World Cricketers' Association calls for a more equitable revenue distribution and a revamp of the ICC's governance model

[The Bald Eagle]

World Cricketers’ Association Releases Global Game Structure Report

WCA has today released its report: Protecting History, Embracing Change. A Unified Coherent Global Future. The Report (accessible HERE) is the culmination of a six month review of cricket’s global structure, led by an expert multi stakeholder Sub-Committee Chaired by Paul Marsh, and in conjunction with The Sports Consultancy. The Report:

Draws on interviews with 64 senior game stakeholders, including players, administrators, and commercial and media partners, in addition to the compilation of data from various experts

Focuses on the ‘top of the game,’ where the best players compete, and on the cricket that funds the rest of the sport globally (ICC Events, bilateral international cricket, major DT20 leagues)

Covers both the men’s and women’s games - focusing on issues applicable to both, but at different stages of coming to pass

1. Cricket’s Direction of Travel
Global cricket is shifting towards a ‘club v club’ based model - that is a multi-employer, transnational system for players, with T20 increasingly the dominant format globally

Revenue is moving towards cricket with context, jeopardy, and calendar space - and away from bilateral international cricket
Current scheduling and economic models embed inequity and lost opportunity - with an estimated:
83% of global cricket revenue shared between three countries and 11 of the last 13 major ICC Events won by the same countries
2% of global cricket revenue distributed to countries ranked 13 – 108
10.5% of global cricket revenue shared with the players who help to generate it

2. Major Problems Identified

Whilst many of the shifts in cricket are positive, some significant problems with the global game across four areas have been identified by stakeholders. These require urgent addressing:

Scheduling - Current global cricket scheduling is chaotic, inconsistent and confusing, limiting the overall quality of the product, and putting the future of the international game at risk

Economics - Global cricket’s finances are not optimised, balanced or used effectively to achieve competitive balance and growth, resulting in the sport not reaching its global potential

Regulations - Cricket’s global regulations are outdated for the current transnational era, with arbitrary restrictions and limited protections and security for players, and risks to game integrity

Leadership - There is a lack of overarching leadership in the game providing global direction, leading to regional self-interest, short-term thinking and an imbalance of power

3. Recommended Solutions
The Report makes a number of specific recommendations to address these problems, guided by principles.

Scheduling
Cricket’s global schedule should align international and domestic formats to drive growth, ensuring all matches have clear context and purpose, through:

Simpler, easier to follow global calendar and international competition structures - which should apply from 2028 and 2029 onwards. This requires more centralised management of the schedule

Scheduling windows for ‘Core International Cricket’ - which should be implemented to cover one match per format against all other teams within consistent divisional championships with promotion and relegation, culminating in qualification for existing pinnacle ICC Events across two year cycles

This will allow international cricket to co-exist with the growing DT20 leagues - rather than compete with them, thereby ensuring its future survival. It will also ensure most of the calendar remains for the market to continue to evolve and innovate
Economics

Cricket’s financial structure should support global growth and competitive balance, through:

A centralised Global Growth and Development Fund - to be established, underpinned by pooled rights model applicable only to Core International Cricket, to fund Core International Cricket and other global initiatives

ICC revenue distribution - occurring within minimum and maximum parameters

Stronger regulation and accountability - on how distributed money is spent in all countries

Player revenue sharing parameters - to be applied in all sanctioned cricket

Regulations
Cricket’s global regulations need to reflect the new transnational reality to protect the game and people in it, through:
Fit for purpose global regulations for professional cricket - developed to establish modern global calendar, player movement and professional cricket standards
Leadership

Global cricket needs to come together with clear leadership to reflect the sport’s changing landscape and prevent fragmentation, through:
Modernising the ICC - to ensure it is empowered to lead the global game and built on shared ownership, independence, and representation reflective of the whole sport

Establishment of a Global Game Leadership Committee - as an interim step to make recommendations to the game and to the ICC

4. Benefits of Making These Changes
The report highlights the expected stakeholder response, along with independent modelling that indicates proposed changes will have significant benefits for all stakeholders, including:

Survival of international cricket in more than just a few countries - the future of international cricket is at genuine risk. These recommendations would entrench a place for a base level of sustainable international cricket in the calendar
Increase in revenue - an estimated addition of more than USD 240M per annum into the global cricket economy, along with significant cost savings

Easier to follow cricket calendar - with greater consistency, meaning, jeopardy, and competition integrity
Enhanced global growth and competitive balance - through investment in men’s and women’s depth in international cricket
Greater ability for National Governing Bodies and DT20 Leagues to plan and structure high performance, contracting and player retention strategies

Enhanced player protections - reducing the need for players to choose between representing their countries and optimising their careers

WCA Board and Global Game Structure Sub-Committee Member Comment:

WCA Chairman Heath Mills thanked all contributors and said:
“This process has brought to light an almost game wide appetite for change and a need to address the significant issues with the game’s global structure.”

“Whilst there is no silver bullet, the report defines the trends, and major issues facing the sport at global level, along with some recommended solutions, intended to be both aspirational and realistic. The players have an interest in the health of the game globally, and we look forward to discussing and debating the report over the coming months.”

Sub-Committee Chair Paul Marsh said:
"On behalf of the sub-committee we thank the many people who care about the future of cricket and who have contributed to the process.”
“Whilst there are a number of positive trends in cricket, there is no doubt that global cricket is at an inflection point. Many of the issues highlighted in the report are challenging, but they need to be discussed if we are to create a more sustainable future in more than just a few countries.”

“Creating a clearer global calendar and incorporating more consistency across formats along with greater competition integrity and context for international cricket, will benefit cricket and all of its stakeholders hugely.”

Sana Mir said:
“Cricket has an opportunity to come together and define a much simpler, clearer and more unified future across both the men’s and women’s games. This report needs the attention of anyone who cares about the future of cricket.”

WCA CEO Tom Moffat said:
“Cricket is changing fast, but its transition is currently largely unmanaged at global level. There is an urgent need for cricket to reset and modernise its global scheduling, regulations and leadership to keep up with the pace of change and ensure a more balanced future.”
“Every cricket country is part of a global ecosystem, reliant on other countries and their players for their own success.”

Tom Harrison said:
“Cricket’s finances are not optimised because competition structures have become incoherent in the search for more short-term value. Cricket of consequence, rather than cricket for cricket’s sake is the key to addressing this.”

Player Observations:

Laura Wolvaardt, Current International Captain
“Our sport has so many great things going for it, but there is potential for it to be so much better, and we’re encouraging the whole game to come together and help it to achieve its global potential.”

Rashid Khan, Current International Captain
“Cricket has given me so much and I want to see it be strong and sustainable in more than just a handful of countries. We’re urging the game’s leadership to act on the information and suggestions contained in this report.”

Pat Cummins, Current International Captain
“We need to step into our future as a sport, but there are some important parts of our history, and in particular international cricket, that we want to see protected and thriving into the future.”

Heather Knight, Current International Captain
“As players we understand our responsibility to the game, and we have an interest in it being successful. A unified sport is going to achieve better outcomes than a fragmented one.”

Protecting History, Embracing Change. A Unified Coherent Global Future Sub-Committee:
Paul Marsh Chair (Former ACA CEO and current AFLPA CEO)
Sana Mir (Former Pakistan Captain, Broadcaster)
Sanjog Gupta (Head of Jio-Star)
Tom Harrison (Former ECB CEO and current Six Nations CEO)
James Kitching (Former Director of Regulatory, FIFA)
Tony Irish (Former CEO SACA and Executive Chairman of WCA)
Ex Officio: Tom Moffat (WCA CEO), Stephanie Bond (WCA Head of Legal), Cameron Borgas (WCA Head of Player and Member Operations)

 

[The Bald Eagle]

First some reports of an Arab league and now this, certainly the cricketing world is preparing to challenge BCCI supremacy
====

World Cricketers' Association also calls for a more equitable revenue distribution, a rethink of player movements across T20 leagues, and a revamp of ICC's governance model

 

[Aang_The_last_airbender]

First some reports of an Arab league and now this, certainly the cricketing world is preparing to challenge BCCI supremacy
====

World Cricketers' Association also calls for a more equitable revenue distribution, a rethink of player movements across T20 leagues, and a revamp of ICC's governance model

Waiting for the usual suspects to jump the gun here without reading the full recommendations and the implications

 

[rpant_gabba]

What happened to the FICA?

