Without India, what could cricket afford?

[Napa]

Then why doesn't he post the link of that interview instead of expecting that these comments appear on the front page of my newspaper? It's far easier than posting written, confidential documentation.

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...s-Recoiled-at-BCCI-s-IPL-Plans-AB-de-Villiers

http://www.news18.com/cricketnext/n...d-or-saving-himself-for-ipl-2017-1366933.html

etc.

 

[KhalidRafi]

To be very honest Shashank Manohar (who was part of one power center at BCCI) now the ICC chief has an axe to grind. No great altruistic or cricket growing notion there. Honestly the financial power house is India and the others contribute to the content and hence get a piece of that pie. So how India rolls is how the table will be set. No matter what the smaller fish want or talk. The first to blink will always be the one who has a lot more to lose.

Test cricket is almost dead, just a matter of time before people realize that spending 5 days of their life for a game to end is a stupid waste of time. Sport is almost always for displaying skill, pitting competition and providing entertainment. The game has to evolve to the shorter forms of the game being the dominant part.

Hopefully as the product is introduced (as in any product life cycle) there are one or two players -- IPL/Big Bash....as the product grows you have lots of competitors (BBL, CSA, PSL etc). However as the product matures there is consolidation and the market returns from a competitive market to a oligopoly or a monopoly. So at the end of the day you will be left with IPL and Big Bash with all rest mostly becoming regional tournaments.

Further, as cricket becomes a professional sport with individuals looking for earnings, rather than playing for national pride (which should be relgated to four year once like soccer does) ...the shake out will be complete.

In summary, the opera ends only when the fat lady sings and that happens to be India.

One thing people don't seem to understand is that cricket is not football. You don't have 100 serious competitors in this sport, rather 8-9. And Test cricket is far from dead. It still brings out huge crowds in Australia, England and big crowds in India and South Africa so I don't know where you got that notion. It has been played for hundreds of years and it will continue being played for hundreds more. The shorter versions may get more popular but Test cricket will never die. Cricket is a sport that been build on the foundation of nations playing against each other and that will never change. Cricket IS a professional sport and it hasn't been relying on the fat lady and her singing for up until, heck, even the past 15 years.

 

[KhalidRafi]

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...s-Recoiled-at-BCCI-s-IPL-Plans-AB-de-Villiers

http://www.news18.com/cricketnext/n...d-or-saving-himself-for-ipl-2017-1366933.html

etc.

As I suspected, the article is pure speculation. It doesn't even confirm whether he was injured or not and even then he's putting IPL over domestic cricket whereas I was specifically talking to you about international cricket.

The PakPassion post briefly mentions that CSA doesn't organize series during IPL season but I highly doubt they would be so kind to the IPL if one season goes on for six months.

I failed to see though where de Villiers said he would play for IPL over playing for South Africa.

 

[Junaids]

Your analysis is wishful thinking on many levels, but here are the most obvious flaws:

1) Cricket in Australia does not have the same following as does Rugby/Football. Nor does cricket in Eng have the same following as football. Following your logic is equivalent to saying "Hey, ManU just paid £57 million on buying 2 new players (Eric Bailly and Henrikh Mkhitaryan) so county cricket teams Middlesex and Yorkshire should be able to pay their players £57 million too".

2) If really there was so much money in cricket then we would not have Stokes and Mills getting paid 5X from IPL what they would otherwise, and saying their IPL payday was a "life changing event". In reality, the money paid by IPL far outstrips all other leagues because simply there is much more money in India than elsewhere.

3) There is the issue of long term growth. The Indian economy is growing at 7.5%, whereas Eng and Aus barely make it to 2%. Over a period of 20 years, this becomes a difference of 300%. So instead of the $2M contract Stokes got, a player of his caliber can expect $6M in 20 years. There is nothing Aus or Eng will ever offer that will induce players not to play in India, just like the world's best players now leave their home leagues as soon as they get a NBA contract.

No my friend, cricket in Australia has a HIGHER following than AFL and NRL, which are two oval ball football games followed in half the country each.

The AFL Grand Final has huge viewing figures, but each weekend's regular season AFL matches have far fewer TV viewers than is the case for international cricket matches.

My whole point is that AFL - a game completely ignored in Sydney and Brisbane - which has no overseas TV sales revenue at all still manages to pay $186 million per year on salaries.

Cricket has allowed itself to be taken hostage by the wiles of N Srinivasan.

Five years ago the ICC had a multilateral Future Tours program and received the Woolf Report WHICH IT HAD COMMISSIONED.

http://icc-live.s3.amazonaws.com/cm...Woolf of Barnes and PricewaterhouseCooper.pdf

The scene was set for pooling of revenue, centralization of scheduling and eventually for centralization of contracting, so that if you were of a certain quality and international importance you would earn the same amount regardless of your nationality, rather than having Mitchell Starc earn A$900,000 while Trent Boult earns NZ$186,000.

Which is how it works in other sports. Messi, Suarez and Neymar are from poor countries, but they are paid far more than Daniel Sturridge and Clint Dempsey.

Srinivasan saw the existential threat to Indian power of multilateralisation.

So he had the ICC strangle its own Woolf Report.

All cricket scheduling would have to be a bilateral affair. All cricketers would be contracted by their own Boards, who could be relied upon to spend more money on themselves than on their players.

(Have you wondered why Cricket Australia pays its 20th best player A$900,000 while New Zealand Cricket pays its third best player NZ$186,000, even though the ICC is going to pay each Board the same amount each year?)

Srinivasan ensured that the ECB and Cricket Australia profited just enough to join a Big Three. But his model was all about dividing and splitting the rest of the cricket world so that they would be economically dependent upon the BCCI.

Whereas the multilateral model that I have illustrated actually doesn't even require the BCCI or India to be part of it. If they are, terrific, and cricketers' wages can be much higher than the $200,000 to $600,000 bands suggested.

But if Australian Rules Football can spend $186 million per year on player salaries, with no overseas TV rights sales at all, and a sport which is ignored in Sydney, Brisbane, Newcastle and the Gold Coast, then cricket could easily pay for all 8 remaining serious cricket nations to have their top twenty players fitted within $8 million salary envelopes per country.

