What's new

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

But they don't bring anywhere near the viewership india brings and frankly pakistan is not as economically strong, india has always been big in terms of population but the real money started pouring in from broadcasters and sponsors only when indian economy took off.

Pakistan has more than enough viewership to make their board financially successful.. One can only blame themselves for personal incompetence

I am not even BCCI friend but PCB should put actual effort rather than blaming BCCI for all the miseries..
 
Last edited:
Pakistan has more than enough viewership to make their board financially successful.. One can only blame themselves for personal incompetence

I am not even BCCI friend but PCB should put actual effort rather than blaming BCCI for all the miseries..

Inspite of having a large enough population to support, they are not able to attract big enough sponsors or get big enough TV contracts.

Looks like smart money knows something about Pak economy that you don't.
 
I can sympathize with NZ because of their population of 6 million, they are much weaker board and do get bullied by the big fish.

I can sympathize with SA because of racial issues, promising players are leaving and that might be detrimental to the the future of their Cricket.

On the other hand, I have no sympathy for Pakistani board. They been playing Cricket for 60+ years and with their population of 200 million, their board should be superpower by now instead of not even being able to stand on their feet and their chiefs and fans constantly whining on the media/ internet.

I can never sympathize with Bangladesh.. With the population of 150+ million and despite playing Cricket for 20+ years, they only have themselves to blame for not even being able to remove the minnow tag and thus not getting any invites for oversea tours from bigger board.
 
I don't get it what makes PCB so backward.. They too are one of the most populous nations on a globe with Cricket as the only sport! They should be part of big 4 but instead all I see them do is crying over bullying from BCCI!

A big reason is international cricket not being played in Pakistan. Revenue is not that much from matches played in UAE.
 
A big reason is international cricket not being played in Pakistan. Revenue is not that much from matches played in UAE.

The can generate revenues by regularly touring other counties, can't then? People in UAE may not watch it, but that doesn't mean people in England, Australia, SA won't.
 
The can generate revenues by regularly touring other counties, can't then? People in UAE may not watch it, but that doesn't mean people in England, Australia, SA won't.

Newsflash: boards don't make money on away tours.

did you not know that?
 
Board of away team makes money through the live broadcasting of the match in their country.

nope. Those rights are owned by the country where the matches take place. How do you think BCCI ruled the roost? and why do you think they want to make compulsory schedule now?
 
nope. Those rights are owned by the country where the matches take place. How do you think BCCI ruled the roost? and why do you think they want to make compulsory schedule now?

Newsflash: boards don't make money on away tours.

did you not know that?

Would be interested in the source of this information.. Link(s) may be?
 
why do people always like to bring countries population into the picture? The US only has about 300 million, but if Cricket was a major sport it would've made more revenues than all of the Cricket playing nations combined due to it's sheer purchasing power.
 
Wrong example.

In your equation, one big factor is missing. Viewership and revenues earned from there.

Hence to put it in your equation, two workers does the same job but one brings her kids to increase the production. Since the kids are also contributing (her and the kids both combines 70% of production), hence more wages needs to be paid to her.

Still not totally correct.

If the kids are working, the kids should be paid (Indian public) not the mother (BCCI).

But in this case, even the kids aren't working. The mother is asking for more money simply due to the existence of the kids!

BCCI doesn't do any more "work" than say ECB. Giles Clark does as much work as Anurag Thakur. Indian cricketer's don't do any more "work" than Aussie players. Steve Smith does just as much kaam as Kohli.

So who is doing the work and what kind of work is it? A billion Indians are just watching the games.

So in essence India wants an extra 300 million dollars because a billion people know how hit a little red button on their remote control. And Indian apologists argue they actually deserve 1.5 billion more.

I don't believe people ought to be paid that much just for pushing 1 button. In the course lf this post alone, I have executed a few hundred keystrokes...at BCCI rates, I have just earned 100 trillion dollars in 5 minutes.
 
Still not totally correct.

If the kids are working, the kids should be paid (Indian public) not the mother (BCCI).

But in this case, even the kids aren't working. The mother is asking for more money simply due to the existence of the kids!

BCCI doesn't do any more "work" than say ECB. Giles Clark does as much work as Anurag Thakur. Indian cricketer's don't do any more "work" than Aussie players. Steve Smith does just as much kaam as Kohli.

So who is doing the work and what kind of work is it? A billion Indians are just watching the games.

So in essence India wants an extra 300 million dollars because a billion people know how hit a little red button on their remote control. And Indian apologists argue they actually deserve 1.5 billion more.

I don't believe people ought to be paid that much just for pushing 1 button. In the course lf this post alone, I have executed a few hundred keystrokes...at BCCI rates, I have just earned 100 trillion dollars in 5 minutes.

You are talking complete BS, i will ignore the whole kid mother thing as you are just being stubborn and not accepting that it was a rubbish analogy, for starters cricket is popular in india because everyone not only follows it but also actually plays it.

BCCI arranges cricket at various levels from school cricket to state level and national team, that doesn't come free. Also if thakur and bcci work as much as ecb and ca why on earth are bcci the only big profit making organisation, why is it that only indians care about cricket and for so much work that CA and ECB do cricket is essentially a old white man's game there with a declining following and lack of interest.