Will wait for update from Bagdad Bob

 

[rpant_gabba]

Never mind its Tim May and his FICA rebranded.

 

[Aang_The_last_airbender]

What happened to the FICA?

Will wait for update from Bagdad Bob

FICA has become WCA bhai. Thoda sabr rakho, lets have the premature dance on the grave of BCCI here

 

[charlie007]

You can’t have equitable revenue distribution when team and viewership from one country drives everyone else’s revenue. That’s the truth.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

It's some good ideas. They made a good point about T20 franchise cricket having an element of Jeopardy. That's completely lacking in bilaterals cricket and test cricket. Their ideas for windows for core divisional cricket will help to rectify this

 

[rpant_gabba]

So after the Woolf report, this is another attempt by Aussies to tell India and BCCI how its money should be spent, becos, you know Aus and Eng have such a great track record of acting for the good of the game of cricket.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Sana mir lol What is each cricket board contributing to enrichment of cricket? Do they help associate countries in anyway? Some teams are not even hosting certain lower ranked sides. Do they have programs for associate countries?

 

[rpant_gabba]

Sana mir lol What is each cricket board contributing to enrichment of cricket? Do they help associate countries in anyway? Some teams are not even hosting certain lower ranked sides. Do they have programs for associate countries?

Maybe WCA can get CA to host weaker teams, you know to help the game instead of focussing on money. I'm sure Aussies can get by with a 50% pay cut. you know, for the good of the game

 

[charlie007]

World Cricketers’ Association Releases Global Game Structure Report

WCA has today released its report: Protecting History, Embracing Change. A Unified Coherent Global Future. The Report (accessible HERE) is the culmination of a six month review of cricket’s global structure, led by an expert multi stakeholder Sub-Committee Chaired by Paul Marsh, and in conjunction with The Sports Consultancy. The Report:

Draws on interviews with 64 senior game stakeholders, including players, administrators, and commercial and media partners, in addition to the compilation of data from various experts

Focuses on the ‘top of the game,’ where the best players compete, and on the cricket that funds the rest of the sport globally (ICC Events, bilateral international cricket, major DT20 leagues)

Covers both the men’s and women’s games - focusing on issues applicable to both, but at different stages of coming to pass

1. Cricket’s Direction of Travel
Global cricket is shifting towards a ‘club v club’ based model - that is a multi-employer, transnational system for players, with T20 increasingly the dominant format globally

Revenue is moving towards cricket with context, jeopardy, and calendar space - and away from bilateral international cricket
Current scheduling and economic models embed inequity and lost opportunity - with an estimated:
83% of global cricket revenue shared between three countries and 11 of the last 13 major ICC Events won by the same countries
2% of global cricket revenue distributed to countries ranked 13 – 108
10.5% of global cricket revenue shared with the players who help to generate it

2. Major Problems Identified

Whilst many of the shifts in cricket are positive, some significant problems with the global game across four areas have been identified by stakeholders. These require urgent addressing:

Scheduling - Current global cricket scheduling is chaotic, inconsistent and confusing, limiting the overall quality of the product, and putting the future of the international game at risk

Economics - Global cricket’s finances are not optimised, balanced or used effectively to achieve competitive balance and growth, resulting in the sport not reaching its global potential

Regulations - Cricket’s global regulations are outdated for the current transnational era, with arbitrary restrictions and limited protections and security for players, and risks to game integrity

Leadership - There is a lack of overarching leadership in the game providing global direction, leading to regional self-interest, short-term thinking and an imbalance of power

3. Recommended Solutions
The Report makes a number of specific recommendations to address these problems, guided by principles.

Scheduling
Cricket’s global schedule should align international and domestic formats to drive growth, ensuring all matches have clear context and purpose, through:

Simpler, easier to follow global calendar and international competition structures - which should apply from 2028 and 2029 onwards. This requires more centralised management of the schedule

Scheduling windows for ‘Core International Cricket’ - which should be implemented to cover one match per format against all other teams within consistent divisional championships with promotion and relegation, culminating in qualification for existing pinnacle ICC Events across two year cycles

This will allow international cricket to co-exist with the growing DT20 leagues - rather than compete with them, thereby ensuring its future survival. It will also ensure most of the calendar remains for the market to continue to evolve and innovate
Economics

Cricket’s financial structure should support global growth and competitive balance, through:

A centralised Global Growth and Development Fund - to be established, underpinned by pooled rights model applicable only to Core International Cricket, to fund Core International Cricket and other global initiatives

ICC revenue distribution - occurring within minimum and maximum parameters

Stronger regulation and accountability - on how distributed money is spent in all countries

Player revenue sharing parameters - to be applied in all sanctioned cricket

Regulations
Cricket’s global regulations need to reflect the new transnational reality to protect the game and people in it, through:
Fit for purpose global regulations for professional cricket - developed to establish modern global calendar, player movement and professional cricket standards
Leadership

Global cricket needs to come together with clear leadership to reflect the sport’s changing landscape and prevent fragmentation, through:
Modernising the ICC - to ensure it is empowered to lead the global game and built on shared ownership, independence, and representation reflective of the whole sport

Establishment of a Global Game Leadership Committee - as an interim step to make recommendations to the game and to the ICC

4. Benefits of Making These Changes
The report highlights the expected stakeholder response, along with independent modelling that indicates proposed changes will have significant benefits for all stakeholders, including:

Survival of international cricket in more than just a few countries - the future of international cricket is at genuine risk. These recommendations would entrench a place for a base level of sustainable international cricket in the calendar
Increase in revenue - an estimated addition of more than USD 240M per annum into the global cricket economy, along with significant cost savings

Easier to follow cricket calendar - with greater consistency, meaning, jeopardy, and competition integrity
Enhanced global growth and competitive balance - through investment in men’s and women’s depth in international cricket
Greater ability for National Governing Bodies and DT20 Leagues to plan and structure high performance, contracting and player retention strategies

Enhanced player protections - reducing the need for players to choose between representing their countries and optimising their careers

WCA Board and Global Game Structure Sub-Committee Member Comment:

WCA Chairman Heath Mills thanked all contributors and said:
“This process has brought to light an almost game wide appetite for change and a need to address the significant issues with the game’s global structure.”

“Whilst there is no silver bullet, the report defines the trends, and major issues facing the sport at global level, along with some recommended solutions, intended to be both aspirational and realistic. The players have an interest in the health of the game globally, and we look forward to discussing and debating the report over the coming months.”

Sub-Committee Chair Paul Marsh said:
"On behalf of the sub-committee we thank the many people who care about the future of cricket and who have contributed to the process.”
“Whilst there are a number of positive trends in cricket, there is no doubt that global cricket is at an inflection point. Many of the issues highlighted in the report are challenging, but they need to be discussed if we are to create a more sustainable future in more than just a few countries.”

“Creating a clearer global calendar and incorporating more consistency across formats along with greater competition integrity and context for international cricket, will benefit cricket and all of its stakeholders hugely.”

Sana Mir said:
“Cricket has an opportunity to come together and define a much simpler, clearer and more unified future across both the men’s and women’s games. This report needs the attention of anyone who cares about the future of cricket.”

WCA CEO Tom Moffat said:
“Cricket is changing fast, but its transition is currently largely unmanaged at global level. There is an urgent need for cricket to reset and modernise its global scheduling, regulations and leadership to keep up with the pace of change and ensure a more balanced future.”
“Every cricket country is part of a global ecosystem, reliant on other countries and their players for their own success.”

Tom Harrison said:
“Cricket’s finances are not optimised because competition structures have become incoherent in the search for more short-term value. Cricket of consequence, rather than cricket for cricket’s sake is the key to addressing this.”

