Where is the evidence that BCCI "generates 70-80%" of cricket's revenue?

[Shutdown Corner]

This statement keeps getting thrown around, but what is based on?

You take India out of World Cup, and maybe the ICC revenue falls to 50%. But conversely, if you take the other 9 countries out of the WC, the ICC's revenue would fall to 0. Thus the other 9 countries could just as easily lay a claim to "generating 100% of the income".

 

[Bilal7]

It probably is true. India has a population of one billion and the majority is highly interested in cricket. This does not in any way, shape or form entitle the BCCI to an exorbitant amount of the profits until they can prove that India only watches cricket for the Indian team and the opposing teams have no impact on viewership.

 

[aloo paratha]

Not sure where to find proof, but some people call this BCCI's "hardwork" Like all the administrators got together and had a billion children so they can get TV rights.

 

[kdoversmg]

This statement keeps getting thrown around, but what is based on?

You take India out of World Cup, and maybe the ICC revenue falls to 50%. But conversely, if you take the other 9 countries out of the WC, the ICC's revenue would fall to 0. Thus the other 9 countries could just as easily lay a claim to "generating 100% of the income".

.

The boilerplate proof of this, such as a auditors report, does not exist. ICC and the rest of the boards have done their best not to find out. There is very little explanation why BCCI was able to push ICC and rest of the boards around for almost 17 years.

the fact that, 5 of 7 boards bit the bullet and voted for big 3 in 2014 is another data point.

I'm sincerely hoping that rest of the cricketing world will get to find out for real the value of BCCI is based on full blown withdrawal of BCCI from all ICC tournaments.

BCCI is able to do this as member of the ICC as per the MPA. Regardless of the change in constitution, the MPA from 2014 is valid for atleast another 5 years.

I'm hoping BCCI plays hardball.

 

[bleaf27]

That's excellent..

I do what I can bruv..

 

[Junaids]

India clearly doesn't.

It does produce probably 80% of TV revenue for ICC events, but significantly less for international series. Even if you argue that India is the main draw in their away series, by definition India's contribution cannot exceed 50%.

And then you have ground revenue.

A Lords Test sells at least 20,000 hospitality packages at a cost of over £500 each. That's £20 million per summer in hospitality packages at one ground alone, let alone ordinary gate receipts.

Day/Night Adelaide Tests sell over 120,000 seats at an average of $60 per ticket. That's $7 million in gate receipts.

Every "India 80%" claim is based on TV rights sales only, and claims the opposition's contribution as being Indian.

 

[bleaf27]

India clearly doesn't.

It does produce probably 80% of TV revenue for ICC events, but significantly less for international series. Even if you argue that India is the main draw in their away series, by definition India's contribution cannot exceed 50%.

And then you have ground revenue.

A Lords Test sells at least 20,000 hospitality packages at a cost of over £500 each. That's £20 million per summer in hospitality packages at one ground alone, let alone ordinary gate receipts.

Day/Night Adelaide Tests sell over 120,000 seats at an average of $60 per ticket. That's $7 million in gate receipts.

Every "India 80%" claim is based on TV rights sales only, and claims the opposition's contribution as being Indian.

Your posts are just plain biased at best at this point ? If you are so willing to discuss let's break it down further rather than skirmishing with airway numbers.
So let's start with basic - What's the ICC revenue in total ? and then let's break it down board by board if you have access to the information because I couldn't find it quite well.
If you are willing to debate let's look at some succint numbers of each cricket board's contribution , and you are quite smart enough to realize if BCCI's contribution was so low - It wouldn't be making the money it does from the ICC .

 

[161]

The size of India's economy is smaller than that of Great Britain ($2 trillion vs $3 trillion GDP).

Add up all the cricket playing nations together and they are several times that of India.

Their might be higher follower-ship rates in India but I don't see where the India contributes 80% stat comes from.

 

[Shutdown Corner]

I do as a matter of fact , I do my part at- Worldvision.in - I've sponsored a girl child in South India - my little effort to give back

so you do think charity is an acceptable endeavour...interesting.

but have you ever asked why that lazy child doesnt earn her own keep? or why an englishmen or an aussie isnt asked to spare their change?

or maybe your money is easily earned as opposed to the BCCI...

 

[Junaids]

Your posts are just plain biased at best at this point ? If you are so willing to discuss let's break it down further rather than skirmishing with airway numbers.
So let's start with basic - What's the ICC revenue in total ? and then let's break it down board by board if you have access to the information because I couldn't find it quite well.
If you are willing to debate let's look at some succint numbers of each cricket board's contribution , and you are quite smart enough to realize if BCCI's contribution was so low - It wouldn't be making the money it does from the ICC .

With respect, you are missing the point.

In the absence of revenue pooling, the ICC's revenue comes from 20 and 50 over events, the formats loved by Asians and viewed with contempt by the rest of us.

Cricket Australia and the ECB have enormous TV contracts mainly for Test cricket. But the revenue is retained by them. So Indians can claim their "80% of ICC revenue" line without having to factor in how much BSkyB and Channel Nine actually pay for broadcast rights.

But it's no secret that Cricket Australia has proposed that all revenue from all series go to the ICC and be pooled.

 

[Napa]

The size of India's economy is smaller than that of Great Britain ($2 trillion vs $3 trillion GDP).

Your post makes it appear that UK's GDP is 50% bigger than India's.

In reality for 2016 it is about 12.5% more ($2.7 tr vs. $2.4 tr). Three more years of 7% vs. 2% growth should put India ahead.

Add up all the cricket playing nations together and they are several times that of India.

Factually way off target. The remaining countries GDP doesn't add up to UK's.

 

[Napa]

The size of India's economy is smaller than that of Great Britain ($2 trillion vs $3 trillion GDP).

Add up all the cricket playing nations together and they are several times that of India.

Their might be higher follower-ship rates in India but I don't see where the India contributes 80% stat comes from.

Your post makes it appear that UK's GDP is 50% bigger than India's.

In reality for 2016 it is about 12.5% more ($2.7 tr vs. $2.4 tr). Three more years of 7% vs. 2% growth should put India ahead.



Factually way off target. The remaining countries GDP doesn't add up to UK's.

The 3 largest economies after UK (2.7 tr) and India (2.4 tr) are Australia (1.29 tr), SA (0.29 tr) and Pak (0.28 tr).

 

[jagatk]

Does anyone have figures of ICC TV deals, just compare the figures star is paying for icc media rights in india to what total amount is which icc receives from media rights that is your round about indian share and this is before you get into sponsorships and stuff that indian companies do.

 

[Junaids]

Why don't we do some crude economic modeling for the value of TV rights for bilateral series, to see how much of it India is really responsible for?

Let's say that we call our units of revenue "x", in which 10X is the maximum rights sale, and 0x is the minimum rights sale.

India v Australia 10x
Australia v India 10x
Combined value: India 20x, Australia 20x

India v New Zealand 8x
New Zealand v India 8x
Combined value: India 16x, New Zealand 16x

India v England 10x
England v India 10x
Combined value: India 20x, England 20x

Australia v New Zealand 6x
New Zealand v Australia 6x
Combined value: Australia 12x, New Zealand 12x

Australia v England 10x
England v Australia 10x
Combined value: Australia 20x, England 20x

England v New Zealand 5x
New Zealand v England 5x
Combined value: England 10x, New Zealand 10x

So this crude modeling features those 4 countries playing one another home and away.

And their relative economic contribution in TV rights - without factoring ground revenue in - is:

India 56 units
Australia 52 units
England 50 units
New Zealand 38 units

In other words, the relative contribution to the total revenue for these bilateral series between those 4 countries was:

India 30.1%
Australia 27.9%
England 26.9%
New Zealand 20.4%

The mathematics by which India purports to "contribute 80% of TV revenue"

1. Fails to acknowledge the opposition in each series.
2. Fails to take into account the long-term TV rights deals that the English, Australian, New Zealand and South African cricket boards have with their broadcast partners.
3. Restricts itself to the 20 and 50 overs formats which the ICC sells tournament rights to.

 

[Junaids]

I would add that the sale of Ten Sports to Sony has reduced the number of Indian broadcasters from 3 to 2, and even the other ICC member boards have gone on the record as recognizing that there is a "downturn in the Indian market" due to this loss of competition.