Without India and Zimbabwe, combined global player wages from the ICC (before T20 contracts) would cost US$64 million.

Whereas the AFL pays A$186 million per year to the players at the likes of Western Bulldogs and Essendon Bombers.

 

[bleaf27]

No my friend, cricket in Australia has a HIGHER following than AFL and NRL, which are two oval ball football games followed in half the country each.

The AFL Grand Final has huge viewing figures, but each weekend's regular season AFL matches have far fewer TV viewers than is the case for international cricket matches.

My whole point is that AFL - a game completely ignored in Sydney and Brisbane - which has no overseas TV sales revenue at all still manages to pay $186 million per year on salaries.

Cricket has allowed itself to be taken hostage by the wiles of N Srinivasan.

Five years ago the ICC had a multilateral Future Tours program and received the Woolf Report WHICH IT HAD COMMISSIONED.

http://icc-live.s3.amazonaws.com/cm...Woolf of Barnes and PricewaterhouseCooper.pdf

The scene was set for pooling of revenue, centralization of scheduling and eventually for centralization of contracting, so that if you were of a certain quality and international importance you would earn the same amount regardless of your nationality, rather than having Mitchell Starc earn A$900,000 while Trent Boult earns NZ$186,000.

Which is how it works in other sports. Messi, Suarez and Neymar are from poor countries, but they are paid far more than Daniel Sturridge and Clint Dempsey.

Srinivasan saw the existential threat to Indian power of multilateralisation.

So he had the ICC strangle its own Woolf Report.

All cricket scheduling would have to be a bilateral affair. All cricketers would be contracted by their own Boards, who could be relied upon to spend more money on themselves than on their players.

(Have you wondered why Cricket Australia pays its 20th best player A$900,000 while New Zealand Cricket pays its third best player NZ$186,000, even though the ICC is going to pay each Board the same amount each year?)

Srinivasan ensured that the ECB and Cricket Australia profited just enough to join a Big Three. But his model was all about dividing and splitting the rest of the cricket world so that they would be economically dependent upon the BCCI.

Whereas the multilateral model that I have illustrated actually doesn't even require the BCCI or India to be part of it. If they are, terrific, and cricketers' wages can be much higher than the $200,000 to $600,000 bands suggested.

But if Australian Rules Football can spend $186 million per year on player salaries, with no overseas TV rights sales at all, and a sport which is ignored in Sydney, Brisbane, Newcastle and the Gold Coast, then cricket could easily pay for all 8 remaining serious cricket nations to have their top twenty players fitted within $8 million salary envelopes per country.

Without India and Zimbabwe, combined global player wages from the ICC (before T20 contracts) would cost US$64 million.

Whereas the AFL pays A$186 million per year to the players at the likes of Western Bulldogs and Essendon Bombers.

Your premise is quite flawed. But since you have done the research let me get some numbers from you if I may.

What salary is the CAB paying their players right now and how much do these players make from IPL ?
What would be the total revenue of the ICC barring BCCI ?
Implications of players revenue getting changed significantly with lack of IPL ?
Now the tiers you have mentioned - are sustainable for how long ? Because the resource pool will dwindle - If the revenue isn't being generated - how can the salary be sustained ?

 

[Messiah]

Cricket doesn't need India. India needs cricket. Indians are physically incapable of doing good in any relevant sport and this dying sport is their only hope. Otherwise, how do you explain a country of one and a half billion people with fastest growing and good economy not doing anything in any other relevant sport. Please don't tell me more population doesn't equate to more success. Otherwise, how do u explain China and USA topping the medal charts every Olympics. Also don't bring up poor, war torn countries like Pakistan or Ethiopia. Your "top" economy that you like to brag about and 10 times more population shud give u a huge advantage. So just stop messing with cricket because without cricket, you have no identity (in terms of sports of course)

 

[narayanjan]

Flawed logic

One thing people don't seem to understand is that cricket is not football. You don't have 100 serious competitors in this sport, rather 8-9. And Test cricket is far from dead. It still brings out huge crowds in Australia, England and big crowds in India and South Africa so I don't know where you got that notion. It has been played for hundreds of years and it will continue being played for hundreds more. The shorter versions may get more popular but Test cricket will never die. Cricket is a sport that been build on the foundation of nations playing against each other and that will never change. Cricket IS a professional sport and it hasn't been relying on the fat lady and her singing for up until, heck, even the past 15 years.

You dont need 100 competitors for a sport to be a professional team based sport. MLB (Major League Baseball) and NFL (National Football Association) are proof.

In Baseball, you can meet other playing teams, e.g. Japan, in large amateur competitions (such as the Olympics) and for the major part just concentrate on whats happeing within the country US, and with the teams and the money they have you can attract the best talent and often you dont need national sports to determine who is the best talent since the professional scouts take on that job. Not to mention you can hire and fire at any time by paying off the rest of the contract.

In American Football, no other country plays the sport, and you can still have amazing revenue generation is you have two things --- population numbers * amount revenue per person through ads, merchandise, tickets etc = total revenue. In the US case with a population of 300 million but a high revenue per person gets you the amount. In India's case the population is four times that, but the spend is about 10 times lesser per person. Hence the brand is about 1/4th that of NFL. However, as the economy grows and spend increases the NFL model is the best model.

Test Cricket --- lets take stock again after 5 years and see where we are. No matter how you spin it, it is the TV ad revenue that sustains the business not the crowds at the game. That will be minimal at best for test cricket and high for shorter versions of the game.

 

[Junaids]

No matter how you spin it, it is the TV ad revenue that sustains the business not the crowds at the game. That will be minimal at best for test cricket and high for shorter versions of the game.

Your post is terrific, except for your final point.

In Australia, Cricket Australia gets comparable viewing figures for Tests, ODIs and T20s.

But Tests have 100 advertising breaks per day for 30 days of the year - that's 3,000 ad breaks.

ODIs have 100 advertising breaks per day, for 6 days of the year - that's 600 ad breaks.

T20 has 45 advertising breaks per day, for 3 days of the year - that's 135 ad breaks.

That's why Channel Nine pays huge money for free-to-air TV rights. They get around 70% of their advertising income from Tests, not 20 or 50 overs cricket.

The Sydney and Melbourne Day Tests are played when people are on holiday. But Channel 9 wants all other Tests to be Day/Night Tests to optimize advertising viewing and sales.