Player Observations:

Laura Wolvaardt, Current International Captain
“Our sport has so many great things going for it, but there is potential for it to be so much better, and we’re encouraging the whole game to come together and help it to achieve its global potential.”

Rashid Khan, Current International Captain
“Cricket has given me so much and I want to see it be strong and sustainable in more than just a handful of countries. We’re urging the game’s leadership to act on the information and suggestions contained in this report.”

Pat Cummins, Current International Captain
“We need to step into our future as a sport, but there are some important parts of our history, and in particular international cricket, that we want to see protected and thriving into the future.”

Heather Knight, Current International Captain
“As players we understand our responsibility to the game, and we have an interest in it being successful. A unified sport is going to achieve better outcomes than a fragmented one.”

Protecting History, Embracing Change. A Unified Coherent Global Future Sub-Committee:
Paul Marsh Chair (Former ACA CEO and current AFLPA CEO)
Sana Mir (Former Pakistan Captain, Broadcaster)
Sanjog Gupta (Head of Jio-Star)
Tom Harrison (Former ECB CEO and current Six Nations CEO)
James Kitching (Former Director of Regulatory, FIFA)
Tony Irish (Former CEO SACA and Executive Chairman of WCA)
Ex Officio: Tom Moffat (WCA CEO), Stephanie Bond (WCA Head of Legal), Cameron Borgas (WCA Head of Player and Member Operations)

Everyone has come up with something that is already known but nobody has provided a single viable and acceptable solution. Everyone whines about world hunger, nobody has a cure!

 

[sweep_shot]

Great to see a pushback.

Current cricket world order is a complete farce. It only benefits India. Cricket shouldn't be about one country.

 

[Aang_The_last_airbender]

Great to see a pushback.

Current cricket world order is a complete farce. It only benefits India. Cricket shouldn't be about one country.

The premature dance is here

 

[Aang_The_last_airbender]

Everyone has come up with something that is already known but nobody has provided a single viable and acceptable solution. Everyone whines about world hunger, nobody has a cure!

I have a solution, ICC revenue distribution should be exactly like FIFA distribution.
Nothing is as fair as FIFA . The true global game.

 

[mominsaigol]

So after the Woolf report, this is another attempt by Aussies to tell India and BCCI how its money should be spent, becos, you know Aus and Eng have such a great track record of acting for the good of the game of cricket.

Such delusion and drubbing from you and @Aang_The_last_airbender

If Bcci wants Aus to act for the good of the game of cricket, then bcci should pay Australia even more then what they are currently paying.

Multimillions of money spent on CA + their players on IPL contracts isn't enough.

They should allocate even more funds that relate to

A) Supporting lower nations

B) Improving odi cricket and tournament schedules

C) Ensuring balance in wtc cycles and etc not being unfavourable towards any team that isn't NZ, Sa, India, England and Australia

D) Adding new grounds etc etc.

Imo bcci should be paying for the new grounds once the gabba is destroyed.

You pay for your services and then you'll get accountability. The best things in life ain't free.

 

[Aang_The_last_airbender]

Such delusion and drubbing from you and @Aang_The_last_airbender

If Bcci wants Aus to act for the good of the game of cricket, then bcci should pay Australia even more then what they are currently paying.

Multimillions of money spent on CA + their players on IPL contracts isn't enough.

They should allocate even more funds that relate to

A) Supporting lower nations

B) Improving odi cricket and tournament schedules

C) Ensuring balance in wtc cycles and etc not being unfavourable towards any team that isn't NZ, Sa, India, England and Australia

D) Adding new grounds etc etc.

Imo bcci should be paying for the new grounds once the gabba is destroyed.

You pay for your services and then you'll get accountability. The best things in life ain't free.

Aiven hi mere points banaa diye.
Pehle aur logon ko dance karne do, phir aaraam se aayenge.

 

[mominsaigol]

Aiven hi mere points banaa diye.
Pehle aur logon ko dance karne do, phir aaraam se aayenge.
View attachment 152658

If you can't support lower nations yourself, pay an expert to do it for you. It's how the world works.

Theirs a reason I need the dentist for my teeth.

 

[kron]

So after the Woolf report, this is another attempt by Aussies to tell India and BCCI how its money should be spent, becos, you know Aus and Eng have such a great track record of acting for the good of the game of cricket.

Let’s not FORGET HOW THEY USES TO BULLY TEAMS WITH SCHEDULING IN 80s and 90s

Past will never be forgotten

Also they hardly tour associate teams or lesser ranked teams. They are in position to pass advice.

If other Asian nations want to worship them and fall at their feet then so be it. Go start their own league.

 

[rpant_gabba]

For the clueless, Tim May is convict asshole who wants to loot Indian money.

He got nowhere 10+ years with FICA.

Now he changed the name to WCA and trying his hand again.

even PCB dumped his ass

PCB supported BCCI in voting against Tim May as ICC Players Rep

Online forum for Pakistani cricket

www.pakpassion.net

 

[rpant_gabba]

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/frustrated-tim-may-quits-fica-639114

Tim May has stepped down as chief executive of the Federation of International Cricketers' Associations (FICA) barely a month after he controversially lost his position on the ICC cricket committee to Laxman Sivaramakrishnan

 

[mominsaigol]

I also don't read most of their posts. I skim through or don't read at all.

I don't want to feel like I am losing my brain cells.

Basically if you wish to know, the main argument was about how CA and ECB don't do anything for lower boards and India is such a generous organization that they support lower boards.

This is literally the biggest lie and I exposed it and these people can't handle it.

Bcci isn't a charity organisation. India loves cricket and it's their only sport that their good at. No one cares about kabadi, Hockey, Badminton, football etc etc in India. Hence if cricket dies then India loses a major source of revenue and their economy takes a hit.

Secondly their a greedy bunch. If India stops supporting lower nations, cricket and IPL will survive with just 5 teams (NZ, Aus, Eng, Sa and India as these 4 nations are the biggest money provider for IPL and fetch the highest contracts)

However just like apple wants more money despite having 5T, bcci wants more money as well and want to endlessly generate more revenue via usa, Bangladesh etc etc.

The only reason their against pakistan is because they will have to pay for extra security which could costs millions to facilitate at each cricket venue and it isn't worth the hassle for them.

Australia is different. Cricket is not the main sport in Australia and isn't even close to the popularity if NFL. Out of 26M not 1.2M people are cricket fans in Australia.

Hence Australia doesn't need to support lower boards because they don't offer any money for them and if cricket dies, Australia will be fine via big bash league lol. Their isn't alot of interest in Australia. It's like their 4th or 5th most watched sport lol.

Australia only cares about ashes due to historical value, and bgt + Icc events due to monetary value.

These morons think BCCI is some lone warrior charity organisation that is helping lower nations when in reality their only doing so because they want more money and cricket fuels their economy while cricket doesn't do Jack for Australia.

Australia is too busy fueling their economy by building actual companies, keeping unemployment and poverty low, improving job markets, improving housing schemes etc then just relying on cricket and leaving people hungry on the streets.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Basically if you wish to know, the main argument was about how CA and ECB don't do anything for lower boards and India is such a generous organization that they support lower boards.

This is literally the biggest lie and I exposed it and these people can't handle it.

Bcci isn't a charity organisation. India loves cricket and it's their only sport that their good at. No one cares about kabadi, Hockey, Badminton, football etc etc in India. Hence if cricket dies then India loses a major source of revenue and their economy takes a hit.

Secondly their a greedy bunch. If India stops supporting lower nations, cricket and IPL will survive with just 5 teams (NZ, Aus, Eng, Sa and India as these 4 nations are the biggest money provider for IPL and fetch the highest contracts)

However just like apple wants more money despite having 5T, bcci wants more money as well and want to endlessly generate more revenue via usa, Bangladesh etc etc.

The only reason their against pakistan is because they will have to pay for extra security which could costs millions to facilitate at each cricket venue and it isn't worth the hassle for them.