(Links to this article are not allowed, so just google "Pooled rights deal" for the source.)

People are exceptionally naïve about India's ability to contribute economically.

UK GDP 2.5 trillion, population 65 million.
India GDP 2.4 trillion, population 1,210 million
Australia GDP 1.4 trillion, population 24 million

In effect, India is 20 times poorer than the UK and 30 times poorer than Australia.

This manifests itself in the tiny subscriptions that Indians pay for Pay TV.

My Pay-TV bill in Australia is $240 per month, of which $40 is for sports channels.

I also pay Willow TV US$15 per month year round just to cover the 8 weeks each year that I spend in the USA.

Indian consumers pay a tiny fraction of that. It's reasonable, therefore, to conclude that their advertising take for international cricket is commensurate with that massively reduced spending power.

 

[jagatk]

I would add that the sale of Ten Sports to Sony has reduced the number of Indian broadcasters from 3 to 2, and even the other ICC member boards have gone on the record as recognizing that there is a "downturn in the Indian market" due to this loss of competition.

(Links to this article are not allowed, so just google "Pooled rights deal" for the source.)

People are exceptionally naïve about India's ability to contribute economically.

UK GDP 2.5 trillion, population 65 million.
India GDP 2.4 trillion, population 1,210 million
Australia GDP 1.4 trillion, population 24 million

In effect, India is 20 times poorer than the UK and 30 times poorer than Australia.

This manifests itself in the tiny subscriptions that Indians pay for Pay TV.

My Pay-TV bill in Australia is $240 per month, of which $40 is for sports channels.

I also pay Willow TV US$15 per month year round just to cover the 8 weeks each year that I spend in the USA.

Indian consumers pay a tiny fraction of that. It's reasonable, therefore, to conclude that their advertising take for international cricket is commensurate with that massively reduced spending power.

You really love posting absolutely worthless stats to prove your point, US gdp is 18-19 trillion but that does not mean they spend more on cricket than india, it just means they can, but the problem with your logic here just like your logic in the what can cricket afford without india thread is where on earth are you going to get those billion people who watch cricket for india without india, cricket is well down the line of most popular sports in both england and australia, same with south africa, beyond subcontinent cricket does not have a viable viewer base, pakistan's population is nearly 200 mn, bangladesh is at 160-165 million, india's is at 1.3 billion, cricket is the biggest sport in these countries unlike ones you have listed take 20-30% of the population as those who don't watch cricket, that leaves us with 140 mn in pakistan, 120-125 mn in bangladesh and 900 mn in india, so where exactly are going to get a major part of 900 mn who pay for their cricket, a guy in USA, Australia, England may pay more but we have a cricket watching population that it atleast 5-6 times bigger than the next biggest, that my friend is where india's domination and figures comes from.

 

[Balthazar]

Other 9? The only cricketing nations that matter here are Eng, Aus, SA and to some extent Pak. OPs attempt to try to big up Bangladesh as its some kind of major cricketing nation is just laughable.

 

[Junaids]

You really love posting absolutely worthless stats to prove your point, US gdp is 18-19 trillion but that does not mean they spend more on cricket than india, it just means they can, but the problem with your logic here just like your logic in the what can cricket afford without india thread is where on earth are you going to get those billion people who watch cricket for india without india, cricket is well down the line of most popular sports in both england and australia, same with south africa, beyond subcontinent cricket does not have a viable viewer base, pakistan's population is nearly 200 mn, bangladesh is at 160-165 million, india's is at 1.3 billion, cricket is the biggest sport in these countries unlike ones you have listed take 20-30% of the population as those who don't watch cricket, that leaves us with 140 mn in pakistan, 120-125 mn in bangladesh and 900 mn in india, so where exactly are going to get a major part of 900 mn who pay for their cricket, a guy in USA, Australia, England may pay more but we have a cricket watching population that it atleast 5-6 times bigger than the next biggest, that my friend is where india's domination and figures comes from.

India's supposedly 900 million cricket viewers at most pay for 150 million subscriptions to cable/satellite sports channels. (But I'd be surprised if there are more actual subscribers than tax payers - of which India only has 40 million.)

And, as I was shown on another thread, they pay an average of less than US$0.20 per month for sports channels. That's a probable $8 million per month.

Whereas in Australia the Foxtel Sports package costs $45 per subscription.

Seriously, India's financial dominance is greatly overstated. Yes, tours by India and England are the most lucrative for other countries. But India's TV rights market is cooling down with the elimination of 1 of 3 providers.

And if revenue was pooled, everyone would be better off.

A good comparison is football.

EPL rights money is pooled, and 15th placed Leicester City reached the last 8 of the European Champions League.

Spanish La Liga rights are sold separately, so Real Madrid and Barcelona make vast revenue, but 8th place Eibar or 20th place Osasuna wouldn't even be in the English second tier - they would be in the Third Division aka "League One".

 

[Arsalan Pro]

India's supposedly 900 million cricket viewers at most pay for 150 million subscriptions to cable/satellite sports channels. (But I'd be surprised if there are more actual subscribers than tax payers - of which India only has 40 million.)

And, as I was shown on another thread, they pay an average of less than US$0.20 per month for sports channels. That's a probable $8 million per month.

Whereas in Australia the Foxtel Sports package costs $45 per subscription.

Seriously, India's financial dominance is greatly overstated. Yes, tours by India and England are the most lucrative for other countries. But India's TV rights market is cooling down with the elimination of 1 of 3 providers.

And if revenue was pooled, everyone would be better off.

A good comparison is football.

EPL rights money is pooled, and 15th placed Leicester City reached the last 8 of the European Champions League.

Spanish La Liga rights are sold separately, so Real Madrid and Barcelona make vast revenue, but 8th place Eibar or 20th place Osasuna wouldn't even be in the English second tier - they would be in the Third Division aka "League One".

I agree, It is true that India is the largest revenue generating country, but 70-80% is a overstated figure.

 

[jagatk]

India's supposedly 900 million cricket viewers at most pay for 150 million subscriptions to cable/satellite sports channels. (But I'd be surprised if there are more actual subscribers than tax payers - of which India only has 40 million.)

And, as I was shown on another thread, they pay an average of less than US$0.20 per month for sports channels. That's a probable $8 million per month.

Whereas in Australia the Foxtel Sports package costs $45 per subscription.

Seriously, India's financial dominance is greatly overstated. Yes, tours by India and England are the most lucrative for other countries. But India's TV rights market is cooling down with the elimination of 1 of 3 providers.

And if revenue was pooled, everyone would be better off.

A good comparison is football.

EPL rights money is pooled, and 15th placed Leicester City reached the last 8 of the European Champions League.

Spanish La Liga rights are sold separately, so Real Madrid and Barcelona make vast revenue, but 8th place Eibar or 20th place Osasuna wouldn't even be in the English second tier - they would be in the Third Division aka "League One".

The nos i gave were not exact just a sort of outlining, as i said in my post it really doesn't matter how big the charges are, how many people actually pay for it that matters and the channels earn big not due to subscription charges but rather the advertisement slots and cricket is a very advert friendly sport.

Now onto epl comparison, you know and i know leicester were an anomaly this season in cl last season in pl so lets not get into that, if you compare cricket to football cricket is more la liga than epl, epl has multiple teams with big fan base, liverpool, utd, chelsea, arsenal. But la liga only has barca and madrid. Compare it to cricket and you have india and then nobody really. Also just so you know la liga are also shifting to equal pay but with guarantees that neither barca nor real will earn less than they used too. Also if you compare the money epl teams received from last year tv deal, Leicester may have won the league but received less money than both city and utd who finished below them because those clubs are bigger.

 

[Shutdown Corner]

Other 9? The only cricketing nations that matter here are Eng, Aus, SA and to some extent Pak. OPs attempt to try to big up Bangladesh as its some kind of major cricketing nation is just laughable.

Bangladesh is right up there with Pak. slightly smaller GDP and population, even greater fan interest. all the factors that allegedly make India a powerhouse. on top of that, our cricket is improving at a rate faster than any country, maybe afghans are close.

why else would the new model give BD the same money as Aus, to use an Indian argument. Did BD threaten to boycott the CT?