 

[jagatk]

Your post is terrific, except for your final point.

In Australia, Cricket Australia gets comparable viewing figures for Tests, ODIs and T20s.

But Tests have 100 advertising breaks per day for 30 days of the year - that's 3,000 ad breaks.

ODIs have 100 advertising breaks per day, for 6 days of the year - that's 600 ad breaks.

T20 has 45 advertising breaks per day, for 3 days of the year - that's 135 ad breaks.

That's why Channel Nine pays huge money for free-to-air TV rights. They get around 70% of their advertising income from Tests, not 20 or 50 overs cricket.

The Sydney and Melbourne Day Tests are played when people are on holiday. But Channel 9 wants all other Tests to be Day/Night Tests to optimize advertising viewing and sales.

Not anymore they are losing 40mn on cricket a year, bank analyst funding them told them to drop cricket.

 

[jagatk]

http://www.news.com.au/sport/cricke...e/news-story/731c334afb95db14e90b80d449d518a1


THE Nine Network is being urged by bankers to end its long-time cricket coverage due to estimated $30-40 million yearly losses, placing Cricket Australia (CA) under a financial cloud.

The broadcaster has a five-year deal worth $500 million with CA which expires next year and is negotiating a new contract for 2018-2023.

But financial analyst UBS believes Nine should consider walking away from negotiations if a better deal isn’t tabled.

“The existing cricket deal costs Nine circa $100 million per annum,” UBS media analyst Eric Choi wrote in note to clients. “We estimate the existing deal likely only generates gross revenues of $60-$70 million.

“We think it would seem logical for Nine to enter negotiations with the following mindset: i) more cricket content at no additional cost, or ii) to step away from the cricket contract.”

The former option could include Network Ten relinquishing rights to the Big Bash League (BBL) for CA to include the popular domestic T20 competition under the new deal.

In terms of its international cricket product, CA is confident it’ll find a buyer.

“We are not concerned that there will be a lack of interest for our media rights,” the body’s broadcasting manager Ben Amarfio told Fairfax Media. “Live sport, and cricket in particular, continues to be a premium asset.”

Will the Channel Nine commentators need to look for new jobs?

The revelation Nine needs to consider axing its cricket coverage is at odds with plans the network revealed last year.

Channel Ten secured the new TV rights deal to the BBL in 2013 when it agreed to pay $20 million a year, but The Australian reported Channel Nine’s interest in making a play when the current deal expires in 2018.

“Any future deal that we do, we want everything,” Nine’s director of sport Tom Malone said in November. “We want Test matches, we want one-dayers, we want (international) Twenty20s and we want the Big Bash.”

CHANNEL TEN FACING UPHILL BATTLE TO RETAIN BBL RIGHTS

The BBL’s success means the rights will now be valued at a much higher price than what Channel Ten initially paid. This week the Courier Mail reported Cricket Australia was hoping to receive approximately $250 million for the rights over a five-year period — an offer Ten will struggle to make given its difficult financial position after a year of poor ratings.

Ten’s market worth was reported at $166 million, meaning it faces the prospect of having to cut the Big Bash loose if the asking price is too high.

While that would normally pave the way for Nine to make a play at the broadcast rights, that seems less straightforward after the network was encouraged to release its stranglehold on cricket.

 

[narayanjan]

Thanks

http://www.news.com.au/sport/cricke...e/news-story/731c334afb95db14e90b80d449d518a1

Thanks Junaid and Jagatk for a mature and rational conversation - rather than childish, emotional and half baked responses as seen in other threads (especially ones that involve one cricketer that everybody either likes or dislikes....

Now to the point, Jagatk is absolutely correct in that advertising $'s are often dependant on a consistent audience (for the revenue side of the equation to be higher) and should be during cheaper timeslots (for the cost side to be lower). Now in a 8 hour per day * 5 days this is almost impossible i.e., getting a consistent audience and to be able to always be in cheaper time slots. So the net result is often a losing business model.

Now in a 3-4 hour sport like the 20/20's where individuals can involve their families and it is during evenings/weekends etc instantaneously you multiply the eyeballs. Almost 70% of all product purchase is by women, and hence every advertiser salivates when a sport can also attract women audience. So in the case of superbowl for NFL (due to half time show and advertisements) about 50% of the audience is women and hence the rates are about $5 million for a 30 second spot. In the case of MLB (baseball to remind you), what you do is call the sport America's favorite sport, make it be outdoors, and have a lot of softball competitions (which is female baseball by the by) and offer college scholarships equally for women and men in base/softball and instantaneosly you have a winning model.

Now the beauty is that 20/20 and especially the IPL/BBl model acheives that. What you need for the sport to thrive is to have lesser cricket nuts (that is the purists who want the game to run for 5 days), but instead more cricket enthusiasts (who like it for the entertainment value).

What I suspect will happen at some point is for one of the three big teams (Australia/india/UK) to start agreeing to purely non test series. Once that starts to happen then it will hasten the death of test cricket.

 

[Slog]

Have you read ABD's comments on the IPL? Believe me, if he was forced by his board to choose between the SA team and IPL, he would choose IPL in a heartbeat.

dont speculate

his ##1 priority is ODI WC

 

[Specialisttailender]

Couple things I'd point out. Who says without BCCI being a part of ICC - there is no Indian cricket ? So let's get this quite straight . ICC does not own cricket. If tomorrow BCCI opens WCC- world cricket council - It can play cricket. If BCCI decides to play cricket outside ICC administrative helm - It surely can . Would other countries be banned by ICC to stop playing BCCI ? I doubt it.
Secondly, WI board players without being signed to central contracts are still playing cricket .

You said, we have other sports to watch and my reply was for that. So everything is irrelevant. Even if we open WCC. How long can Chirs Gayle, Bravo and Pollard play for ? They are already mediocre outside T20 leagues. It will lose value when you consider most of the top talents are not playing in WCC or whatever. It is stupid and borderline bratty behaviour to pull out of ICC tournaments and I don't even wanna think about not playing bi-laterals.

 

[Specialisttailender]

No my friend, cricket in Australia has a HIGHER following than AFL and NRL, which are two oval ball football games followed in half the country each.