Australia is different. Cricket is not the main sport in Australia and isn't even close to the popularity if NFL. Out of 26M not 1.2M people are cricket fans in Australia.

Hence Australia doesn't need to support lower boards because they don't offer any money for them and if cricket dies, Australia will be fine via big bash league lol. Their isn't alot of interest in Australia. It's like their 4th or 5th most watched sport lol.

Australia only cares about ashes due to historical value, and bgt + Icc events due to monetary value.

These morons think BCCI is some lone warrior charity organisation that is helping lower nations when in reality their only doing so because they want more money and cricket fuels their economy while cricket doesn't do Jack for Australia.

Australia is too busy fueling their economy by building actual companies, keeping unemployment and poverty low, improving job markets,

SO you would have no problem if BCCI kept all the revenue from Indian market, becos it is in its best interest? Tjhis would include all bilaterals. Each country lives with what it can generate from its own market.

 

[mominsaigol]

SO you would have no problem if BCCI kept all the revenue from Indian market, becos it is in its best interest? Tjhis would include all bilaterals. Each country lives with what it can generate from its own market.

Is it my fault India is paying nonstop and is literally paying Australian players such as Cummins and Travis head millions to play and captain in their leagues?

Is it my fault India consistently tries to suck up to Australia and pays big bucks for BGT in a desperate attempt to have it be as historically relevant towards the ashes?

Don't play this could have would have game with me. Go to Jay shah and complain if you have such an issue.

The Australian government couldn't give a damn about your complaints and tbh neither could the Indian government.

Do what you do best, pay everyone except Pakistan

 

[rpant_gabba]

Is it my fault India is paying nonstop and is literally paying Australian players such as Cummins and Travis head millions to play and captain in their leagues?

Is it my fault India consistently tries to suck up to Australia and pays big bucks for BGT in a desperate attempt to have it be as historically relevant towards the ashes?

Don't play this could have would have game with me. Go to Jay shah and complain if you have such an issue.

The Australian government couldn't give a damn about your complaints and tbh neither could the Indian government.

Do what you do best, pay everyone except Pakistan

Answer the question that is asked. It is very simple.

Let me ask again

you would have no problem if BCCI kept all the revenue from Indian market, becos it is in its best interest? Tjhis would include all bilaterals. Each country lives with what it can generate from its own market.

you are either Ok with it or you are not.

don't be a coward

 

[cricketjoshila]

BCCI doesn't even recognise these fly by night associations.

 

[mominsaigol]

Answer the question that is asked. It is very simple.

Let me ask again

you would have no problem if BCCI kept all the revenue from Indian market, becos it is in its best interest? Tjhis would include all bilaterals. Each country lives with what it can generate from its own market.

you are either Ok with it or you are not.

don't be a coward

Go bother Jay shah and bcci and ask for your amendments.

Imagine seeking validation from a guy who lives a continent away . As if I'm the one who makes the rules or governes CA

 

[cricketjoshila]

Basically if you wish to know, the main argument was about how CA and ECB don't do anything for lower boards and India is such a generous organization that they support lower boards.

This is literally the biggest lie and I exposed it and these people can't handle it.

Bcci isn't a charity organisation. India loves cricket and it's their only sport that their good at. No one cares about kabadi, Hockey, Badminton, football etc etc in India. Hence if cricket dies then India loses a major source of revenue and their economy takes a hit.

Secondly their a greedy bunch. If India stops supporting lower nations, cricket and IPL will survive with just 5 teams (NZ, Aus, Eng, Sa and India as these 4 nations are the biggest money provider for IPL and fetch the highest contracts)

However just like apple wants more money despite having 5T, bcci wants more money as well and want to endlessly generate more revenue via usa, Bangladesh etc etc.

The only reason their against pakistan is because they will have to pay for extra security which could costs millions to facilitate at each cricket venue and it isn't worth the hassle for them.

Australia is different. Cricket is not the main sport in Australia and isn't even close to the popularity if NFL. Out of 26M not 1.2M people are cricket fans in Australia.

Hence Australia doesn't need to support lower boards because they don't offer any money for them and if cricket dies, Australia will be fine via big bash league lol. Their isn't alot of interest in Australia. It's like their 4th or 5th most watched sport lol.

Australia only cares about ashes due to historical value, and bgt + Icc events due to monetary value.

These morons think BCCI is some lone warrior charity organisation that is helping lower nations when in reality their only doing so because they want more money and cricket fuels their economy while cricket doesn't do Jack for Australia.

Australia is too busy fueling their economy by building actual companies, keeping unemployment and poverty low, improving job markets, improving housing schemes etc then just relying on cricket and leaving people hungry on the streets.

Indian economy is twice the size of Australian economy.

Indian economy fuels world Cricket.

Cricket doesn't fuel the soon to be 4th largest economy in the world.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Answer the question that is asked. It is very simple.

Let me ask again

you would have no problem if BCCI kept all the revenue from Indian market, becos it is in its best interest? Tjhis would include all bilaterals. Each country lives with what it can generate from its own market.

you are either Ok with it or you are not.

don't be a coward

These associations and their report means zilch to anyone.

 

[mominsaigol]

Indian economy is twice the size of Australian economy.

Indian economy fuels world Cricket.

Cricket doesn't fuel the soon to be 4th largest economy in the world.

1) India’s total GDP (5th in the world) is massive because of its huge population (1.4 billion).

But GDP per capita (income per person) is low.

Comparison:

India → GDP per capita: $2,500

Australia → GDP per capita: $66,000

A country is considered "developed" when its per capita income is high, not just total GDP.

2)

• Developed nations have a high HDI (Human Development Index) based on:
  
  • Life expectancy
  • Education quality
  • Income levels
• Comparison:
  
  • India’s HDI: 0.633 (rank: 132nd)
  • Australia’s HDI: 0.951 (rank: 5th)

Verdict: India still has a low HDI score, which means lower quality of life compared to developed nations.

3) Developed countries have modern infrastructure, roads, airports, and high-speed trains.

India:

Has developed cities (e.g., Mumbai, Bangalore, Delhi).

But still lacks widespread modern infrastructure.

Power outages, traffic congestion, and slums are still widespread.

Australia:

Has fully developed cities, modern highways, and world-class living standards.

4) India still has a large poor population (200+ million people in extreme poverty).

Income inequality is huge → Billionaires exist, but so do slums.

Australia has a stronger middle class → There’s less extreme poverty

5) India’s economy is still shifting from agriculture to industry.

Developed countries moved from:

Farming → Factories (Manufacturing) → Services & Tech

Australia is already a service-based economy, with high incomes from banking, finance, education, and mining.

India still relies heavily on agriculture (45% workforce), but its IT sector is booming.

6).Developed countries have:

Free or high-quality healthcare.

Low infant mortality.

High literacy rates.

India still struggles with:

Public healthcare access.

Malnutrition in children.

Education gaps in rural areas.

Australia:

Free healthcare (Medicare).

High literacy & education access.

7).Developed nations have strong currencies that are widely accepted.

India’s Rupee (INR) is weaker than USD, AUD, or EUR.

Australia’s AUD is a strong, stable currency used in international trade.

India is gaining power (G20, space program, IT exports), but it’s still not at Western economic power levels.

8) Even though India is ranked 5th in GDP, "developed status" depends on:

High GDP per capita (India’s is still low).

Quality of life & HDI (Still improving).

Infrastructure & urbanization (Still lagging).

Poverty reduction & economic equality (Work in progress).

Education & healthcare (Needs improvement).

India is growing fast and may become "developed" in 20–30 years, but right now, it still has challenges that keep it in the "emerging" category.

Now please remain a 3rd world country for the next 30 years

 

[cricketjoshila]

1) India’s total GDP (5th in the world) is massive because of its huge population (1.4 billion).

But GDP per capita (income per person) is low.

Comparison:

India → GDP per capita: $2,500

Australia → GDP per capita: $66,000

A country is considered "developed" when its per capita income is high, not just total GDP.