 

[GBK_Fan]

Why don't we do some crude economic modeling for the value of TV rights for bilateral series, to see how much of it India is really responsible for?

Let's say that we call our units of revenue "x", in which 10X is the maximum rights sale, and 0x is the minimum rights sale.

India v Australia 10x
Australia v India 10x
Combined value: India 20x, Australia 20x

India v New Zealand 8x
New Zealand v India 8x
Combined value: India 16x, New Zealand 16x

India v England 10x
England v India 10x
Combined value: India 20x, England 20x

Australia v New Zealand 6x
New Zealand v Australia 6x
Combined value: Australia 12x, New Zealand 12x

Australia v England 10x
England v Australia 10x
Combined value: Australia 20x, England 20x

England v New Zealand 5x
New Zealand v England 5x
Combined value: England 10x, New Zealand 10x

So this crude modeling features those 4 countries playing one another home and away.

And their relative economic contribution in TV rights - without factoring ground revenue in - is:

India 56 units
Australia 52 units
England 50 units
New Zealand 38 units

In other words, the relative contribution to the total revenue for these bilateral series between those 4 countries was:

India 30.1%
Australia 27.9%
England 26.9%
New Zealand 20.4%

The mathematics by which India purports to "contribute 80% of TV revenue"

1. Fails to acknowledge the opposition in each series.
2. Fails to take into account the long-term TV rights deals that the English, Australian, New Zealand and South African cricket boards have with their broadcast partners.
3. Restricts itself to the 20 and 50 overs formats which the ICC sells tournament rights to.

I really hope you don't do any math modelling for your day job. You have missed the size of the market, the ability to pay a premium, the number of eyeballs (directly correlates to advertising revenue), direction of the economy etc
There is a reason why a new company launching a mass product will consider India over New Zealand or Australia. Frankly putting arbitrary weights to countries and then using them to push your views makes no sense

 

[jagatk]

Bangladesh is right up there with Pak. slightly smaller GDP and population, even greater fan interest. all the factors that allegedly make India a powerhouse. on top of that, our cricket is improving at a rate faster than any country, maybe afghans are close.

why else would the new model give BD the same money as Aus, to use an Indian argument. Did BD threaten to boycott the CT?

The problem with your reasoning is BD will bring in big money in future, india already is doing so. Star bought media rights for icc events cycle 2015-2023 with expected earning to be about 3.5 billion for icc, is there a bangladeshi tv network who will pay similar figures, neither bangladesh nor pakistan have anywhere near private money that india does right now. When india threaten to withdraw from CT, india do so knowing the effect it will have on star the company that pays for those tournaments, if BD ever decided to withdraw, it won't hurt icc near as badly as indian withdrawal will.

 

[GBK_Fan]

India's supposedly 900 million cricket viewers at most pay for 150 million subscriptions to cable/satellite sports channels. (But I'd be surprised if there are more actual subscribers than tax payers - of which India only has 40 million.)

And, as I was shown on another thread, they pay an average of less than US$0.20 per month for sports channels. That's a probable $8 million per month.

Whereas in Australia the Foxtel Sports package costs $45 per subscription.

Seriously, India's financial dominance is greatly overstated. Yes, tours by India and England are the most lucrative for other countries. But India's TV rights market is cooling down with the elimination of 1 of 3 providers.

And if revenue was pooled, everyone would be better off.

A good comparison is football.

EPL rights money is pooled, and 15th placed Leicester City reached the last 8 of the European Champions League.

Spanish La Liga rights are sold separately, so Real Madrid and Barcelona make vast revenue, but 8th place Eibar or 20th place Osasuna wouldn't even be in the English second tier - they would be in the Third Division aka "League One".

Again what are your calculations based on? India doesn't have a subscription based viewership model as you see in the west, so comparing the costs with Australia makes no sense.
Do you know the IPL is broadcast live in UK and then has a 3 hour retransmission, with a tv panel etc? Why do you think Sky is making a large investment in IPL when as per you all the Western viewers look at T20's with disdain? Also keep in mind you will probably be hard pressed to watch a New Zealand West Indies test series in U.K.
Please back up your posts with reasonable data or assumptions.

 

[Junaids]

Again what are your calculations based on? India doesn't have a subscription based viewership model as you see in the west, so comparing the costs with Australia makes no sense.
Do you know the IPL is broadcast live in UK and then has a 3 hour retransmission, with a tv panel etc? Why do you think Sky is making a large investment in IPL when as per you all the Western viewers look at T20's with disdain? Also keep in mind you will probably be hard pressed to watch a New Zealand West Indies test series in U.K.
Please back up your posts with reasonable data or assumptions.

And now, my friend, you are actually making my points for me.

India doesn't have a subscription model for cricket viewership because the viewers are far too poor. Even the Indian middle class is far, far too poor to do what I do and pay well over $200 per month to watch Pay-TV.

Secondly, I can find no evidence of any IPL broadcast in the UK ever having been watched on Sky TV by enough viewers to register any ratings whatsoever.

But what I do know is that free-to-air TV ratings for the IPL on ITV4 in the UK were so terrible -and in decline - that, like every Australian TV channel, ITV gave up on broadcasting it and let Sky show it (to nobody).

Source: https://www.bizasialive.com/overnights-ipl-uk-ratings-lower-than-last-year/

But you have gone way off track in even mentioning the IPL. The thread has nothing to do with revenue from private leagues.

This thread is about what proportion of international cricket revenue is attributable to India.

And because ground revenue in India is basically zero, the BCCI's far-fetched claims to generate 80% of revenue conveniently overlook ground revenue. They overlook long-term TV deals like the ECB and Cricket Australia have.

It's like saying that Juventus earns more than Manchester United on TV revenue. Yes it does. But Man Utd makes more than $7 million in ground revenue from every game, while Juventus makes around $2 million. And with 25 home games each season, that's a $125 million windfall.

Lastly, your final point about British viewers for a West Indies v New Zealand series is basically my whole point.

The current India-driven system of bilateralism sees the West Indies make most of their TV sales when India and England tour.

But if the rights are pooled, the successful purchaser HAS to buy West Indies v South Africa/NZ/SL/Bang/Pak as well.

The rights sell for significantly more, and then the revenue is pooled and shared so that no Board can try to starve out a rival Board in the way that India has with both South Africa and Pakistan recently.

 

[Flat_Track_Bully]

They all log on to illegal streams and they count that as a viewer.

When someone in india searches for cricket in google they count that as a viewer

all fabricated lies to push max money from ICC.

If India pull out of CT then boards will not give NOCs to their players to play in IPL and IPL will flop with dindas and jadavs

BCCI done well to bribe their way this far, just accept the terms and move on. You are not capable of running cricket.

 

[GBK_Fan]

And now, my friend, you are actually making my points for me.

India doesn't have a subscription model for cricket viewership because the viewers are far too poor. Even the Indian middle class is far, far too poor to do what I do and pay well over $200 per month to watch Pay-TV.

Secondly, I can find no evidence of any IPL broadcast in the UK ever having been watched on Sky TV by enough viewers to register any ratings whatsoever.

But what I do know is that free-to-air TV ratings for the IPL on ITV4 in the UK were so terrible -and in decline - that, like every Australian TV channel, ITV gave up on broadcasting it and let Sky show it (to nobody).

Source: https://www.bizasialive.com/overnights-ipl-uk-ratings-lower-than-last-year/

But you have gone way off track in even mentioning the IPL. The thread has nothing to do with revenue from private leagues.

This thread is about what proportion of international cricket revenue is attributable to India.

And because ground revenue in India is basically zero, the BCCI's far-fetched claims to generate 80% of revenue conveniently overlook ground revenue. They overlook long-term TV deals like the ECB and Cricket Australia have.

It's like saying that Juventus earns more than Manchester United on TV revenue. Yes it does. But Man Utd makes more than $7 million in ground revenue from every game, while Juventus makes around $2 million. And with 25 home games each season, that's a $125 million windfall.

Lastly, your final point about British viewers for a West Indies v New Zealand series is basically my whole point.