The AFL Grand Final has huge viewing figures, but each weekend's regular season AFL matches have far fewer TV viewers than is the case for international cricket matches.

My whole point is that AFL - a game completely ignored in Sydney and Brisbane - which has no overseas TV sales revenue at all still manages to pay $186 million per year on salaries.

Cricket has allowed itself to be taken hostage by the wiles of N Srinivasan.

Five years ago the ICC had a multilateral Future Tours program and received the Woolf Report WHICH IT HAD COMMISSIONED.

http://icc-live.s3.amazonaws.com/cm...Woolf of Barnes and PricewaterhouseCooper.pdf

The scene was set for pooling of revenue, centralization of scheduling and eventually for centralization of contracting, so that if you were of a certain quality and international importance you would earn the same amount regardless of your nationality, rather than having Mitchell Starc earn A$900,000 while Trent Boult earns NZ$186,000.

Which is how it works in other sports. Messi, Suarez and Neymar are from poor countries, but they are paid far more than Daniel Sturridge and Clint Dempsey.

Srinivasan saw the existential threat to Indian power of multilateralisation.

So he had the ICC strangle its own Woolf Report.

All cricket scheduling would have to be a bilateral affair. All cricketers would be contracted by their own Boards, who could be relied upon to spend more money on themselves than on their players.

(Have you wondered why Cricket Australia pays its 20th best player A$900,000 while New Zealand Cricket pays its third best player NZ$186,000, even though the ICC is going to pay each Board the same amount each year?)

Srinivasan ensured that the ECB and Cricket Australia profited just enough to join a Big Three. But his model was all about dividing and splitting the rest of the cricket world so that they would be economically dependent upon the BCCI.

Whereas the multilateral model that I have illustrated actually doesn't even require the BCCI or India to be part of it. If they are, terrific, and cricketers' wages can be much higher than the $200,000 to $600,000 bands suggested.

But if Australian Rules Football can spend $186 million per year on player salaries, with no overseas TV rights sales at all, and a sport which is ignored in Sydney, Brisbane, Newcastle and the Gold Coast, then cricket could easily pay for all 8 remaining serious cricket nations to have their top twenty players fitted within $8 million salary envelopes per country.

Without India and Zimbabwe, combined global player wages from the ICC (before T20 contracts) would cost US$64 million.

Whereas the AFL pays A$186 million per year to the players at the likes of Western Bulldogs and Essendon Bombers.

Mind boggling numbers. Never even knew anything such thing as AFL existed until few years ago

 

[Chrish]

Have you read ABD's comments on the IPL? Believe me, if he was forced by his board to choose between the SA team and IPL, he would choose IPL in a heartbeat.

For once I agree with with you.. Joke of a player.

 

[Specialisttailender]

Get ready for THE IPL. We don't need ICC or any of their minions

Can we turn our IPL auction into a draft like this ? I don't understand American Football, but I like the drama. We Indians love drama and emotions. Imagine a Mumbai Indian player bringing a picture of his late mother into the draft. We can attract the ladies, aunties and grannies.

 

[Buffet]

Off course cricket will exist if India stops playing cricket today. Same is true if Aus or Eng stops playing cricket tomorrow. Only difference will be money involved and it will be a lot less.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Just like it is currently for Gayle, Narine, Pollard etc.

Saying money doesn't matter is easy to do when it is someone else who is supposed to give up the money.

Can't compare WI players with Australian and English. This is beyond ridiculous.

Do you seriously think Smith or Root will retire or go against their boards to play IPL over international cricket that includes the Ashes?

 

[Junaids]

Can't compare WI players with Australian and English. This is beyond ridiculous.

Do you seriously think Smith or Root will retire or go against their boards to play IPL over international cricket that includes the Ashes?

They probably would as soon as they reach 30.

If cricket splits - which it won't because the BCCI is bankrupt from over-spending and dependent upon welfare payments in the form of ICC handouts - then I expect that elite cricketers from advanced countries would represent their countries until they reach the age of 30 and then go to India to earn their retirement savings.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Some Indian fans can live in their delusion but here is an eye opener for them:

1. IPL works on player popularity. Why was Stokes paid so much? Why is AB such a big name in IPL? The answer to all of these questions is that they are both established international cricketers. If all cricket boards revoke their NOC to play IPL, teams will be full of Indian players, international has-beens, and T20 mercenaries.

2. Who wants to see Harbhajan bowl to Rohit Sharma for 6 to 8 months? It is not even practical to hold such a long tournament. People will lose interest after a couple of months. Too much of the same thing bores people quickly and easily.

3. If India stops playing internationals, most of the Indian fans will still watch cricket. People who think otherwise must be very naive. You cannot control and force a population of 1.2 billion.

 

[The_Odd_One]

They probably would as soon as they reach 30.

If cricket splits - which it won't because the BCCI is bankrupt from over-spending and dependent upon welfare payments in the form of ICC handouts - then I expect that elite cricketers from advanced countries would represent their countries until they reach the age of 30 and then go to India to earn their retirement savings.

Smith is already 27 and just entered his peak years. Australian cricketers usually last much longer. IPL will have to wait until they are at least 35.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Just one last point I want to make here is Cricket survived without BCCI in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, and will survive without India even in the 21st century.

 

[bleaf27]

You said, we have other sports to watch and my reply was for that. So everything is irrelevant. Even if we open WCC. How long can Chirs Gayle, Bravo and Pollard play for ? They are already mediocre outside T20 leagues. It will lose value when you consider most of the top talents are not playing in WCC or whatever. It is stupid and borderline bratty behaviour to pull out of ICC tournaments and I don't even wanna think about not playing bi-laterals.

Mate, why are you minimizing the scope of an argument ? Who says only gayle and Bravo ? Why not Starc , Warner and ABD ? ICC may not be able to withhold other players from participating in WCC ? You think international players might not want to have a non compete clause in their contract ? They wouldn't want to have the option for themselves to play in other leagues around the world ?

 

[bleaf27]

Just one last point I want to make here is Cricket survived without BCCI in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, and will survive without India even in the 21st century.

