsidize anything..

Big 3 tests do make some money but I am almost a 100% sure IPL, WC World T20 and mega-TV rights that BCCI have subsidize everything else.

All of the other nations don't make a dime playing Tests. In theory - Asia Cup should also be a cash cow but its importance has dwindled over the years to the point that BCCI do not even want to field their best team.

I would think the that Sharjah tri-series back in the late 90's / early 2000's were also cash cows but sadly those don't occur anymore.

An ODI tri-series or quad series between India, Pakistan, England and Australia would be the biggest cash cow outside of ICC tournaments and IPL - but sadly there is a slim to none chance of that happening..

[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] is right, test cricket subsidizes other events in Australia and England. I don't see that changing in the medium term due to the fact that it is culturally ingrained at a young age that test cricket is the premier format and attendances and tv viewing figures reflect that.

However, I am sure that isn't the case in New Zealand, which is why they usually don't play more than 2-match test series at home. Even their test series against England recently have been 2-match series despite having hordes of travellers from England.

 

[Napa]

FIFA is by far the worst run and most corrupt organization in charge of a major sport.

ICC has over the past few decades introduced 2 new forms of the game which has created a huge new audience and revenues.

NBA, NFL etc. are constantly changing their rules to make their games more exciting.

What does FIFA do? Nothing, unless you could corruption as doing something.

There are many rule changes that would improve football, but there is very little movement from FIFA. Instead we have well documented corruption which results in many convictions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_FIFA_corruption_case

 

[Babbar]

The whole thread smells of an effort to leach money from a large cricket-passionate ready-to-spend Indian fans.

Pakistan too is passionate but Pak fans are either too poor or too kanjoos or PCB is corrupt AND unprofessional.

Otherwise, Pakistan, like India, England & Australia, being the second largest market should be a net contributor to ICC funds rather than the current state of PCB begging for a share of the Indian market pie, while cursing and suing India at the same time.

 

[hoshiarpurexpress]

Why the stadium on first day of return of test cricket cricket to Pakistan was not full ? At full capacity and packed fully.
Introspect within before asking other boards.

 

[cricketjoshila]

The whole thread smells of an effort to leach money from a large cricket-passionate ready-to-spend Indian fans.

Pakistan too is passionate but Pak fans are either too poor or too kanjoos or PCB is corrupt AND unprofessional.

Otherwise, Pakistan, like India, England & Australia, being the second largest market should be a net contributor to ICC funds rather than the current state of PCB begging for a share of the Indian market pie, while cursing and suing India at the same time.

Pakistani economy is much smaller.

 

[Babbar]

I know that Pak economy is about one-tenth of India, but it should still have made net positive funds contribution to ICC, as it has 20X more cricket-passionate fans than the whole SENA region combined. It’s just sheer incompetence, greed and corruption that has made PCB begging so shamelessly before BCCI for crumbs.

 

[Thunderbolt14]

Why the stadium on first day of return of test cricket cricket to Pakistan was not full ? At full capacity and packed fully.
Introspect within before asking other boards.

Because 10 years of exile coupled with 20 years of terrorism has led to the demise of interest in the sport. It’s not easy.

Many people don’t even know about basic cricket rules.

That’s why the efforts of PCB to stage PSL are so praiseworthy. Without any support from ICC, we have truly rejuvenated a new audience for the sport and become financially self-sufficient despite many obstacles and setbacks.

 

[MenInG]

The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) receives a large share of the ICC's revenue, USD 405 million from the current cycle to be exact.The England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) gets the second highest share. The ECB is getting USD 139 million. The cricketing governing bodies of Australia, Bangladesh, South Africa, West Indies, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and New Zealand receive USD 128 million.

A period of eight years constitutes a cycle. In the 2016-2023 financial cycle, Bangladesh is getting USD 128 million (approximately 11,000 crore) from the ICC. Zimbabwe aren't part of the Test Championship and so the Zimbabwe Cricket (ZC) is getting less money than the third set of boards (USD 94 million).

However, BCB president Nazmul Hasan Papon claimed that Bangladesh now receives the same amount from the ICC as Zimbabwe and from 2023 it would get the same dividend as Australia. The BCB president gave this information while talking about various issues related to cricket at a function of Bangladesh Sports Press Association (BSPA) on Saturday.

This information given by the BCB president is not correct according to the latest revenue model of the ICC. The model was approved at the ICC's annual general meeting in London in 2017.

The BCB president's comments on the model, which was finalized four years ago, suggest he was unaware of the issue. Nazmul Hasan said, "Many people wonder how much money the BCB gets now. The ICC still pays the same amount as before."

"Yes, it will increase in the future. From 2023 we will get much more. From 2023, Bangladesh will get the same amount as Australia. We are getting the same amount as Zimbabwe now. I did challenge the ICC but there was no result as the cycle had already begun," added the BCB president.

The ICC's financial model does not exactly match the BCB president's remarks. The new model was approved in 2017 after negotiations with the ICC and the BCCI. The Business Standard (TBS) contacted the BCB chief executive Nizamuddin Chowdhury to find out exactly from what point of view he gave this 'wrong' information.

"We are still not on par with Australia," the BCB chief executive told TBS. "As the BCB president has said, in the new money cycle we will get equal or closer (to Australia). India, of course, will have the highest share. Then comes England and then Australia. These three countries will get more than us. Now we're getting USD 128 million in eight years. It will increase from 2023."

The BCB president and the BCB chief executive, both gave the same information, saying that Bangladesh is not getting the same amount of money as Australia. But the latest financial model of the ICC suggests otherwise.

https://www.tbsnews.net/sports/iccs...el-contradicts-papons-comments-revenue-297769

 

[Rajdeep]

Wow thats a huge disparity. BCCI is getting 405 million USD compared to 128m for the rest. Even ECB is only getting 139 million from ICC.

I think most cricket boards these days are too much relaint on franchise leagues and broadcast deals rather than the money they are getting from the ICC.