The current India-driven system of bilateralism sees the West Indies make most of their TV sales when India and England tour.

But if the rights are pooled, the successful purchaser HAS to buy West Indies v South Africa/NZ/SL/Bang/Pak as well.

The rights sell for significantly more, and then the revenue is pooled and shared so that no Board can try to starve out a rival Board in the way that India has with both South Africa and Pakistan recently.

Why don't you drop over to my home tonight and maybe we could watch the IPL on Sky? Atleast look up facts before you post

 

[GBK_Fan]

And now, my friend, you are actually making my points for me.

India doesn't have a subscription model for cricket viewership because the viewers are far too poor. Even the Indian middle class is far, far too poor to do what I do and pay well over $200 per month to watch Pay-TV.

Secondly, I can find no evidence of any IPL broadcast in the UK ever having been watched on Sky TV by enough viewers to register any ratings whatsoever.

But what I do know is that free-to-air TV ratings for the IPL on ITV4 in the UK were so terrible -and in decline - that, like every Australian TV channel, ITV gave up on broadcasting it and let Sky show it (to nobody).

Source: https://www.bizasialive.com/overnights-ipl-uk-ratings-lower-than-last-year/

But you have gone way off track in even mentioning the IPL. The thread has nothing to do with revenue from private leagues.

This thread is about what proportion of international cricket revenue is attributable to India.

And because ground revenue in India is basically zero, the BCCI's far-fetched claims to generate 80% of revenue conveniently overlook ground revenue. They overlook long-term TV deals like the ECB and Cricket Australia have.

It's like saying that Juventus earns more than Manchester United on TV revenue. Yes it does. But Man Utd makes more than $7 million in ground revenue from every game, while Juventus makes around $2 million. And with 25 home games each season, that's a $125 million windfall.

Lastly, your final point about British viewers for a West Indies v New Zealand series is basically my whole point.

The current India-driven system of bilateralism sees the West Indies make most of their TV sales when India and England tour.

But if the rights are pooled, the successful purchaser HAS to buy West Indies v South Africa/NZ/SL/Bang/Pak as well.

The rights sell for significantly more, and then the revenue is pooled and shared so that no Board can try to starve out a rival Board in the way that India has with both South Africa and Pakistan recently.

I am at work so cannot post more but this is one link which points to a competitive bidding for IPL tv rights in the UK. Remember this is a domestic tournament being broadcast to a country which as per you scorns at T20

http://www.sportspromedia.com/news/sky_sports_takes_ipl_rights_from_itv

As for the rest of your post it's all hokum. Please stay away from financial models

 

[jagatk]

And now, my friend, you are actually making my points for me.

India doesn't have a subscription model for cricket viewership because the viewers are far too poor. Even the Indian middle class is far, far too poor to do what I do and pay well over $200 per month to watch Pay-TV.

Secondly, I can find no evidence of any IPL broadcast in the UK ever having been watched on Sky TV by enough viewers to register any ratings whatsoever.

But what I do know is that free-to-air TV ratings for the IPL on ITV4 in the UK were so terrible -and in decline - that, like every Australian TV channel, ITV gave up on broadcasting it and let Sky show it (to nobody).

Source: https://www.bizasialive.com/overnights-ipl-uk-ratings-lower-than-last-year/

But you have gone way off track in even mentioning the IPL. The thread has nothing to do with revenue from private leagues.

This thread is about what proportion of international cricket revenue is attributable to India.

And because ground revenue in India is basically zero, the BCCI's far-fetched claims to generate 80% of revenue conveniently overlook ground revenue. They overlook long-term TV deals like the ECB and Cricket Australia have.

It's like saying that Juventus earns more than Manchester United on TV revenue. Yes it does. But Man Utd makes more than $7 million in ground revenue from every game, while Juventus makes around $2 million. And with 25 home games each season, that's a $125 million windfall.

Lastly, your final point about British viewers for a West Indies v New Zealand series is basically my whole point.

The current India-driven system of bilateralism sees the West Indies make most of their TV sales when India and England tour.

But if the rights are pooled, the successful purchaser HAS to buy West Indies v South Africa/NZ/SL/Bang/Pak as well.

The rights sell for significantly more, and then the revenue is pooled and shared so that no Board can try to starve out a rival Board in the way that India has with both South Africa and Pakistan recently.

Again you are making baseless assumptions and not understanding basics my friend, indians don't do ppv because we are not west, but we do pay for our cable and most of it is combined packages for all sorts of channels including sports, the tv earnings in india is not ppv based but rather advertisement based, if you don't know about it don't talk about it, star is doing a sort of ppv experiment with hotstar and has had encouraging response atleast in metros. So again what you pay for doesn't mean anything, Star earns big money via the business model that works in india and until you find yourself a population like india's who are as invested in crickets as us your $200 mean nothing as there aren't many like you.

Now onto your other stuff about ground, the current cuts are for media and other rights received from ICC events, what exactly does that have to do with whatever deal ECB and CA have with whatever network, Star will pay $1.1 to $ 3.5 billion not for ecb and ca audience they have very little of it but for indian audience.

Now on to the even out of the whack thing, what on earth have grounds got anything with icc but still let's talk about them, my friend go read the issues plaguing counties thanks to ecb's stupid renovate and pay for matches approach,though this is something some english poster on here might explain better but i will try, the money they are making is very little when you compare with money the counties have spent for refurbishing grounds, most counties are cash strapped and durham nearly went bankrupt, Cricket in australia faces similar situation why do you think they have switched to multipurpose grounds and drop in pitches, also most football teams don't earn much from matchday, take out the expenses involved and there isn't much left, so again don't talk about what you don't know.

 

[jagatk]

Also I already posted the issue that is being faced by Channel 9 who are apparently losing $40 mn a year on cricket, it is bbl that is the saving grace for CA but Channel 9 don't have it and international cricket in australia is not very profitable for them, so you must understand what india brings to the table.

 

[cricketjoshila]

The size of India's economy is smaller than that of Great Britain ($2 trillion vs $3 trillion GDP).

Add up all the cricket playing nations together and they are several times that of India.

Their might be higher follower-ship rates in India but I don't see where the India contributes 80% stat comes from.

You need to wake up.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/realsp...surpasses-that-of-great-britain/#1085baac3bc0

 

[cricketjoshila]

Why don't we do some crude economic modeling for the value of TV rights for bilateral series, to see how much of it India is really responsible for?

Let's say that we call our units of revenue "x", in which 10X is the maximum rights sale, and 0x is the minimum rights sale.

India v Australia 10x
Australia v India 10x
Combined value: India 20x, Australia 20x

India v New Zealand 8x
New Zealand v India 8x
Combined value: India 16x, New Zealand 16x

India v England 10x
England v India 10x
Combined value: India 20x, England 20x

Australia v New Zealand 6x
New Zealand v Australia 6x
Combined value: Australia 12x, New Zealand 12x

Australia v England 10x
England v Australia 10x
Combined value: Australia 20x, England 20x

England v New Zealand 5x
New Zealand v England 5x
Combined value: England 10x, New Zealand 10x

So this crude modeling features those 4 countries playing one another home and away.

And their relative economic contribution in TV rights - without factoring ground revenue in - is:

India 56 units
Australia 52 units
England 50 units
New Zealand 38 units

In other words, the relative contribution to the total revenue for these bilateral series between those 4 countries was:

India 30.1%
Australia 27.9%
England 26.9%
New Zealand 20.4%

The mathematics by which India purports to "contribute 80% of TV revenue"

1. Fails to acknowledge the opposition in each series.
2. Fails to take into account the long-term TV rights deals that the English, Australian, New Zealand and South African cricket boards have with their broadcast partners.
3. Restricts itself to the 20 and 50 overs formats which the ICC sells tournament rights to.

Your imaginary calculations dont make the truth.



Tours by India are the most valuable ones for CA and ECB.I dont say it.The boards are.India tour to AUS is worth a 100mn.

“We have a bumper year when India tours because the value of Indian broadcasts rights are higher than for any other tour,” James Sutherland, chief executive officer of CA

http://www.livemint.com/Consumer/pV...-became-the-800-pound-gorilla-of-cricket.html

Ashes aside, there are bigger financial gains to be made from competing against India, where television audiences can be as high as 400 million for important matches.