No one is questioning whether cricket would survive or not. Ofcourse It will
But cricket will also survive without ICC ...... That isn't the only governing body who can control cricket - if need be an alternate body can definitely be created

 

[bleaf27]

Some Indian fans can live in their delusion but here is an eye opener for them:

1. IPL works on player popularity. Why was Stokes paid so much? Why is AB such a big name in IPL? The answer to all of these questions is that they are both established international cricketers. If all cricket boards revoke their NOC to play IPL, teams will be full of Indian players, international has-beens, and T20 mercenaries.

2. Who wants to see Harbhajan bowl to Rohit Sharma for 6 to 8 months? It is not even practical to hold such a long tournament. People will lose interest after a couple of months. Too much of the same thing bores people quickly and easily.

3. If India stops playing internationals, most of the Indian fans will still watch cricket. People who think otherwise must be very naive. You cannot control and force a population of 1.2 billion.

1) My question to you is why would the other boards revoke the NOC to play IPL ? The other boards do not have an animosity towards BCCI - this is buisness , money talks. If other boards get a profit out of an alternate board arrangement , why would they ?
2) If other boards threaten to revoke NOC of players to participate in other T20 leagues , you reckon the players will just sit back and let it happen ?
3) No one is arguing for Indian cricket to be dependent on IPL

Lastly , Let's say if today ICC bans BCCI . Do you think Indian cricket will perish ? The same population of 1.2 billion people and people who have put billions of dollars in IPL ( You should look up IPL's net worth and teams prices to get an idea of the investment investors are willing to do) - They wouldn't create their own cricket body ?

 

[Junaids]

No one is questioning whether cricket would survive or not. Ofcourse It will
But cricket will also survive without ICC ...... That isn't the only governing body who can control cricket - if need be an alternate body can definitely be created

You are completely right.

In the 1970's I saw cricket split in two, with ICC cricket and Packer cricket. And it was Packer cricket that was the real deal, not ICC cricket, which was a complete laughing stock. I still shake my head when people on this forum ignore the records of Barry Richards and Mike Procter in Supertests on the basis that they were "not official".

And I saw the same thing in Rugby League in Australia in the late 1990's, with official "ARL" and unofficial "Superleague".

To be honest, I think it would be a good thing for cricket to split now. By which I mean for India to resign, not be expelled.

 

[Tusker]

You are completely right.

In the 1970's I saw cricket split in two, with ICC cricket and Packer cricket. And it was Packer cricket that was the real deal, not ICC cricket, which was a complete laughing stock. I still shake my head when people on this forum ignore the records of Barry Richards and Mike Procter in Supertests on the basis that they were "not official".

Just so that we have the full story .... you are yet to convince me why Barry's is such a great player based on footage from his prime . As always your only go-to is Certificates of Achievements conferred by ex-players and media articles. When it comes to actual tangibles like analyzig technique from video footage its a different story.

 

[bleaf27]

You are completely right.

In the 1970's I saw cricket split in two, with ICC cricket and Packer cricket. And it was Packer cricket that was the real deal, not ICC cricket, which was a complete laughing stock. I still shake my head when people on this forum ignore the records of Barry Richards and Mike Procter in Supertests on the basis that they were "not official".

And I saw the same thing in Rugby League in Australia in the late 1990's, with official "ARL" and unofficial "Superleague".

To be honest, I think it would be a good thing for cricket to split now. By which I mean for India to resign, not be expelled.

Packer cricket - again was run by Packer - a quite rutheless 39 y/o who was a media rep . He wasn't backed by a legacy of a nation nor did he bring with himself a following of billions to sustain another model. But Packer with his pockets definitely did provide a more entertaining higher level of competition.

Now, with ICC providing BCCI with 400 million which I have conveniently seen you post elsewhere as an "handouts" bamboozles me because either you don't know the meaning of the word handouts or may just be an effort of demeaning an earned paycheck. So according to you, an employee who is getting paid 3 times as much as his co-workers should resign ? for what again ? BCCI's contribution to ICC and with its populatio nthe following is quite immense and when you earn you way to the top - you do not quit.
If PCB or WICB creates an issue of why they get paid meagerly ~ 132 mil , I can definitely see them resigning or quitting because again their legacies are amounted to loose change. If BCCI is being offered 400 mil, I'd say that's still a good offer however still play hard ball and maintain the stronghold you've created until now. Much easier for the BCCI to maintain their clout while in the ICC rather than re-invent the wheel

 

[Napa]

This week has seen another installment of the well-known soap opera.

The BCCI has insisted that it should enjoy a vast payment from the ICC, because private Indian TV channels allegedly pay 80% of the revenue cricket earns worldwide.

As usual, we are told that if the ICC fails to pay up:

1. India might withdraw from ICC tournaments.
2. India might exit international cricket entirely, and play a 6 or 9 month IPL offering far more money to foreign players than representing their countries.
3. India would easily scoop up the elite cricketers of the poorer countries like South Africa and New Zealand.
4. The rest of the cricket world will go broke unless it pays India what it demands.

But is this actually true? What would happen if India really did leave the ICC? And how much money would the remaining cricket world have to pay its players?

The thing is, we can actually answer those questions. It's not just a matter of speculation.

What do cricketers earn now?
The top New Zealand cricketers are on the following retainers from New Zealand Cricket:

1. Kane Williamson NZ$200,000
2. Martin Guptill NZ$193,000
3. Trent Boult NZ$186,000
6. BJ Watling NZ$165,000
10. Tom Latham NZ$137,000
16. Mitchell Santner NZ$95,000

These are topped up by up to $150,000 by match fees.
Source: http://sportsmaza.com/cricket/new-zealand-cricketers-salary/

South Africa's top players earn even less:

1. AB De Villiers US$120,000
2. Hashim Amla US$111,000
8. Morne Morkel US$75,000
Source: http://sportsmaza.com/cricket/south-african-cricketers-salary/

In contrast, Australia's top 20 players are all on A$900,000 retainers, apart from Steve Smith who gets an extra $212,000 for being the national captain.

Source: http://www.totalsportek.com/cricket/australian-player-salaries/

How much do other Australian sports without Indian revenue pay in salaries?
This can be worked out for four Australian winter sports - all variants of football - which each have a team salary cap, which is the amount of money each team spends on player salaries per season. But let's restrict ourselves to the main two.