2)

• Developed nations have a high HDI(Human Development Index) based on:
  • Life expectancy
  • Education quality
  • Income levels
• Comparison:
  • India’s HDI: 0.633 (rank: 132nd)
  • Australia’s HDI: 0.951 (rank: 5th)

Verdict: India still has a low HDI score, which means lower quality of life compared to developed nations.

3) Developed countries have modern infrastructure, roads, airports, and high-speed trains.

India:

Has developed cities (e.g., Mumbai, Bangalore, Delhi).

But still lacks widespread modern infrastructure.

Power outages, traffic congestion, and slums are still widespread.

Australia:

Has fully developed cities, modern highways, and world-class living standards.

4) India still has a large poor population (200+ million people in extreme poverty).

Income inequality is huge → Billionaires exist, but so do slums.

Australia has a stronger middle class → There’s less extreme poverty

5) India’s economy is still shifting from agriculture to industry.

Developed countries moved from:

Farming → Factories (Manufacturing) → Services & Tech

Australia is already a service-based economy, with high incomes from banking, finance, education, and mining.

India still relies heavily on agriculture (45% workforce), but its IT sector is booming.

6).Developed countries have:

Free or high-quality healthcare.

Low infant mortality.

High literacy rates.

India still struggles with:

Public healthcare access.

Malnutrition in children.

Education gaps in rural areas.

Australia:

Free healthcare (Medicare).

High literacy & education access.

7).Developed nations have strong currencies that are widely accepted.

India’s Rupee (INR) is weaker than USD, AUD, or EUR.

Australia’s AUD is a strong, stable currency used in international trade.

India is gaining power (G20, space program, IT exports), but it’s still not at Western economic power levels.

8) Even though India is ranked 5th in GDP, "developed status" depends on:

High GDP per capita (India’s is still low).

Quality of life & HDI (Still improving).

Infrastructure & urbanization (Still lagging).

Poverty reduction & economic equality (Work in progress).

Education & healthcare (Needs improvement).

India is growing fast and may become "developed" in 20–30 years, but right now, it still has challenges that keep it in the "emerging" category.

Now please remain a 3rd world country for the next 30 years

You are a Pakistani. So don't talk about who is third world.

You made a statement that

These morons think BCCI is some lone warrior charity organisation that is helping lower nations when in reality their only doing so because they want more money and cricket fuels their economy while cricket doesn't do Jack for Australia.

Fact: Indian Economy is twice the size of Australian economy. Growing at a faster rate. Your economy is stagnant.

Australia is too busy fueling their economy by building actual companies, keeping unemployment and poverty low, improving job markets, improving housing schemes etc then just relying on cricket and leaving people hungry on the streets.

India has more 100bn USD market cap companies than Australia.

Next don't post lies. And try to hide behind long posts.

 

[Cryin Out Loud]

….. India loves cricket and it's their only sport that their good at. No one cares about kabadi, Hockey, Badminton, football etc etc in India. Hence if cricket dies then India loses a major source of revenue and their economy takes a hit.

….

If you had the analytical foresight to compare numbers - cricket revenue versus size of the Indian economy - you would have recognised how laughable your analysis becomes.

But you didn’t, and here it is, your argument falling over itself before it runs its ludicrous course.

 

[gazza619]

Past will never be forgotten

We all don’t fully know the past. How far should we go back in the past?

 

[topspin]

We all don’t fully know the past. How far should we go back in the past?

Back when W G Grace was playing.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Foxsports Au says the quiet part out loud
https://www.foxsports.com.au/

Slash India’s revenue, fix ‘chaotic and confusing’ calendar: Major review urges cricket overhaul​

Slash India’s revenue, fix ‘chaotic and confusing’ calendar: Major review urges cricket overhaul

Slash India’s revenue, fix ‘chaotic and confusing’ calendar: Major review urges cricket overhaul

www.foxsports.com.au

>>>>Cummins said: “We need to step into our future as a sport, but there are some important parts of our history, and in particular international cricket, that we want to see protected and thriving into the future.”<<<

So do it. you take a pay cut and tell CA to take less money.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Looks like CA is too much a chicken to take on BCCI on at ICC, so they are letting their sock puppets make noise.

Two Test divisions, international windows, and India sharing their riches: Is this cricket’s future?

A report commissioned by the World Cricketers’ Association calls for a complete reshaping of international and franchise cricket to complement one another.

www.smh.com.au

Its amusing. is WCA even recognized by ICC?

 

[rpant_gabba]

Players’ body hits out at ‘confusing’ schedule and wants Nations League of cricket

The World Cricketers’ Association wants reform of the ‘chaotic’ calendar and the modernisation of the global governing body

www.theguardian.com

>>>>>It calls instead for each nation’s share of ICC revenue to be capped at 10%, with the smallest teams receiving 2%. If national boards cannot agree to share revenue more equitably – which it admits is “a likely scenario” – it suggests creating an unspecified “new global cricket product” that would do so.<<<

What a bunch of dumb clowns. They want to turn the clock back to 2013. What is their leverage? what are they going to do If ICC tells them to f'off?

 

[HitWicket]

Looks like CA is too much a chicken to take on BCCI on at ICC, so they are letting their sock puppets make noise.

Two Test divisions, international windows, and India sharing their riches: Is this cricket’s future?

A report commissioned by the World Cricketers’ Association calls for a complete reshaping of international and franchise cricket to complement one another.

www.smh.com.au

Its amusing. is WCA even recognized by ICC?

Of the 44 people who are WCA employees or sit on one of their boards, 6 of them Australian. 1 of the 6 external people included in this sub-committee are Australian. No idea where you've got the idea this is some kind of Australian-heavy organisation.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Of the 44 people who are WCA employees or sit on one of their boards, 6 of them Australian. 1 of the 6 external people included in this sub-committee are Australian. No idea where you've got the idea this is some kind of Australian-heavy organisation.

Its Tim May. end of story. who is Australian. Making a cameo: Pat cummins. Getting disproportional coverage with hyped up headlines (for an organization with little say at ICC) in Aus press. Connect the dots

They sound linke a bunch of self righteous beggars. what are they going to do if their demands are not met? go on strike?

they could start by pooling their salaries and sharing it equally with all International cricketers. will set a good example. will they do it?

 

[HitWicket]

Its Tim May. end of story. who is Australian.

It's not end of story though is it, he's 1 external member on a 9 member committee for a report put together with the assistance of 50+ people.

Making a cameo: Pat cummins.

Yes, 1 of the 28 players who are on the WCA board and one of the highest profile ones at that. Quoted along with 3 other high profile members.

Getting disproportional coverage with hyped up headlines

The global players association releasing a report feels like it justifies news outlets cricket journalists writing an article about it.

what are they going to do if their demands are not met? go on strike?

Who knows, obviously in an ideal world they find common ground and collaborate. Their members representing 500+ professional cricketers around the world does give some bargaining power though.

 

[rpant_gabba]

It's not end of story though is it, he's 1 external member on a 9 member committee for a report put together with the assistance of 50+ people.



Yes, 1 of the 28 players who are on the WCA board and one of the highest profile ones at that. Quoted along with 3 other high profile members.



The global players association releasing a report feels like it justifies news outlets cricket journalists writing an article about it.

CA sounding of for the Saudi's league. there are too many coincidences

Who knows, obviously in an ideal world they find common ground and collaborate. Their members representing 500+ professional cricketers around the world does give some bargaining power though.

Aren't they all employed by the individual boards. If they have any issues, it is with their board.

Their board represents them at ICC. they should sort it out with their boards first.

Guess this part was too hot for you to touch

>>they could start by pooling their salaries and sharing it equally with all International cricketers. will set a good example. will they do it?<<<

you know in the sense of collaboration. imagine all 500 of them getting the same salary becos the good people of WCA choose to do the as they preach

 

[U$ofA]

Not sure how much money was spent for this whole process. But nothing new has come out of this. All things mentioned have already been discussed in various platforms/forums.