“If you look at any business, or any sport, you look at where the largest market is,” Collier said. “When you’ve got a country of that size and stature, a population of over a billion that is absolutely in love with the game of cricket, no other sport touches the reach that cricket has in that country.”

This what ECB said.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ket-success-with-600-million-commercial-boost


Next time rather than putting imaginary figures do a bit of googling.

This is like saying if Mayweather fights XYZ and people pay and watch.Its like both Mayweather and XYZ are pulling the same number of people.

 

[Junaids]

Your imaginary calculations dont make the truth.



Tours by India are the most valuable ones for CA and ECB.I dont say it.The boards are.India tour to AUS is worth a 100mn.




http://www.livemint.com/Consumer/pV...-became-the-800-pound-gorilla-of-cricket.html






https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ket-success-with-600-million-commercial-boost


Next time rather than putting imaginary figures do a bit of googling.

This is like saying if Mayweather fights XYZ and people pay and watch.Its like both Mayweather and XYZ are pulling the same number of people.

Nobody disputes that tours by India generate the most money for home boards. Although Test tours by England have the biggest overall economic benefit due to much larger volumes of sports tourism.

But my point is that the gap is not as wide as people think. And collective sales of overseas test rights in 5 year spans would generate more revenue.

 

[GBK_Fan]

Nobody disputes that tours by India generate the most money for home boards. Although Test tours by England have the biggest overall economic benefit due to much larger volumes of sports tourism.

But my point is that the gap is not as wide as people think. And collective sales of overseas test rights in 5 year spans would generate more revenue.

Generate more revenue for the rest? Yes. BCCI is not a charity shop and they are putting the interests of Indian citizens on top, who as you colourfully described as poor, much much poor. If boards need access to the Indian market and sponsors they have to do it through BCCI, not short change them

 

[Eagle_Eye]

Again you are making baseless assumptions and not understanding basics my friend, indians don't do ppv because we are not west, but we do pay for our cable and most of it is combined packages for all sorts of channels including sports, the tv earnings in india is not ppv based but rather advertisement based, if you don't know about it don't talk about it, star is doing a sort of ppv experiment with hotstar and has had encouraging response atleast in metros. So again what you pay for doesn't mean anything, Star earns big money via the business model that works in india and until you find yourself a population like india's who are as invested in crickets as us your $200 mean nothing as there aren't many like you.

Now onto your other stuff about ground, the current cuts are for media and other rights received from ICC events, what exactly does that have to do with whatever deal ECB and CA have with whatever network, Star will pay $1.1 to $ 3.5 billion not for ecb and ca audience they have very little of it but for indian audience.

Now on to the even out of the whack thing, what on earth have grounds got anything with icc but still let's talk about them, my friend go read the issues plaguing counties thanks to ecb's stupid renovate and pay for matches approach,though this is something some english poster on here might explain better but i will try, the money they are making is very little when you compare with money the counties have spent for refurbishing grounds, most counties are cash strapped and durham nearly went bankrupt, Cricket in australia faces similar situation why do you think they have switched to multipurpose grounds and drop in pitches, also most football teams don't earn much from matchday, take out the expenses involved and there isn't much left, so again don't talk about what you don't know.

you make it sound as if in west advertisers don't pay for adverts on TV...

What is star's annual revenue in India?

 

[jagatk]

you make it sound as if in west advertisers don't pay for adverts on TV...

What is star's annual revenue in India?

No clue mate, its a pvt ltd company, its earnings aren't disclosed to the public. But i will dig up what i can when i get more time. but i found a ipl related article which gives some spending details of advertisers.

http://www.livemint.com/Sports/zl4J...ees-40-jump-in-viewership-over-last-year.html

 

[cricketjoshila]

No clue mate, its a pvt ltd company, its earnings aren't disclosed to the public. But i will dig up what i can when i get more time. but i found a ipl related article which gives some spending details of advertisers.

http://www.livemint.com/Sports/zl4J...ees-40-jump-in-viewership-over-last-year.html

http://www.business-standard.com/ar...of-rs-1-200-cr-from-ipl-9-116060500406_1.html

1200 crore or close to 190mn made by SOny last year from IPL. They paid 1.2bn for a 10 yr deal in 2008.

They are making the profits. Some posters believe that what is followed in the western countries has to be followed by India.

200USD by 1 million people us 200mn in revenues.

2 dollars by 500mn people is a 1bn USD.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Is it a coincidence that ECB and CA along with Manohar are the ones present in every meeting with BCCI in this matter?Is it a lie that till 1992 these two boards had a veto in ICC and it was BCCI which stood up and got that removed?Is it also a lie that except BCCI all other boards are ready toe and in past have toed the line of ECB/CA.

 

[cricketjoshila]

you make it sound as if in west advertisers don't pay for adverts on TV...

What is star's annual revenue in India?

Are you going to talk about SKY Plc's revenue again?

Considering SKY Plc operates in multiple countries and not one and its not only a broadcaster but also a service provider of home tv/dth internet etc etc.

STAR is only a broadcaster and operates in one country.They are not a service provider or internet service provider etc etc.

So the point is moot.

 

[Junaids]

Is it a coincidence that ECB and CA along with Manohar are the ones present in every meeting with BCCI in this matter?Is it a lie that till 1992 these two boards had a veto in ICC and it was BCCI which stood up and got that removed?Is it also a lie that except BCCI all other boards are ready toe and in past have toed the line of ECB/CA.

I am an Englishman living in Australia.

I hate the recent behaviour of the ECB and Cricket Australia (vis a vis the Big Three).

And I am ashamed of the behaviour of the ECB and its predecessors the TCCB and even MCC in bullying the cricket world in the old days.

I'd really hoped that the BCCI would usher in an era of calm, of fairness and of dignity.

But instead they just used divide and rule tactics (we British know a bit about them) to make the cricket world bend to their demands. They were even worse than we had been!

Even before the recent events I have always admired Shashank Manohar. If only the BCCI had behaved like him!

 

[big_gamer007]

The size of India's economy is smaller than that of Great Britain ($2 trillion vs $3 trillion GDP).

Add up all the cricket playing nations together and they are several times that of India.

Their might be higher follower-ship rates in India but I don't see where the India contributes 80% stat comes from.

Your post makes it appear that UK's GDP is 50% bigger than India's.

In reality for 2016 it is about 12.5% more ($2.7 tr vs. $2.4 tr). Three more years of 7% vs. 2% growth should put India ahead.



Factually way off target. The remaining countries GDP doesn't add up to UK's.

lol understand one thing UK economy is divided amongst different sports, Indian economy we only have 1 sport.. So basically 20% of 2.7 trill is way less than 100% of 2.4trill..

I hope you get my post above

 

[Junaids]

lol understand one thing UK economy is divided amongst different sports, Indian economy we only have 1 sport.. So basically 20% of 2.7 trill is way less than 100% of 2.4trill..

I hope you get my post above

People keep writing this about England and Australia.

In Australia and New Zealand and South Africa, cricket is the ONLY summer sport. Winter sports like the rugby codes don't compete with cricket - indeed Ian Smith is one of the main commentators for NZ rugby in winter!

England is different. Cricket WAS the summer sport, but Giles Clarke's decision to remove it from free-to-air TV has ruined its profile.

 

[jagatk]

I am an Englishman living in Australia.

I hate the recent behaviour of the ECB and Cricket Australia (vis a vis the Big Three).

And I am ashamed of the behaviour of the ECB and its predecessors the TCCB and even MCC in bullying the cricket world in the old days.

I'd really hoped that the BCCI would usher in an era of calm, of fairness and of dignity.

But instead they just used divide and rule tactics (we British know a bit about them) to make the cricket world bend to their demands. They were even worse than we had been!

Even before the recent events I have always admired Shashank Manohar. If only the BCCI had behaved like him!