Australian Football League: 18 teams, minimum salary spend $10,336,000 per team. TOTAL MINIMUM SALARY SPEND = $186 million per season.

National Rugby League: 16 teams, minimum salary spend $7.1 million (provided as a block grant per club), TOTAL MINIMUM SALARY SPEND = $114 million per season.

What does this mean?
The two main Australian winter sports of Rugby League and Aussie Rules pay their players a combined $300 million in salaries per year.

But they each are watched only by people in certain states, as follows:

Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania, Western Australia - AFL
Queensland, New South Wales, New Zealand's North Island - NRL

And neither sport earns any significant money at all from overseas TV rights.

In effect, even without a cent in Indian TV revenue, there is no reason to think that Australia and England ALONE would be unable to fund salaries for the whole of world cricket.

And much higher salaries than the paltry NZ$95,000 per year that Mitchell Santner is paid by New Zealand Cricket.

So how could world cricket resist India?
The key, obviously, is for the other countries to accept centralised scheduling by the ICC and for all TV revenue to be paid to the ICC.

In fact, even if India refused to play, there is every reason to think that some revenue would be earned from Indian channels anyway.

The ICC would then contract all international cricketers itself, on salaries significantly higher than most of its constituent boards can currently afford.

If we assume 5 bands, they might look something like this:

Tier 1: Elite Global Superstars (Smith, Root et al) $600,000 per year
Tier 2: Top Internationals (Shakib, Sarfraz, Boult et al) $500,000 per year
Tier 3: Established Internationals (Watling, Asad Shafiq et al) $400,000 per year
Tier 4: Occasional Internationals (Neesham, Rahat Ali et al) $300,000 per year
Tier 5: Emerging youngsters (Shadab et al) $200,000 per year

These sums would be topped up by T20 league contracts which each Board would control directly. But T20 leagues would be played in 4 week windows, with no player allowed to play in more than 2 T20 leagues.

Why would this work?
There are only 10 international cricket teams and each one would have 20 designated international players with an effective cap of $8 million per country.

This would mean a grand total of $80 million per year on salaries for the world's top cricketers - less than half as much as Australian Rules Football.

Only 3 non-Indian or Australian regular international cricketers in the world would lose money: Joe Root, Ben Stokes and Alastair Cook. Perhaps Cricket Australia would have to be allowed to continue to top up wages to their current levels.

But New Zealand, South Africa, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe would see their players triple the value of their current contracts, at the very minimum.

The act of pooling revenue and of centralising and standardising contracting of ALL international cricketers would protect international cricket from the threat of India being able to hijack the best players to an extended IPL.

Mitchell Santner employed today by New Zealand Cricket on NZ$95,000 per year might well be tempted by a year-round IPL contract. But employed by the ICC on US$400,000 per year? Probably not!

Likewise Quinton De Kock. Currently Cricket South Africa pays him US$111,000 per year. A centralised ICC contract would be in either the $600,000 or $500,000 band.

Conclusion
At present, the poorer countries' players are vulnerable to being poached by higher salary offers from a 6 month IPL.

But if the ICC took over scheduling, TV revenue and contracting, it could protect its sport by ensuring that players from places like South Africa, New Zealand and Pakistan earned enough money to stay in official cricket.

Plus, of course, the current enormous financial incentives for cricketers from those countries to fix which currently exists would be wiped out.

Is this affordable? The fact that the entire global international cricket contract cost would be less than half of the existing Australian Rules Salary Cap suggests that it most definitely is affordable.

Two years later, how if your grand plan for being free of Indian money proceeding? Any progress, however minuscule?

Simple fact of life. People all over the world like money, and most of them like Indians too... so Indian money is a win-win situation.

 

[Babbar]

The whole purpose of this thread and rona dhona is to somehow swindle money trombone a india! There’s nothing else to it! It’s just naked greed in the eye of a beggar when he sees a neighbourhood crorepati! But the beggar will always translate his greed in terms of Allah dua, zakat, Equity, democracy, fairness and so on.

It’s just so simple.

 

[Cric_lover4487]

I guess this thread is one of many threads is blabber about BCCI's greed is killing world's cricket. I just wanted to ask a question. Have you ever had a job?. The primary goal of any private organisation (BCCI is private autonomous body) is to maximize revenue. I am sure if PCB was powerful as BCCI they would be altruistic and donate 100% of profit to charity.

 

[DrSchultz]

dont speculate

his ##1 priority is ODI WC

Well this didn't age well at all.

 

[Jaibalayya]

dont speculate

his ##1 priority is ODI WC

This aged very well

 

[Slog]

Well this didn't age well at all.

This aged very well ��

Well he did wanna play this WC but SA didn’t allow him

He thought he’ll skip bilaterals and return for WC and everything will be ok. He didn’t envisage SA turning down the opportunity to have him

 

[DrSchultz]

Well he did wanna play this WC but SA didn’t allow him

He thought he’ll skip bilaterals and return for WC and everything will be ok. He didn’t envisage SA turning down the opportunity to have him

Good bit of revisionist history there.

 

[Slog]

Good bit of revisionist history there.

This is literally what their coach and captain said.

And he didn’t counter. Take it up with them

 

[xbronze]

I guess this thread is one of many threads is blabber about BCCI's greed is killing world's cricket. I just wanted to ask a question. Have you ever had a job?. The primary goal of any private organisation (BCCI is private autonomous body) is to maximize revenue. I am sure if PCB was powerful as BCCI they would be altruistic and donate 100% of profit to charity.

Lol. So true.

 

[xbronze]

The whole purpose of this thread and rona dhona is to somehow swindle money trombone a india! There’s nothing else to it! It’s just naked greed in the eye of a beggar when he sees a neighbourhood crorepati! But the beggar will always translate his greed in terms of Allah dua, zakat, Equity, democracy, fairness and so on.

It’s just so simple.

Couldn't have stated it better.

 

[ak619]

The whole purpose of this thread and rona dhona is to somehow swindle money trombone a india! There’s nothing else to it! It’s just naked greed in the eye of a beggar when he sees a neighbourhood crorepati! But the beggar will always translate his greed in terms of Allah dua, zakat, Equity, democracy, fairness and so on.

It’s just so simple.

Lol spot on, mate.