BCCI wants that extra money because guess what einstein, this ain't karl marx world, this is capitalism plain and simple, virat kohli does the same work joe root does, but when virat kohli is working, ICC makes a hell lot more money than when steve smith or joe root are.

Also you analogies are getting worse, the little red button as you call it, is what feeds the cricketers, it is what gets Star bidding billions for ICC events, frankly there is no use arguing with someone who doesn't understand basics of cricket finance and seems to think viewership doesn't matter, it is just a red button apparently.
 
I can sympathize with NZ because of their population of 6 million, they are much weaker board and do get bullied by the big fish.

I can sympathize with SA because of racial issues, promising players are leaving and that might be detrimental to the the future of their Cricket.

On the other hand, I have no sympathy for Pakistani board. They been playing Cricket for 60+ years and with their population of 200 million, their board should be superpower by now instead of not even being able to stand on their feet and their chiefs and fans constantly whining on the media/ internet.

I can never sympathize with Bangladesh.. With the population of 150+ million and despite playing Cricket for 20+ years, they only have themselves to blame for not even being able to remove the minnow tag and thus not getting any invites for oversea tours from bigger board.

Population does not matter much if does not have much of a spending power. Pakistan has a lot of work to do on that front and bangladesh is also a long way behind. Even 1.3 billion matter only when they have money to spend, pakistan and bangladesh don't.
 
You are talking complete BS, i will ignore the whole kid mother thing as you are just being stubborn and not accepting that it was a rubbish analogy, for starters cricket is popular in india because everyone not only follows it but also actually plays it.

BCCI arranges cricket at various levels from school cricket to state level and national team, that doesn't come free. Also if thakur and bcci work as much as ecb and ca why on earth are bcci the only big profit making organisation, why is it that only indians care about cricket and for so much work that CA and ECB do cricket is essentially a old white man's game there with a declining following and lack of interest.

BCCI wants that extra money because guess what einstein, this ain't karl marx world, this is capitalism plain and simple, virat kohli does the same work joe root does, but when virat kohli is working, ICC makes a hell lot more money than when steve smith or joe root are.

Also you analogies are getting worse, the little red button as you call it, is what feeds the cricketers, it is what gets Star bidding billions for ICC events, frankly there is no use arguing with someone who doesn't understand basics of cricket finance and seems to think viewership doesn't matter, it is just a red button apparently.

It seems you have got all the evidences OP is looking for. Not only that you also have evidences of decline in the following and interest of English and Australians in cricket. As well as ICC making hell lot of money when Kohli is working. I would like to know more about how ICC makes more money when Kohli is playing than Smith or Root?

People forget if there is no smith or joe root in the opposition then there will be no Kohli's too. All of them depend on each other but some fans think they own the world and the world can't live without them. BCCI and ICC both need each other why is it so hard to understand for some of you?
 
It seems you have got all the evidences OP is looking for. Not only that you also have evidences of decline in the following and interest of English and Australians in cricket. As well as ICC making hell lot of money when Kohli is working. I would like to know more about how ICC makes more money when Kohli is playing than Smith or Root?

People forget if there is no smith or joe root in the opposition then there will be no Kohli's too. All of them depend on each other but some fans think they own the world and the world can't live without them. BCCI and ICC both need each other why is it so hard to understand for some of you?

I don't disagree with everyone needs each other perspective and i do not think BCCI owns cricket and disagree with Big 3, but cutting somebody's income by the half without taking them in confidence and doing it just at the time they are at their lowest is also not done for me, especially when the group you are trying to screw over also happen to be your cash cow.

Now onto you questions, Kohli is worth more commercially than root or smith, i don't know if you watch epl or not but if you do take the example of pogba and kante, both are world class midfielders, heck kante is better than pogba right now, but when you look at it commercially you will find pogba is worth a lot more than kante will ever be and it isn't just because of his football skills. Kohli is india's current tendulkar, he gets similar following, which means when kohli bats a lot more people watch than a root or smith, you may not like it but that is a fact.

About dwindling nos, CA are about to record a 68mn loss this year and add to that international cricket in australia is not exactly in great health if you believe the nos quoted about loss Channel 9 is making with international cricket but without BBL. You just need to do a google search about how popular cricket is in england, the nos even for ashes are poor and these are articles by respectable papers like guardian, add to that ECB's questionable bidding system and unnecessary support for counties when they were all going into stadium refurbishments and expansions is biting the counties very badly in terms of finance issues.
 
Doesn't really say that though, they've just divided the total broadcasting deal revenue by the total games expected in that period to get an average. The expected opposition and amount of games against them in that period will obviously affect the size of the deal on the whole.

If you read the article you will know that the bid is made in per match terms.Thats how much will the broadcaster pay to telecast one match.There is no mention of who the opposition will be.If BCCI plays more than 96 matches they get paid in pro rata basis.This is how BCCI makes money,their returns are guaranteed because Indian team will play.

Unlike other countries where there is a premium to broadcast matches when Indian team plays otherwise not.
 
Of course the expected quality and drawing power of opposition are factored into these averaged out figures. As if any broadcaster would pay the same amount if India were to only play WI, Zim, Afg and Ireland etc year after year. Must be living in some fantasy land to believe otherwise.
 
Back
Top