They have not just pointed out the problems/issues but have provided a solution. Which should be appreciated. Unfortunately, nothing new there either. Nothing that has not already been discussed.

I see the below as key points put forward.

Revenue Distribution - Pretty much how to better utilize all the $$$$$ generated in/by pretty much one board. Something they had pretty much no hand in or have no control over. But I guess they want control over.

Accountability - Not going to sit well with some of the boards. There will be several boards that will object to oversight of how the distributed money is spent. WI, CSA, PCB, Zim, SLC, etc. Not to mention BCCI who will tell anyone even remotely near their zip code to take a hike.

Revenue sharing with players - This I agree with. The player do need to get a bigger cut. But from their individual boards.

Scheduling - Not sure if this is a pressing issue. Players I don't think are over worked. Sure, this could use some organizing.

I do not see anything happening with this. Will not go anywhere. In fact it is likely that this is the last we hear of this. Report is done. Let's put things away and go home. Business as usual continues.

 

[HitWicket]

Aren't they all employed by the individual boards. If they have any issues, it is with their board.

Their board represents them at ICC. they should sort it out with their boards first.

The global cricketing structure is obviously a big factor.

>>they could start by pooling their salaries and sharing it equally with all International cricketers. will set a good example. will they do it?<<<

you know in the sense of collaboration. imagine all 500 of them getting the same salary becos the good people of WCA choose to do the as they preach

The aim of the WCA isn't to have everyone paid equally, it's to have people paid as close to fairly as possible relative to the revenue they generate for their board. The BCCI are currently the worst offenders in that regard paying just 6% of their revenue as player payments. No other country in the top 24 pays less than 10%. It's no wonder the BCCI refuse to let their players unionise.

 

[hoshiarpurexpress]

The global cricketing structure is obviously a big factor.



The aim of the WCA isn't to have everyone paid equally, it's to have people paid as close to fairly as possible relative to the revenue they generate for their board. The BCCI are currently the worst offenders in that regard paying just 6% of their revenue as player payments. No other country in the top 24 pays less than 10%. It's no wonder the BCCI refuse to let their players unionise.

Is the revenue share 6% only for international cricketers or dies it include cost of running the domestic cricket infrastructure including paying those guys at lower level? Also will PCB agree to this and have an oversight over their money being spent.

 

[hoshiarpurexpress]

Not sure how much money was spent for this whole process. But nothing new has come out of this. All things mentioned have already been discussed in various platforms/forums.

They have not just pointed out the problems/issues but have provided a solution. Which should be appreciated. Unfortunately, nothing new there either. Nothing that has not already been discussed.

I see the below as key points put forward.

Revenue Distribution - Pretty much how to better utilize all the $$$$$ generated in/by pretty much one board. Something they had pretty much no hand in or have no control over. But I guess they want control over.

Accountability - Not going to sit well with some of the boards. There will be several boards that will object to oversight of how the distributed money is spent. WI, CSA, PCB, Zim, SLC, etc. Not to mention BCCI who will tell anyone even remotely near their zip code to take a hike.

Revenue sharing with players - This I agree with. The player do need to get a bigger cut. But from their individual boards.

Scheduling - Not sure if this is a pressing issue. Players I don't think are over worked. Sure, this could use some organizing.

I do not see anything happening with this. Will not go anywhere. In fact it is likely that this is the last we hear of this. Report is done. Let's put things away and go home. Business as usual continues.

This is exactly what communism is. BCCI generates money because of its fans but give up major portion of that to some Khaleel from Pakistan or Bongo in Bangladesh to blow off in there vanity projects. I would like CA and it's players to give up there salary to Afghanistan women's team since they crib the most about it.

 

[HitWicket]

Is the revenue share 6% only for international cricketers or dies it include cost of running the domestic cricket infrastructure including paying those guys at lower level? Also will PCB agree to this and have an oversight over their money being spent.

That 6% includes domestic cricketers/all paid players. For context the same figure in England/Australia is 26%/27%.

 

[rpant_gabba]

The global cricketing structure is obviously a big factor.

WTH does that mean?

Either these guys have leverage or they don't. Which one is it. Quit this weird sloppy nonsense.

These players are not employed by any global cricketing body. Have these guys brought forward their "demands" with any of their respective boards? If not, WTH is the point. Its the pemamant member boards which decide. All the boards agreed not too long ago.

The aim of the WCA isn't to have everyone paid equally, it's to have people paid as close to fairly as possible relative to the revenue they generate for their board. The BCCI are currently the worst offenders in that regard paying just 6% of their revenue as player payments. No other country in the top 24 pays less than 10%. It's no wonder the BCCI refuse to let their players unionise.

In other words, they won't put money where their mouth is.

The real goal these good folks are speaknig up for the poor indian players? Sure. Does BS like this fly in the UK workplace? you essentially get laughed out the room in the US

Guess the stuff below is just a minor irrelevant point

>>>>>It calls instead for each nation’s share of ICC revenue to be capped at 10%, with the smallest teams receiving 2%. If national boards cannot agree to share revenue more equitably – which it admits is “a likely scenario” – it suggests creating an unspecified “new global cricket product” that would do so.<<<

 

[HitWicket]

WTH does that mean?

Either these guys have leverage or they don't. Which one is it. Quit this weird sloppy nonsense.

That a single cricketing board clearly can't make changes that get to the outcome the WCA want, hence their report being about the global cricketing structure.

In other words, they won't money where their mouth is.

Their mouth isn't at providing equal pay for all cricketers though, that's just some random strawman you've made up.

he real goal these good folks are speaknig up for the poor indian players?

Introducing a minimum % of revenue that must be shared with players as the report proposes would undeniably help Indian players who get the worst deal in the world by that metric.

>>>>>It calls instead for each nation’s share of ICC revenue to be capped at 10%, with the smallest teams receiving 2%. If national boards cannot agree to share revenue more equitably – which it admits is “a likely scenario” – it suggests creating an unspecified “new global cricket product” that would do so.<<<

A tiny projected drop in the BCCIs annual revenue for changes that would bring so much more to the sport globally.

 

[U$ofA]

This is exactly what communism is. BCCI generates money because of its fans but give up major portion of that to some Khaleel from Pakistan or Bongo in Bangladesh to blow off in there vanity projects. I would like CA and it's players to give up there salary to Afghanistan women's team since they crib the most about it.

Not sure if this whole thing is based on reality. I mean they are suggesting a whole bunch of things be done. Which takes $$$$ to accomplish. Something that they do not generate or control.

Essentially this is all about how/what to do with other peoples money.

 

[rpant_gabba]

That a single cricketing board clearly can't make changes that get to the outcome the WCA want, hence their report being about the global cricketing structure.

another word salad.

Why is it difficult for you to answer a simple straigforward question?

Does WCA have a seat at ICC table? Are they asking something that most the boards already asked for before?

The answer to both is no. What is is going to make a differtence now

Their mouth isn't at providing equal pay for all cricketers though, that's just some random strawman you've made up.

Not at all. the game is probably best served by WCA seting good example and cricketers from CA and ECB are willing to make sacrifices for the good the game. Other they are nothing more than self righteous beggars.

Introducing a minimum % of revenue that must be shared with players as the report proposes would undeniably help Indian players who get the worst deal in the world by that metric.

Yet you don't hear them making any complaints

A tiny projected drop in the BCCIs annual revenue for changes that would bring so much more to the sport globally.

tiny, as in many hundreds of millions of dollars.

Thats what this is all about about. Setting up another Raj.

Tell you what, Let the rest of their boards pool their revenue and demonstrate the good that comes from it. say for 10 years. that should convince BCCI.

 

[HitWicket]

another word salad.

Why is it difficult for you to answer a simple straigforward question?

Word salad?

Does WCA have a seat at ICC table? Are they asking something that most the boards already asked for before?

The WCA have seats on both the ICCs cricket committees (currently held by Dan Vettori and Lisa Sthalekar) and the bargaining power of the 500+ players their members represent.

Their report isn't meant to be about what the boards want (although some of the proposals are also in many of their favour), it's also about what their players wants.