 

[hashimafzal]

We need to develop the USA team and involve the American audience. Only way to dethrone India haha

 

[zn426]

We need to develop the USA team and involve the American audience. Only way to dethrone India haha

Or perhaps we could do something real and start developing China, which has no established bag and ball sport.

 

[Sin Nombre]

Leaving aside Junaids' fanfiction to one side, cricket has one route to global growth - embrace the women's game more. It will be both in the next Asian Games and Commonwealth Games and push for it to be included in the Olympics.

The US will never care about yet another men's team sport.

 

[Sin Nombre]

Or perhaps we could do something real and start developing China, which has no established bag and ball sport.

China has no team sport, period. They have tried to be good in football but honestly, the culture and genetics will always make it hard (despite the 1.4 bln population argument which people like to use). Things are so bad with football that they are now including foreigners with any Chinese ethnicity in their national team (something which they have always been against, same as India).

They will however invest money in Olympic sports and women's game is an easier one to get good at.

 

[RameezRambo_Fan]

Watching the ICC and BCCI argue is like watching two beggars fight for a piece of bread. Ever since the ICC moved to Dubai, it's been one disaster after another with this group of yobs.

How long have they been around for? To this day they still haven't managed to grow the sport beyond half a dozen countries or so. Still haven't gotten cricket into the Olympics. And they prounce around like they're FIFA or something.

LOL

 

[hashimafzal]

Or perhaps we could do something real and start developing China, which has no established bag and ball sport.

Thing with the USA however, is its cultural and social influence it has on the rest of the world. I feel involving the United States will be a total catalyst for the spread of cricket to other countries whereas China operates more in a closed fashion.

 

[hashimafzal]

Leaving aside Junaids' fanfiction to one side, cricket has one route to global growth - embrace the women's game more. It will be both in the next Asian Games and Commonwealth Games and push for it to be included in the Olympics.

The US will never care about yet another men's team sport.

The USA will care about something they are good at. You can paint anything red white and blue and it will sell in the United States.

 

[Pakhs]

Two years later, how if your grand plan for being free of Indian money proceeding? Any progress, however minuscule?

Simple fact of life. People all over the world like money, and most of them like Indians too... so Indian money is a win-win situation.

I didnt realize India was a rich country fro most people living in western world India is a poor country. Proof is the amount of Indians who chose to leave the country for better life else where so evident everywhere.

Now back to cricket, Cricket is survived by only handful of countries mostly former colonies of England who itself don't care much about cricket and football is No.1 sport in England. Cricket is now relevant only in Asia and the biggest craze is found in India and hence most money is generated in that country. No mystery there really. If the WC final is between India and England then really it should be a miss match in one country its a No1 sport with a population of over billion people and in another at best no3 sport and population of around 50 million.

We should feel ourselves lucky that we have not got to the point yet where nobody is able to compete against India in cricket but I have a feeling in 20 years time it will just be mostly a domestic game played in India but like baseball in america but the difference will be baseball was never a international support.

It will not be India's fault they love cricket too much it will be in ability of the game that not many countries fell in love with it.

 

[Napa]

I didnt realize India was...

Educate yourself about the economics of cricket then.

Now back to cricket, Cricket is survived by only handful of countries mostly former colonies of England who itself don't care much about cricket and football is No.1 sport in England. Cricket is now relevant only in Asia and the biggest craze is found in India and hence most money is generated in that country.

Doesn't matter a whole lot where cricket came from. Tea came from China and the English did not ask their permission to make it a part of English culture.

We should feel ourselves lucky that we have not got to the point yet where nobody is able to compete against India in cricket but I have a feeling in 20 years time it will just be mostly a domestic game played in India but like baseball in america but the difference will be baseball was never a international support.

Even if it dies out in other countries, it will still be played in India with a few players from the Caribbean at least in the domestic league, just like the MLB has a few from Japan, Korea, Cuba etc.

 

[Pakhs]

Educate yourself about the economics of cricket then.



Doesn't matter a whole lot where cricket came from. Tea came from China and the English did not ask their permission to make it a part of English culture.



Even if it dies out in other countries, it will still be played in India with a few players from the Caribbean at least in the domestic league, just like the MLB has a few from Japan, Korea, Cuba etc.

It does matter where cricket came from unlike tea as tea is adopted by almost all countries in the world where cricket is not adopted by any major country other than those who were former colonies of England. Cricket and English remain the biggest left over in India from colonial era.

It is also a sign that its not likely to every be adopted by any other country so even more so eventually will be a game just played in India. It will not just be Caribbean players but also players from other Asian countries playing in domestic league in India.

Cricket already is not a major sport in the grand scheme of things in the World and its likely to get even more restricted in future.

 

[Mamoon]

Well he did wanna play this WC but SA didn’t allow him

He thought he’ll skip bilaterals and return for WC and everything will be ok. He didn’t envisage SA turning down the opportunity to have him

If World Cup was his number one priority throughout, he wouldn’t have officially retired officially from international cricket in May. It is pretty clear what has happened - he had a change of heart right before the World Cup squad was announced but it was too late.

If his aim was to skip bilateral and play the World Cup, he would have continued to skip series and pick and choose when to play. That is what he did in the last couple of years anyway.

 

[Napa]

It does matter where cricket came from unlike tea as tea is adopted by almost all countries in the world where cricket is not adopted by any major country other than those who were former colonies of England. Cricket and English remain the biggest left over in India from colonial era.

It is also a sign that its not likely to every be adopted by any other country so even more so eventually will be a game just played in India. It will not just be Caribbean players but also players from other Asian countries playing in domestic league in India.

Cricket already is not a major sport in the grand scheme of things in the World and its likely to get even more restricted in future.

I find it hard to believe that South Asian countries are going to give up cricket as it is the only sport they are competitive at the world level. Also, ODIs actually make for rather good spectacles, and will keep drawing to the stadiums and in front of the televisions.

Maybe football will take over in South Asia like it has done in most parts of the world. Hard to predict what kids a hundred years from now would be interested in. Could be video games for all I know.

 

[Roaring40s]

It does matter where cricket came from unlike tea as tea is adopted by almost all countries in the world where cricket is not adopted by any major country other than those who were former colonies of England. Cricket and English remain the biggest left over in India from colonial era.

