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

[sithb]

And for people who are saying that the tv rights just reflect the interest in the game as per the population , it has a lot to do with how that interest has been generated and that's to do with the work done by the respective board in administering the game etc as well.

 

[harshjoshi87]

And for people who are saying that the tv rights just reflect the interest in the game as per the population , it has a lot to do with how that interest has been generated and that's to do with the work done by the respective board in administering the game etc as well.

Weaker or corrupt boards like WICB, SLC, ZC, should organize ODI/T20 tri-series regularly to make money. India will also take part in these tri-series matches when they tour. Don't think franchise competitions will make enough money for all these weaker boards. Tri-series in much better than T20 franchise gargabe which doesn't feature top players of world cricket.

India won't give up their share as they generate close to 85% of total revenue & also help other boards by compensating them for every player in the IPL.

 

[Theanonymousone]

Virat gets more from instagram posts than the hundred could afford to pay him. He wouldn't want to go that route

Its not about money. He can draw eye balls which is good for the sport.

BCCI is all powerful now and power cycles may shift or it may not. But they should expand and thats how empires survive.

Virat is a personality who may be liked or disliked but always draws attention. He displayed a lot of grit and determination which I feel is missing in many of the foreign players, even the sub-continent ones. Few Indian players still do have it but Pakistanis, the less we talk the better.

He can bring that connect again in other leagues and may be draw more kids / parents to watch the sport. I hope he does play in Hundred and SA20 so that it helps in commercialization of sport even better.

Hell, he can even chose to play in PSL and it would be positive change among Pak players. I understand all the drama around India-Pakistan but honestly, Pakistan has the potential to be second biggest cricketing nation which would eventually be good for the sport.

And I think someone like Virat might be interested in these things rather than just money. He must me worth 120-150M USD and thats insane amount for someone as disciplined as him. He wont be ruining his fortune like some playboys. So, money probably wont interest him much.

 

[sithb]

Weaker or corrupt boards like WICB, SLC, ZC, should organize ODI/T20 tri-series regularly to make money. India will also take part in these tri-series matches when they tour. Don't think franchise competitions will make enough money for all these weaker boards. Tri-series in much better than T20 franchise gargabe which doesn't feature top players of world cricket.

There's nothing stopping them from inviting an Indian B team over for ODI tri series. Even if the main indian team is participating elsewhere.

Eliminating useless bilateral series by replacing them with tri series is one way where the revenues for the hosting boards can be generated.

 

[sithb]

Its not about money. He can draw eye balls which is good for the sport.

BCCI is all powerful now and power cycles may shift or it may not. But they should expand and thats how empires survive.

Virat is a personality who may be liked or disliked but always draws attention. He displayed a lot of grit and determination which I feel is missing in many of the foreign players, even the sub-continent ones. Few Indian players still do have it but Pakistanis, the less we talk the better.

He can bring that connect again in other leagues and may be draw more kids / parents to watch the sport. I hope he does play in Hundred and SA20 so that it helps in commercialization of sport even better.

Hell, he can even chose to play in PSL and it would be positive change among Pak players. I understand all the drama around India-Pakistan but honestly, Pakistan has the potential to be second biggest cricketing nation which would eventually be good for the sport.

And I think someone like Virat might be interested in these things rather than just money. He must me worth 120-150M USD and thats insane amount for someone as disciplined as him. He wont be ruining his fortune like some playboys. So, money probably wont interest him much.

Most cricket players will have managers looking after their investments. He will earn more money out of his investments and sponsorships than he does with cricket at this stage of his career.

I'm all for him playing a few games in SENA T20 leagues. Just a season or so before he officially hangs up his boots. Same case with Rohit Sharma as well

 

[rpant_gabba]

Not sure why you're going on about prize money in a conversation about excess revenue distribution. From that very first world cup until 2014 the excess revenue was distributed equally between participating teams/later ICC full members with the exception of a small fee to cover hosting costs. India benefited from this equal handout even at times when they weren't the largest revenue generator.

when was this? When was India not the largest revenue generator for ICC and received more distribution than the contributed?

Since you sound very confident, you should be able to quote sources.

 

[sithb]

Dont think him playing in PSL is possible anytime soon but yeah.

 

[charlie007]

It’s a free market (Capitalism) at play here now.

From the initial days of the Imperial Cricket Conference (ICC) in 1909 to 1965, and from 1965 to 1983 where it became the International Cricket Conference, there was no sponsorship and revenue generation by the ICC. Individual boards made what they made. All World Cup revenues for 1975, 1979, and 1983 World Cups went to England (ECB) 100%, not a dime for anyone else. Nobody seems to have been worried about that!!! Happy to sweep for the imperial masters!!

From 1983 to 1993, cricket commercialization began, and ICC revenue was distributed equally (not equitably) and mostly shared between the Full members. The Associates received a symbolic development grant. Same share continued from 1993 to 2014 as revenues grew more. This was the Socialist model of the ICC. It didn’t matter how much you contributed, everyone received an equal amount of money.

2014 to 2023 was the Big 3 model where the Capitalist model of the ICC began. Whoever brought in more money received more money, in this case, BCCI, ECB, and CA. Rest received much lesser based on the determined value of the other respective boards. From 2023 to 2027, BCCI began receiving 38.5% of the overall ICC revenues.