I agree that big 3 was BS, no one country or group should be lording over entire cricket, but the problem i have with current changes is that ECB and CA both gained big money from big 3, same with all others, everyone benefited from big 3 to some or the other extent, but now when people see it as unfair and need it to be scaled back, it is only bcci that must pay from its pocket, that is rubbish to me, bcci should pay most but surely CA, ECB and others too should lose some part of revenue to compensate for new members. But that is not happening, add to that ICC just allocated a 100 mn for itself in name of infra fund, icc doesn't build stadiums and it hasn't really clarified why it needs it to bcci either, ZCB have been given 19 mn as bribe and that is what it is, that is everybody's money that manohar is using to pay for his power grab, WICB will apparently get 40mn. Please don't tell me that manohar is a good guy, he is a rat who does things for his own benefit nobody else's, when time comes bcci will hit back some way or other and manohar will do what he does best at such a time, run away and leave icc and smaller boards to face bcci.

 

[shaz619]

Your posts are just plain biased at best at this point ? If you are so willing to discuss let's break it down further rather than skirmishing with airway numbers.
So let's start with basic - What's the ICC revenue in total ? and then let's break it down board by board if you have access to the information because I couldn't find it quite well.
If you are willing to debate let's look at some succint numbers of each cricket board's contribution , and you are quite smart enough to realize if BCCI's contribution was so low - It wouldn't be making the money it does from the ICC .

[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] won post of the week for his insight this week on the matter and before that he won two more posts of the week in the past, he is arguably P4P the best poster when it comes to cricket and PP would not advocate his views if he lacked objectivity; I don't always agree with him but he is probably the most neutral poster around here with a very unique background, even more then mine!

Anyhow do you seriously believe even from the top of your head that India generate 80% of cricket revenue ?

 

[Ph_11]

[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION]

[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] won post of the week for his insight this week on the matter and before that he won two more posts of the week in the past, he is arguably P4P the best poster when it comes to cricket and PP would not advocate his views if he lacked objectivity; I don't always agree with him but he is probably the most neutral poster around here with a very unique background, even more then mine!

Anyhow do you seriously believe even from the top of your head that India generate 80% of cricket revenue ?

[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] has very superficial knowledge of cricket. He is a statistician who can look up Wikipedia faster than anyone else. His posts are so anti Indian that is not funny. I respect the Pakistani fans for posting anti Indian posts because they are honest.

Junaids thinks he is someone special. He is just like you and I, another poster nothing more.

 

[shaz619]

[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION]
[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] has very superficial knowledge of cricket. He is a statistician who can look up Wikipedia faster than anyone else. His posts are so anti Indian that is not funny. I respect the Pakistani fans for posting anti Indian posts because they are honest.

Junaids thinks he is someone special. He is just like you and I, another poster nothing more.

I wouldn't go that far to insult him because he's a very good posters and anyone can post numbers but his insight shows us that he is knowledgeable which also vindicated by his 3 POTW awards, I've never known him to be someone who thinks highly of himself he has no issue being shamed by me constantly Junaids isn't Pakistani or Indian so I can see how he rubs people the wrong way with his views when people don't agree with him

 

[Junaids]

Thanks [MENTION=46929]shaz619[/MENTION] .

I have to admit that I have a masochistic streak. I have actually enjoyed times when [MENTION=135134]CricketAnalyst[/MENTION] and [MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] and others have taught me a lesson.

I'm simply shocked today though. I had swallowed whole all the talk of how rich the BCCI was.

And it was only when I saw the comments made by BCCI members about the ICC handout offer that I realised that they have such extravagant spending that they are basically cricket's equivalent of Greece: a financial basketcase completely dependent upon handouts. The richest board in the world is so profligate that it is insolvent without handouts!

Mind you, earlier today I was also appalled to learn that Cricket Australia only spends 45% of its income on cricket and the rest on itself.

 

[big_gamer007]

People keep writing this about England and Australia.

In Australia and New Zealand and South Africa, cricket is the ONLY summer sport. Winter sports like the rugby codes don't compete with cricket - indeed Ian Smith is one of the main commentators for NZ rugby in winter!

England is different. Cricket WAS the summer sport, but Giles Clarke's decision to remove it from free-to-air TV has ruined its profile.

Mate the simple point is India has a huge population and the difference between 1st sport (cricket) and 2nd sport is huge.. Other countries have a much smaller population and cricket is not even the first sport..

Companies like Gionee, Daikin, Reliance, Oppo etc pay huge money as advertisements because they know that India is the market to tap for their products not other markets.. It's simple economics any MBA graduate would know..

 

[Eagle_Eye]

Are you going to talk about SKY Plc's revenue again?

Considering SKY Plc operates in multiple countries and not one and its not only a broadcaster but also a service provider of home tv/dth internet etc etc.

STAR is only a broadcaster and operates in one country.They are not a service provider or internet service provider etc etc.

So the point is moot.

What's sky got todo with this? The talk is specificalky about star, it's revenue model and its new subscription based model ... in context to what [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] posted about the revenue model in Australia. Get the context before jumping in.

Quick google did reveal that star is losing money ... especially from cricket

 

[jagatk]

What's sky got todo with this? The talk is specificalky about star, it's revenue model and its new subscription based model ... in context to what [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] posted about the revenue model in Australia. Get the context before jumping in.

Quick google did reveal that star is losing money ... especially from cricket

can you post links to these articles

 

[Eagle_Eye]

can you post links to these articles

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/m.econ...ntertainment-biz/amp_articleshow/51857494.cms

Scroll down to bad news

 

[jagatk]

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/m.econ...ntertainment-biz/amp_articleshow/51857494.cms

Scroll down to bad news

That is a year old article that too for 2015-16, just did a google of what has happened since

http://www.cricket.com.au/news/tele...alia-india-test-series-kohli-smith/2017-04-13

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...ion-viewers-in-india/articleshow/51877800.cms

Compare india's home season with last ashes viewership and you will see why cricket depends on india.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2015/jul/12/ashes-sky-england-australia-ecb-tv

 

[cricketjoshila]

What's sky got todo with this? The talk is specificalky about star, it's revenue model and its new subscription based model ... in context to what [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] posted about the revenue model in Australia. Get the context before jumping in.

Quick google did reveal that star is losing money ... especially from cricket

Did the google also reveal that Star is valued at 14.3bn USD?Did it reveal that its sports business is valued at close to 4bn USD?

Did it?

 

[sshakir411]

Honestly I've not found nothing that supports 80% other than one article that stated Indian TV rights are valued at up to 80% in 2012-2013. India brings in the most but how much?...no one really knows. And I for a second don't think our residents from India on here know as well.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Honestly I've not found nothing that supports 80% other than one article that stated Indian TV rights are valued at up to 80% in 2012-2013. India brings in the most but how much?...no one really knows. And I for a second don't think our residents from India on here know as well.

The ICC stated that India is responsible for 80% of the revenue.It was said in the 2014 Big 3 draft.

 

[dildildalwalla]

This statement keeps getting thrown around, but what is based on?

You take India out of World Cup, and maybe the ICC revenue falls to 50%. But conversely, if you take the other 9 countries out of the WC, the ICC's revenue would fall to 0. Thus the other 9 countries could just as easily lay a claim to "generating 100% of the income".

as you will findo ut, there is no proof. I asked the same question and got given completely irrelevant answers.

The tv deal in England is worth more than India's and set to reach Champs league levels if new plans go through.

The global cricketing audience is probably largest in India but it's not like 100% of that audience disappears if India don't play. Test cricket revenue in India is very low compared to Eng and Aus and ticket sales are much lower too. Etc etc.


I'd love the ICC to call India's bluff. Let's see what happens.

 

[sshakir411]

The ICC stated that India is responsible for 80% of the revenue.It was said in the 2014 Big 3 draft.

I've never found that draft or anything related to it that supports the claim. Only thing I found was excerpts from the draft that said if ICC's total revenue is $1.5 Billion than BCCI would get 4.2% back and if the revenue crosses $3.5 Billion BCCI will get 21%. That is ALL I've found. Also keep in mind I've chosen to skip sources like News websites from India or Pakistan.

 

[Shutdown Corner]

The ICC stated that India is responsible for 80% of the revenue.It was said in the 2014 Big 3 draft.

The Bible says the universe is 6000 years old.

Where is the ICC press release? More importantly, where are the balance sheets proving that?

India makes 0 without the other 9, so the other 9 actually bring 100% of the revenue.