Yet you don't hear them making any complaints

It's almost as if they've been banned from having the security and power of collective bargaining...

tiny, as in many hundreds of millions of dollars.

Nope, as in $53m (3% of their projected revenue for the next cycle without any structural changes). I kind of assumed you'd actually read the report you were spewing nonsense about but clearly I expect too much.

 

[HitWicket]

$53m

$61.5m*

 

[Slim]

Let cricket die, theres no saving it. I think cricket will probably last only our generation in its current form. I can see cricket completely dying by the end of this century.

 

[sweep_shot]

Let cricket die, theres no saving it. I think cricket will probably last only our generation in its current form. I can see cricket completely dying by the end of this century.

Cricket is already a farce thanks to BCCICC.

BCCI's grip needs to be reversed for cricket to return to its glory days.

 

[Major]

Another threa(d)t to Bharat.

All Indians posting on Pakpassion forum, UNITE!!!!!!!

 

[Slim]

Cricket is already a farce thanks to BCCICC.

BCCI's grip needs to be reversed for cricket to return to its glory days.

That wont happen.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Word salad?

Let me ask again. what is their leverage? Do they get a vote on any of the stuff they are after?

The WCA have seats on both the ICCs cricket committees (currently held by Dan Vettori and Lisa Sthalekar) and the bargaining power of the 500+ players their members represent.

I'm guessing they were around couple year ago when the latest revenue model passed? What were doing? beating off in the loo?

Their report isn't meant to be about what the boards want (although some of the proposals are also in many of their favour), it's also about what their players wants.

don't most the boards want the same thing?

It's almost as if they've been banned from having the security and power of collective bargaining...

Speculation.

Nope, as in $53m (3% of their projected revenue for the next cycle without any structural changes). I kind of assumed you'd actually read the report you were spewing nonsense about but clearly I expect too much.

How do you figure that?

BCCI currently takes sin 38.5% ($231 million/year) . the proposal calls for 10% cap.

what is the 53 (or 61.5) million about?

BTW, you missed these 2 bits.

>>Tell you what, Let the rest of their boards pool their revenue and demonstrate the good that comes from it. say for 10 years. that should convince BCCI.<<

>> the game is probably best served by WCA seting good example and cricketers from CA and ECB are willing to make sacrifices for the good the game. Other they are nothing more than self righteous beggars.<<

Without it, this is a another attempt by rest of the boards in collusion with WCA to get as much money from India as possible.

Its the least ECB and CA after almost a century of ruining the game.

 

[Slim]

You have to watch with amaze with the level of passion some Indians show up when it comes to defending BCCI. You would think the money goes in their pocket, the same country whose GDP is equal to an african country if you take the top earners from it economy. A country rife with income inequality but an ever persistent illogical arrogance.

 

[sweep_shot]

You have to watch with amaze with the level of passion some Indians show up when it comes to defending BCCI. You would think the money goes in their pocket, the same country whose GDP is equal to an african country if you take the top earners from it economy. A country rife with income inequality but an ever persistent illogical arrogance.

They act like they get a share of BCCI's profit.

 

[HitWicket]

You didn't ask a question: 'Aren't they all employed by the individual boards. If they have any issues, it is with their board. Their board represents them at ICC. they should sort it out with their boards first.'.

Let me ask again. what is their leverage? Do they get a vote on any of the stuff they are after?

For the third time, their leverage is the 500+ professional cricketers their members represent. No they don't get a vote, that doesn't stop them having say.

How do you figure that?

BCCI currently takes sin 38.5% ($231 million/year) . the proposal calls for 10% cap.

By actually reading the report I'm commenting on like you clearly haven't done.

2028-31 BCCI projected annual revenue
With no change: $2068.0m
With WCA proposals: $2004.5m

BTW, you missed these 2 bits.

>>Tell you what, Let the rest of their boards pool their revenue and demonstrate the good that comes from it. say for 10 years. that should convince BCCI.<<

>> the game is probably best served by WCA seting good example and cricketers from CA and ECB are willing to make sacrifices for the good the game. Other they are nothing more than self righteous beggars.<<

The solution to the BCCI not paying their players a fair share of their revenue isn't for other players to subsidise those players to a fair proportion, it's for the BCCI to pay their players their fair share to them.

 

[Flat_Track_Bully]

First some reports of an Arab league and now this, certainly the cricketing world is preparing to challenge BCCI supremacy
====

World Cricketers' Association also calls for a more equitable revenue distribution, a rethink of player movements across T20 leagues, and a revamp of ICC's governance model

Saudis need to buy ICC and polish the experience.

Right now BCCI are using international cricket as a sideshow to their IPL. There needs to be balance.

 

[HitWicket]

Speculation.

The fact that the BCCI don't allow players to form a union is common knowledge.

 

[JaDed]

lol the Bangla Canadian fan of Convicts has gone from masking his hatred to someone that has full blown posting hate in last 2 years.

As an Indian fan that’s wonderful

 

[Devadwal]

Two back to back trophy and whole cricketing World is crying. I really loving this meltdown .

 

[Hitman]

Two back to back trophy and whole cricketing World is crying. I really loving this meltdown .

From no ICC trophy in the last 10 years, to just 1 ICC trophy in the last 11 years that too because we faced perennial chokers South Africa in the finals, to us winning the CT because we didn't have to travel and played all our matches in 1 ground.

Any idea what the next excuse would be to cry?​

 

[rpant_gabba]

You didn't ask a question: 'Aren't they all employed by the individual boards. If they have any issues, it is with their board. Their board represents them at ICC. they should sort it out with their boards first.'.


For the third time, their leverage is the 500+ professional cricketers their members represent. No they don't get a vote, that doesn't stop them having say.

They had the same 500+ professional cricketers back in 2013, they couldn't prevent Big 3 and they couldn't stop the revenue model in revision 2023. So, where is the leverage?

By actually reading the report I'm commenting on like you clearly haven't done.

2028-31 BCCI projected annual revenue
With no change: $2068.0m
With WCA proposals: $2004.5m

Sounds like Enron style accounting.

BCCI takes in ~$230M./yr at 38.5 %. The report calls for capping it to 10% and you want us to believe that BCCI will lose only only ~$6M/year.

The solution to the BCCI not paying their players a fair share of their revenue isn't for other players to subsidise those players to a fair proportion, it's for the BCCI to pay their players their fair share to them.

Leave Indian players out. Do it for the afghans, the Irish, the Dutch, Kenya, Zimbabwe etc etc. there 100 associate teams

Do it with the resources you have rather than telling someone else to use theirs to achieve you goals

 

[ravisurya]

You have to watch with amaze with the level of passion some Indians show up when it comes to defending BCCI. You would think the money goes in their pocket, the same country whose GDP is equal to an african country if you take the top earners from it economy. A country rife with income inequality but an ever persistent illogical arrogance.

The per capita GDP of Pakistan without it's richest 10% is equal to that of Rwanda. Maybe you should worry about your own country.

 

[HitWicket]

They had the same 500+ professional cricketers back in 2013, they couldn't prevent Big 3 and they couldn't stop the revenue model in revision 2023.

In 2013 they didn't have detailed set of proposals that sees everyone almost unaffected or benefit with a much healthier global game.

Sounds like Enron style accounting.

BCCI takes in ~$230M./yr at 38.5 %. The report calls for capping it to 10% and you want us to believe that BCCI will lose only only ~$6M/year.

The projection is for a 73% drop in the BCCIs revenue from ICC handouts, a 14% rise in their bilateral revenue and a 2.5% rise in their IPL revenue which adds up to just a 3% drop in total annual revenue.

Leave Indian players out. Do it for the afghans, the Irish, the Dutch, Kenya, Zimbabwe etc etc. there 100 associate teams

All the countries you have mentioned already pay a far higher proportion of their annual revenue to players than in India.

 

[rpant_gabba]

In 2013 they didn't have detailed set of proposals that sees everyone almost unaffected or benefit with a much healthier global game.

In 2023?