It is also a sign that its not likely to every be adopted by any other country so even more so eventually will be a game just played in India. It will not just be Caribbean players but also players from other Asian countries playing in domestic league in India.

Cricket already is not a major sport in the grand scheme of things in the World and its likely to get even more restricted in future.

Whatever is the context of your post, the idea is good. India can use one/two foreign pro per team rule like counties in the Ranji Trophy. However some people will think that it is killing cricket in those other countries, it will actually benefit them. Just imagine Afghan, Bangladeshi or Sri Lankan players playing in world's premier FC competition (it is at least ranked third). It will also benefit India where all the Ranji teams are not equal and some post reform introduced ones are actually lower than a major club team in Mumbai. Its a win-win situation.

 

[Sin Nombre]

The USA will care about something they are good at. You can paint anything red white and blue and it will sell in the United States.

Agree with you but same as football, they will never get good at men's cricket.

American team sports pay the most in the world. Why would any young kid play a minority team sport which pays less and has no cultural impact.



Women's cricket is a different matter.

If women's T20 ever gets to the Olympics, I 100% see the US becoming a top 5 nation in women's within 15 years.

That is how the sport will grow.

 

[Sin Nombre]

It is also a sign that its not likely to every be adopted by any other country so even more so eventually will be a game just played in India. It will not just be Caribbean players but also players from other Asian countries playing in domestic league in India.

PP will hate it but IPL will expand into a 4 month competition with 16 teams to more over the next 2 decades imo.

We might see a SL, BD and Nepal IPL team in the near future as well.

IPL will likely become the NBA of cricket.

Big Bash will likely be the equivalent of EuroBasket, and BPL/PSL smaller European leagues.

Big 3 test series and ODI/T20 WC will be what's left of internationals.

 

[fitCricFan]

If World Cup was his number one priority throughout, he wouldn’t have officially retired officially from international cricket in May. It is pretty clear what has happened - he had a change of heart right before the World Cup squad was announced but it was too late.

If his aim was to skip bilateral and play the World Cup, he would have continued to skip series and pick and choose when to play. That is what he did in the last couple of years anyway.

Well, we had our own Afridi who was in teh habit of retiring and them ummmm unretiring. Even today if the right incentives are offered, most of the former cricketers who have retired in the last year or two will happily unretire.
Whatever ABD's reasons to retire, he did offer top unretire but CSA did not take him up on that. Anyways with ABD, SA may have won a couple of more games in the WC but it is very unlikey that they would have qualified for the knockout stage

 

[fitCricFan]

Watching the ICC and BCCI argue is like watching two beggars fight for a piece of bread. Ever since the ICC moved to Dubai, it's been one disaster after another with this group of yobs. LOL

If you see ICC or BCCI as beggars, what would you call the cricketing boards of other countries who depend and take a share of that money. Is there any hierarchy within beggars that you may be aware of !!!!

 

[fitCricFan]

PP will hate it but IPL will expand into a 4 month competition with 16 teams to more over the next 2 decades imo.

We might see a SL, BD and Nepal IPL team in the near future as well.

IPL will likely become the NBA of cricket.

Big Bash will likely be the equivalent of EuroBasket, and BPL/PSL smaller European leagues.

Big 3 test series and ODI/T20 WC will be what's left of internationals.

I won't be surprised if we have a dedicated IPL cricketing channel with cricket on-demand.

 

[Pakhs]

I find it hard to believe that South Asian countries are going to give up cricket as it is the only sport they are competitive at the world level. Also, ODIs actually make for rather good spectacles, and will keep drawing to the stadiums and in front of the televisions.

Maybe football will take over in South Asia like it has done in most parts of the world. Hard to predict what kids a hundred years from now would be interested in. Could be video games for all I know.

Whatever is the context of your post, the idea is good. India can use one/two foreign pro per team rule like counties in the Ranji Trophy. However some people will think that it is killing cricket in those other countries, it will actually benefit them. Just imagine Afghan, Bangladeshi or Sri Lankan players playing in world's premier FC competition (it is at least ranked third). It will also benefit India where all the Ranji teams are not equal and some post reform introduced ones are actually lower than a major club team in Mumbai. Its a win-win situation.

Context is people are moaning about BCCI asking for more money etc. And also 3 of the semi-finalist are from the big 3 just shows where cricket is heading. Obviously people dont like it as nobody likes the change and most people started of watching cricket when this was not apparent and cricket was played more evenly in terms of money etc.

Cricket biggest fault is / was it never got beyond colonial countries maybe it was never good enough sport.

 

[Pakhs]

PP will hate it but IPL will expand into a 4 month competition with 16 teams to more over the next 2 decades imo.

We might see a SL, BD and Nepal IPL team in the near future as well.

IPL will likely become the NBA of cricket.

Big Bash will likely be the equivalent of EuroBasket, and BPL/PSL smaller European leagues.

Big 3 test series and ODI/T20 WC will be what's left of internationals.

I think if IPL ever expands it will lost its charm, ODI cricket is still the answer.

 

[hashimafzal]

I think if IPL ever expands it will lost its charm, ODI cricket is still the answer.

The draw of leagues like the Premier League, NBA, NFL and even IPL, is that the product given to the viewer is the highest standard the sport has to offer and viewers are watching the best in the world at what they do. If the IPL continues on that promise and can pay those who are exceptionally good at their craft, players like Starc, AB de Villiers, Warner etc, the draw and allure of the IPL will never go away.

 

[Pakhs]

The draw of leagues like the Premier League, NBA, NFL and even IPL, is that the product given to the viewer is the highest standard the sport has to offer and viewers are watching the best in the world at what they do. If the IPL continues on that promise and can pay those who are exceptionally good at their craft, players like Starc, AB de Villiers, Warner etc, the draw and allure of the IPL will never go away.

Cricket is not like football and most people watch cricket out of loyalty. I dont think IPL is a product that for international market.

 

[Napa]

dont speculate

his ##1 priority is ODI WC

So much for his alleged #1 priority... he initially did not even make himself available for the WC and then made a farcical offer a couple of days before the tournament.

 

[Hitman]

So much for his alleged #1 priority... he initially did not even make himself available for the WC and then made a farcical offer a couple of days before the tournament.

How about his statement of the IPL being better than the WC? )