 

[Specialisttailender]

The ICC stated that India is responsible for 80% of the revenue.It was said in the 2014 Big 3 draft.

Does ICC states that India bring 80% of the revenue for ICC events or for cricket overall ? Does the Indian population bring this revenue or does the BCCI does ?

 

[cricketjoshila]

Does ICC states that India bring 80% of the revenue for ICC events or for cricket overall ? Does the Indian population bring this revenue or does the BCCI does ?

80% for ICC.Its the Indian Market.

 

[cricketjoshila]

The Bible says the universe is 6000 years old.

Where is the ICC press release? More importantly, where are the balance sheets proving that?

India makes 0 without the other 9, so the other 9 actually bring 100% of the revenue.

ICC is a private body and it doesnt need to release its figures to the public.In case you doubt that try asking them for that.

Then the other 9 should play and keep all the revenue.Should not be an issue?Right?

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

Other 9? The only cricketing nations that matter here are Eng, Aus, SA and to some extent Pak. OPs attempt to try to big up Bangladesh as its some kind of major cricketing nation is just laughable.

Bangladesh is improving both on and off the field. Anyone who denies it is just a blind hater. Look at their population and passionate fans. Anyone who has seen india in 90s know how similar they are. Our passionate fans are losing interest in international cricket and have taken up Pyjama Cricket too seriously.

 

[JattMaula]

So as per my understanding, according to new rules all countries are obligated to tour all test playing nations in given cycle and weaker(financially) members think that takes away all the power BCCI held over them.

But iirc there is no minimum games requirement for test or any series. So Bcci can play one match test series in WI, Zim, Bangladesh if they want and no limited over games. That will be enough to fulfill requirements to this new proposed ftp rules. And can still arrange matches out of ftp to generate broadcasting revenue.

 

[dildildalwalla]

Still no evidence...

 

[JoniInsafian]

Is it a coincidence that ECB and CA along with Manohar are the ones present in every meeting with BCCI in this matter?Is it a lie that till 1992 these two boards had a veto in ICC and it was BCCI which stood up and got that removed?Is it also a lie that except BCCI all other boards are ready toe and in past have toed the line of ECB/CA.

Nice revisionist history.... It's Asian bloc which fought ECB and CA together , BCCI alone didn't have the power for this....

Now BCCI has betrayed Asian bloc so PCB, BCB and SLC have sided with ECB and CA.... Thus showing BCCI their aukat....

Either stay with your own or be ready to be destroyed by ''Empire'': BCCI made its choice....

 

[aniket1911]

You are asking the wrong question,I think. Where is the evidence that India do not generate 70-80 %?

Onus to prove it wrong lies on you, as ICC and other boards do believe that they do, hence they accepted the Big 3 model. Given the amount lost/could have accrued by CSA and PCB because of shortened tour and snub respectively, backs up their claim as well.

 

[cric_man]

Nice revisionist history.... It's Asian bloc which fought ECB and CA together , BCCI alone didn't have the power for this....

Now BCCI has betrayed Asian bloc so PCB, BCB and SLC have sided with ECB and CA.... Thus showing BCCI their aukat....

Either stay with your own or be ready to be destroyed by ''Empire'': BCCI made its choice....

^^^^^This...
It was support of PCB under Arif Ali Abbasi & Sri Lanka board provided to BCCI under Dalmiya that made it possible to eliminate TCCB/CA veto power and make ICC more democratic institution. BCCI didn't do anything by itself.
I used to marvel how lockstep BCCI & PCB used to be in the 90s even when the political landscape was as much hostile as it is today.

 

[Shutdown Corner]

ICC is a private body and it doesnt need to release its figures to the public.In case you doubt that try asking them for that.

Then the other 9 should play and keep all the revenue.Should not be an issue?Right?

The other 9 have no issue with India playing.

India can play their own IPL and keep all the revenue. If you need to use foreign players you have to acknowledge their nation's value for producing them and compenate them accordingly.

India is not God's Chosen Nation.

 

[Monsee]

You are asking the wrong question,I think. Where is the evidence that India do not generate 70-80 %?

Onus to prove it wrong lies on you, as ICC and other boards do believe that they do, hence they accepted the Big 3 model. Given the amount lost/could have accrued by CSA and PCB because of shortened tour and snub respectively, backs up their claim as well.

LOL, are you kidding me; if they were taking BCCI's word for it, why would they try and short change India by 100's of Millions with the new plan?

I think the bluff has started wearing off and the main boards (plus even BCB, WI etc.) are saying work with our model or else keep your phony threats!

 

[kdoversmg]

I think the bluff has started wearing off and the main boards (plus even BCB, WI etc.) are saying work with our model or else keep your phony threats!

Not becos' they don't believe BCCI doesn't bring bulk of the revenue. They have found a convenient idiot in Mr. Manohar to hurt BCCI

They are relying on mandatory touring schedule under the new constitution to shield them from BCCI's retaliation.

 

[Eagle_Eye]

That is a year old article that too for 2015-16, just did a google of what has happened since

http://www.cricket.com.au/news/tele...alia-india-test-series-kohli-smith/2017-04-13

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...ion-viewers-in-india/articleshow/51877800.cms

Compare india's home season with last ashes viewership and you will see why cricket depends on india.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2015/jul/12/ashes-sky-england-australia-ecb-tv

With respect, you have just bombarded me with viewing figures.... I posted about revenue and how star was losing money in cricket... I must admit that it came across as a shock, I would never thought a broadcaster would actually be losing money in India showing cricket!!

It kinda reinforces [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] points he made earlier. If these viewers are paying next to nothing to watch then it doesn't amount to much in the end.

The hotstar subscription app of star is also a loss making entity. Ok granted it's in early stages of rollout and adoption. But the figures are in 10s of millions of dollars. They probably have already reached the people that are willing to pay a premium.
[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] - Can Star and other broadcasters in India afford not to show ICC matches! I don't think they can. which brings about another point, if India goes alone with year long IPL, they will have to regonotiate with star and maybe others. Their will be hefty penalty clauses, which could be in 100s of millions dollars.

 

[Eagle_Eye]

Did the google also reveal that Star is valued at 14.3bn USD?Did it reveal that its sports business is valued at close to 4bn USD?

Did it?

Star is loss making, show me how it's in profit since the article I posted.

 

[Junaids]

The ICC stated that India is responsible for 80% of the revenue.It was said in the 2014 Big 3 draft.

Which was written by the BCCI.

 

[Junaids]

This thread asked the question "does India really generate 70-80% of global cricket revenue?"

But the events of the last 24 hours have moved things along rapidly, and the question now should be:

"Is the BCCI bankrupt without handouts, and does it waste more money than it delivers?"

And I think that the answer to both questions is YES!

It has become clear that the vast expenses of the BCCI mean that it cannot trade solvently without enormous welfare handouts from the ICC, indeed they need to be three times as big as any other country receives.

So the cricket board with the world's biggest income is now exposed as a Ponzi scheme, reliant upon new investment (in the form of welfare handouts from the ICC) to pay the enormous bills that it cannot pay even with all the income from the IPL and from TV rights.

Yesterday the shock was learning that the BCCI is an economic basketcase dependent upon handouts.

And of course it all makes sense: the ICC never did stand up to Srinivasan. But it's fair to assume that Shashank Manohar has told the rest of the ICC that the BCCI's spending is much bigger than its income and that it can't afford to lose ICC welfare payments.

So now the question moves on.

"Even if the Indian market creates 70-80% of income, does the BCCI spend even more and require subsidisation by everyone else?"

 

[jagatk]

With respect, you have just bombarded me with viewing figures.... I posted about revenue and how star was losing money in cricket... I must admit that it came across as a shock, I would never thought a broadcaster would actually be losing money in India showing cricket!!

It kinda reinforces [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] points he made earlier. If these viewers are paying next to nothing to watch then it doesn't amount to much in the end.

The hotstar subscription app of star is also a loss making entity. Ok granted it's in early stages of rollout and adoption. But the figures are in 10s of millions of dollars. They probably have already reached the people that are willing to pay a premium.