The projection is for a 73% drop in the BCCIs revenue from ICC handouts, a 14% rise in their bilateral revenue and a 2.5% rise in their IPL revenue which adds up to just a 3% drop in total annual revenue.

LMAO. ICC handouts. Now the mask slips.

Didn't they try this in 2017? with Shashank Manohar? What happened? Why didn't try to prevent the 2023 revenue model. they could have held participation in WC23, WC24 and CT25.

All the countries you have mentioned already pay a far higher proportion of their annual revenue to players than in India.

And many of them would be better off if ECB and CA board/players pooled their revenues and implement their proposal without getting BCCI/Indian players involvement.

that will really teach BCCI a lesson

 

[U$ofA]

They had the same 500+ professional cricketers back in 2013, they couldn't prevent Big 3 and they couldn't stop the revenue model in revision 2023. So, where is the leverage?

Sounds like Enron style accounting.

BCCI takes in ~$230M./yr at 38.5 %. The report calls for capping it to 10% and you want us to believe that BCCI will lose only only ~$6M/year.


Leave Indian players out. Do it for the afghans, the Irish, the Dutch, Kenya, Zimbabwe etc etc. there 100 associate teams

Do it with the resources you have rather than telling someone else to use theirs to achieve you goals

Excellent points made.

FICA re-disguised as WCA has been eying for $$$. Rather, more control of $$$ generated in cricket. Unfortunately, for them (Tim May) it is the BCCI that generates 90% of it. FICA/WCA have not been able make any inroads at all in terms of influencing how the $$$ are distributed and spent. And they have been trying for more than a decade.

The 10% cap is just the latest try by them to get $$$ out of BCCI's hands and into someone else. Whom they can have an easier influence over.

They have totally struck out with the BCCI. Wonder how much influence and control they have over ECB and CA. On how $$$ are spent. The rest of the boards just do not have any $$$ worthwhile for FICA/WCA to control.

 

[mominsaigol]

You are a Pakistani. So don't talk about who is third world.

You made a statement that

These morons think BCCI is some lone warrior charity organisation that is helping lower nations when in reality their only doing so because they want more money and cricket fuels their economy while cricket doesn't do Jack for Australia.

Fact: Indian Economy is twice the size of Australian economy. Growing at a faster rate. Your economy is stagnant.



India has more 100bn USD market cap companies than Australia.

Next don't post lies. And try to hide behind long posts.

Fact: India is still emerging developing and it'll take 30 more years for it to reach Australia's developed level. By then you will be dead .

 

[BouncerGuy]

GUYS, STAY ON TOPIC AND TALK ABOUT CRICKET AND ICC FINANCES.

 

[rpant_gabba]

@mominsaigol

So, What is your take on this proposal by WCA?

IF it is good idea, it is good idea w/o getting India or BCCI involved. Will they do it with the rest of world?

 

[U$ofA]

In 2013 they didn't have detailed set of proposals that sees everyone almost unaffected or benefit with a much healthier global game.




The projection is for a 73% drop in the BCCIs revenue from ICC handouts, a 14% rise in their bilateral revenue and a 2.5% rise in their IPL revenue which adds up to just a 3% drop in total annual revenue.



All the countries you have mentioned already pay a far higher proportion of their annual revenue to players than in India.

Is the WCA doing all these projections? What for?

Not sure why they are coupling IPL and bilateral revenues with ICC generated ones. Especially, IPL. That is completely a domestic tournament.

Also, not sure if they have or have not considered what the BCCI would say/react regarding a 73% drop.

 

[shariqnoor]

I agree that India generates the most revenue in cricket through broadcasting rights and sponsorships. They get almost 40% share from ICC revenue pool based on that.

But help me understand this. The broadcasting and sponsorships that India provides to the ICC are for viewing India vs. India on the pitch? No.

The fact that there is an Australia, England, NZ, Pakistan, SA to play against India is what drives up these broadcasting deals for the ICC. Who's going to quantify the impact Pakistan, Australia, England bring to the table when they play India in an ICC event? So why does India get 40% of the revenue while others languish at 6%?

So if Australia, Pakistan and England one day refuse to play India in ICC events, would the Indian broadcasters and sponsors shell out the same amount of money for ICC events? Would they equate an India vs USA match the same as an India vs Australia match?

This disparity in international cricket is killing the game. India can flex about their status all they want but the truth is monopolies are never good in any business.

 

[rpant_gabba]

I agree that India generates the most revenue in cricket through broadcasting rights and sponsorships. They get almost 40% share from ICC revenue pool based on that.

But help me understand this. The broadcasting and sponsorships that India provides to the ICC are for viewing India vs. India on the pitch? No.

The fact that there is an Australia, England, NZ, Pakistan, SA to play against India is what drives up these broadcasting deals for the ICC. Who's going to quantify the impact Pakistan, Australia, England bring to the table when they play India in an ICC event? So why does India get 40% of the revenue while others languish at 6%?

So if Australia, Pakistan and England one day refuse to play India in ICC events, would the Indian broadcasters and sponsors shell out the same amount of money for ICC events? Would they equate an India vs USA match the same as an India vs Australia match?

This disparity in international cricket is killing the game. India can flex about their status all they want but the truth is monopolies are never good in any business.

How cute. You are making points that no one else made before

Only if those ruled the game for almost a century had the foresight to not restrict the game's growth, BCCI would not have this power, as cricket would not be depending on Indian market for its revenue/

 

[HitWicket]

Is the WCA doing all these projections? What for?

Yes, in collaboration with an external sports consultancy firm.

Because a proposal that considers and shows the expected outcomes is far better than one that just states actions.

Not sure why they are coupling IPL and bilateral revenues with ICC generated ones. Especially, IPL. That is completely a domestic tournament.

Because these proposals cover the full global structure of cricket so will affect all sources of income.

Also, not sure if they have or have not considered what the BCCI would say/react regarding a 73% drop.

The headline figure is the just 3% drop in total annual revenue.

 

[U$ofA]

I agree that India generates the most revenue in cricket through broadcasting rights and sponsorships. They get almost 40% share from ICC revenue pool based on that.

But help me understand this. The broadcasting and sponsorships that India provides to the ICC are for viewing India vs. India on the pitch? No.

The fact that there is an Australia, England, NZ, Pakistan, SA to play against India is what drives up these broadcasting deals for the ICC. Who's going to quantify the impact Pakistan, Australia, England bring to the table when they play India in an ICC event? So why does India get 40% of the revenue while others languish at 6%?

So if Australia, Pakistan and England one day refuse to play India in ICC events, would the Indian broadcasters and sponsors shell out the same amount of money for ICC events? Would they equate an India vs USA match the same as an India vs Australia match?

This disparity in international cricket is killing the game. India can flex about their status all they want but the truth is monopolies are never good in any business.

Of course Aus, Eng, Pak, SL etc bring value. How much is what is complicated. Probably, one way to look at is what does a Aus v Pak or Eng v SL or a NZ v SA game generate in revenues? Compare that to any game involving Ind v any of these teams.

That is why I say that one of these broadcast cycle renewals should be based on individual matches. That way we will easily know which team brings how much to the table. Will eliminate all guess work.

Regarding monopoly, I do agree. But to break it, some one needs to put their hand up and change course. But no one is willing. CA? ECB? PCB? who?

 

[HitWicket]

In 2023?

This report with the proposals was commissioned last year.

LMAO. ICC handouts. Now the mask slips.

What mask? They're distributions made from the ICCs revenue to their members, they're handouts.

 

[U$ofA]

Yes, in collaboration with an external sports consultancy firm.

Because a proposal that considers and shows the expected outcomes is far better than one that just states actions.

Fair enough.

Because these proposals cover the full global structure of cricket so will affect all sources of income.

But what control do they have over IPL? A private league. I can even understand the bilaterals. But not IPL.

The headline figure is the just 3% drop in total annual revenue.

Depends on whose view this is from. I bet the BCCI will see it as a 73% loss. While WCA will say its 3%. And there in lies the big problem.