[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] - Can Star and other broadcasters in India afford not to show ICC matches! I don't think they can. which brings about another point, if India goes alone with year long IPL, they will have to regonotiate with star and maybe others. Their will be hefty penalty clauses, which could be in 100s of millions dollars.

My point my friend was that the viewerbase is the only available latest data we have, we have no clue whether star is currently losing money or not as article you posted was a year old article about data that pertains mostly to the prior financial year, another good indicator would be ipl rights that will be bid on, if it goes well we can be sure that ipl and indian cricket are making enough money for broadcasters that they are willing to spend big on it.

 

[jagatk]

This thread asked the question "does India really generate 70-80% of global cricket revenue?"

But the events of the last 24 hours have moved things along rapidly, and the question now should be:

"Is the BCCI bankrupt without handouts, and does it waste more money than it delivers?"

And I think that the answer to both questions is YES!

It has become clear that the vast expenses of the BCCI mean that it cannot trade solvently without enormous welfare handouts from the ICC, indeed they need to be three times as big as any other country receives.

So the cricket board with the world's biggest income is now exposed as a Ponzi scheme, reliant upon new investment (in the form of welfare handouts from the ICC) to pay the enormous bills that it cannot pay even with all the income from the IPL and from TV rights.

Yesterday the shock was learning that the BCCI is an economic basketcase dependent upon handouts.

And of course it all makes sense: the ICC never did stand up to Srinivasan. But it's fair to assume that Shashank Manohar has told the rest of the ICC that the BCCI's spending is much bigger than its income and that it can't afford to lose ICC welfare payments.

So now the question moves on.

"Even if the Indian market creates 70-80% of income, does the BCCI spend even more and require subsidisation by everyone else?"

Again you post baseless assumptions without any facts other than your faulty assumptions backing it. This is the 2016 article on bcci finances

http://www.livemint.com/Sports/s7ID...ore-surplus-in-fiscal-2016-Annual-report.html

Please explain how exactly is bcci making a surplus when according to you it is spending well beyond its means, shouldn't spending beyond means lead to losses rather than profits.

 

[Junaids]

My point my friend was that the viewerbase is the only available latest data we have, we have no clue whether star is currently losing money or not as article you posted was a year old article about data that pertains mostly to the prior financial year, another good indicator would be ipl rights that will be bid on, if it goes well we can be sure that ipl and indian cricket are making enough money for broadcasters that they are willing to spend big on it.

I would suggest that everyone - and especially [MENTION=76058]cricketjoshila[/MENTION] and [MENTION=142162]Napa[/MENTION] - familiarise themselves with what happened to the British/Irish broadcaster Setanta Sports and to ITV Digital. Because the same long, cold winter might be coming to Indian cricket that continues to plague the English Football Championship and the Scottish Premiership.

The two leagues became rich beyond their dreams from the money paid by ITV Digital and Setanta Sports. They were stronger than virtually any national top division in the world because the teams could afford to buy top class footballers.

But rather like the BCCI has based its financial model on huge ICC handouts, the teams became dependent upon TV money.

And when the broadcasters went out of business, the bidding ward for rights ended and now both leagues have modest budgets and even more modest players plying their trade in them.

The Indian market has contracted from 3 to 2 broadcasters.

Australian broadcasters are already fully extended on the football codes.

Sky has a monopoly in the UK.

I suspect that cricket in in for a period of reduced revenue largely because the Indian market is now maturing and becoming subject to normal spending constraints and reduced competition.

 

[jagatk]

I would suggest that everyone - and especially [MENTION=76058]cricketjoshila[/MENTION] and [MENTION=142162]Napa[/MENTION] - familiarise themselves with what happened to the British/Irish broadcaster Setanta Sports and to ITV Digital. Because the same long, cold winter might be coming to Indian cricket that continues to plague the English Football Championship and the Scottish Premiership.

The two leagues became rich beyond their dreams from the money paid by ITV Digital and Setanta Sports. They were stronger than virtually any national top division in the world because the teams could afford to buy top class footballers.

But rather like the BCCI has based its financial model on huge ICC handouts, the teams became dependent upon TV money.

And when the broadcasters went out of business, the bidding ward for rights ended and now both leagues have modest budgets and even more modest players plying their trade in them.

The Indian market has contracted from 3 to 2 broadcasters.

Australian broadcasters are already fully extended on the football codes.

Sky has a monopoly in the UK.

I suspect that cricket in in for a period of reduced revenue largely because the Indian market is now maturing and becoming subject to normal spending constraints and reduced competition.

You really need to start understanding what you are talking about, indian tv market has not contracted, Ten was owned by Zee in india which was the broadcaster which marketed ICL, since then ten had been on an unoffical blacklist for bcci in a way, Ten would never have got any rights in india for indian cricket, how exactly does that hurt indian cricket, yes it hurts others as now other nations don't have as many buyers for overseas rights but india or bcci don't get affected by it.

Now onto your whole setanta issue, again you take an event and try and extrapolate it to indian cricket without making any adjustments or taking in the actual ground facts, Setanta's issue was it did not have customers for product it was selling and it had loaned a lot of money to buy those products, with Star the issue does not exist, if you want to watch cricket in india you need star, i already posted india's vewership records for current home season and T-20 Worldcup go over them.

 

[Junaids]

You really need to start understanding what you are talking about, indian tv market has not contracted, Ten was owned by Zee in india which was the broadcaster which marketed ICL, since then ten had been on an unoffical blacklist for bcci in a way, Ten would never have got any rights in india for indian cricket, how exactly does that hurt indian cricket, yes it hurts others as now other nations don't have as many buyers for overseas rights but india or bcci don't get affected by it.

Now onto your whole setanta issue, again you take an event and try and extrapolate it to indian cricket without making any adjustments or taking in the actual ground facts, Setanta's issue was it did not have customers for product it was selling and it had loaned a lot of money to buy those products, with Star the issue does not exist, if you want to watch cricket in india you need star, i already posted india's vewership records for current home season and T-20 Worldcup go over them.

Ten was just as entitled as Star or anyone else to bid for ICC events.

As for Setanta and ITV Digital, the problem in my opinion was that they bid more than they could afford for football rights.

Surely you must agree with me that Indian TV rights sales have been massively inflated in recent years?

This is a country with a smaller GDP than England and even Australia - with 24 million inhabitants - has 45% of India's GDP.

Only 40 million Indians even pay tax.

Indian subscribers pay hardly any revenue to the Indian sports channels.

Yet supposedly the people of this country with only 40 million taxpayers generates so much advertising revenue that they allegedly generate more than three times as much cricketing revenue as Australia and the UK (which together have 50% more money than India in their economies).

It has never made any economic sense at all. It's obvious that India is going the way of Setanta and ITV Digital, with inflated and unsustainable TV rights sales.

 

[jagatk]

Ten was just as entitled as Star or anyone else to bid for ICC events.

As for Setanta and ITV Digital, the problem in my opinion was that they bid more than they could afford for football rights.

Surely you must agree with me that Indian TV rights sales have been massively inflated in recent years?

This is a country with a smaller GDP than England and even Australia - with 24 million inhabitants - has 45% of India's GDP.

Only 40 million Indians even pay tax.

Indian subscribers pay hardly any revenue to the Indian sports channels.

Yet supposedly the people of this country with only 40 million taxpayers generates so much advertising revenue that they allegedly generate more than three times as much cricketing revenue as Australia and the UK (which together have 50% more money than India in their economies).

It has never made any economic sense at all. It's obvious that India is going the way of Setanta and ITV Digital, with inflated and unsustainable TV rights sales.

Those are nice assumptions but what is it that backs them up is my problem, you like assumption and stats but you never back up your assumptions with hard ground facts only extrapolations with no relation to current issue from worldcup Football to SPL to Setanta.

Sony paid $918 mn for ipl in 2008 for 10 years, Star paid $750 mn for 6 years in 2012 for indian cricket team rights, Star again will pay anywhere from $1.1 bn to $3.5 bn for icc events for 8 years with india its biggest audience by far, I see the amounts being paid rising over the course of last 8-10 years, the next will be IPL rights if it is a similar no. then you assumption is faulty, it is not then i will agree with your assumption, but right now the nos show me you are talking BS.