Based on which country the fans belong to, their perception of the revenue distribution differs. But what’s undeniable is that it’s the market that is determining the wages, as it always does in a capitalist society.

But isn’t that how most of the modern world operates now? People have pay disparities, countries are rich and poor, countries take full advantage of having resources in abundance (eg Middle East has oil, China has rare earth metals etc,) - these countries fully control the market and don’t give away resources so everyone (mankind) can benefit and nobody remains poor and hungry.
Forget that, how many of you are willing to share your wealth with the poor people living in your country?

It’s always the fault of someone else who’s taking advantage of poor others, we remain faultless. But we forget charity begins at home!!

 

[rpant_gabba]

Money should go into more European nations like Netherlands, Ireland etc along with Asian nations like Nepal which showed some good promise.

If the boards itself are corrupt like WI and Zim, no one can help.

I do think BCCI should allow Indian players to play in other leagues. They would help with eyeballs and easily top the bids across BBL and SA20 leagues.

If Virat plays The Hundred, he would easily be one of the highest paid, if not the highest in that league. And him with only playing one format now, its not much of a deal for his workload.

so developing countries ( GDP/cap -$3000) should fund a hobby in developed countries (GDP/cap -$50000+) in which they have very little interest

Got it. Colonialism should never end

 

[HitWicket]

when was this? When was India not the largest revenue generator for ICC and received more distribution than the contributed?

Since you sound very confident, you should be able to quote sources.

The first few world cups would be the easiest starting point.

 

[HitWicket]

Individual boards made what they made. All World Cup revenues for 1975, 1979, and 1983 World Cups went to England (ECB) 100%, not a dime for anyone else. Nobody seems to have been worried about that!!! Happy to sweep for the imperial masters!!

Imagine making a long post like this and then losing all credibility by making up complete nonsense like this in the very first paragraph.... All participating countries received a 7.5% revenue share from the first world cup with an additional 2.5% to the ECB as a hosting fee and the remainder going to the ICC.

 

[sithb]

2014 to 2023 was the Big 3 model where the Capitalist model of the ICC began. Whoever brought in more money received more money, in this case, BCCI, ECB, and CA. Rest received much lesser based on the determined value of the other respective boards. From 2023 to 2027, BCCI began receiving 38.5% of the overall ICC revenues.

Based on which country the fans belong to, their perception of the revenue distribution differs. But what’s undeniable is that it’s the market that is determining the wages, as it always does in a capitalist society.

A balanced take in general (not sure as to the revenue fees for the 75/79/83 world cup) but that way before private tv channels became a thing for India.

Bcci only took 38.5% of the overall ICC revenues after promising to ensure that all countries would get their respective revenue share increased from the previous system.

Bcci has its justifications as to why they need the money (they need to grow the game in their country as a priority). They aren't there to fix cricket issues in other countries.

People might not agree with it but it's only the Indian broadcasters who bid for the Indian rights. Things might change if a Netflix comes on board and bids for the icc cricket rights in entirety. But as of now , that's not in the near future.

And even if a Netflix does turn up , it's revenues will be on subscription basis.

 

[ravisurya]

Current status quo only benefits India.

Cricket is meant to be a global sport and not about one particular country.

Now say that without crying.

 

[Theanonymousone]

so developing countries ( GDP/cap -$3000) should fund a hobby in developed countries (GDP/cap -$50000+) in which they have very little interest

Got it. Colonialism should never end

What does the Ireland / Netherlands being rich have to do with Cricket??

If Zim and WI were not corrupt, I am all for helping them. Its the onus on ICC too to help cricket grow as a market.

Just look at it from a market expansion perspective. Dutch and Ireland fared well than Bangladesh IMO and if they couldn't survive in the initial stages, BCCI through ICC can pitch in.

Its jot free handouts but developing a nascent market for future gains.

Little interest?? The point is if we can develop interest and if they have a stable structure to implement it.

Same case with Nepal. The initial help would be primarily on the CapEx needs to support them.

Dont understand how you brought colonialism angle here

 

[rpant_gabba]

What does the Ireland / Netherlands being rich have to do with Cricket??

becos they are rich they can spend to get better at he sport if they are interested? thought it was common sense. then again...

If Zim and WI were not corrupt, I am all for helping them. Its the onus on ICC too to help cricket grow as a market.

sorry it is idiocy to. think that market for cricket will grow froa commercial perspective beyond India.

Just look at it from a market expansion perspective. Dutch and Ireland fared well than Bangladesh IMO and if they couldn't survive in the initial stages, BCCI through ICC can pitch in.

Spoken like a true academic (not a compliment)

Its jot free handouts but developing a nascent market for future gains.

yes, a sport which as developed in England, less than 100 miles away hasn't picked up in 100 years, will pick up now that India is funding it. does it actually sound smart in your head before you typed it?

Little interest?? The point is if we can develop interest and if they have a stable structure to implement it.

Same case with Nepal. The initial help would be primarily on the CapEx needs to support them.

Dont understand how you brought colonialism angle here

don't bother the rest of your post explained everything.

 

[sithb]

Wica recommendations of 10% revenue share for bcci is short-sighted and extremely foolish. That should be the least of their concern.

The only real solution is to ensure that the game is monetized properly across all the countries (especially in Pakistan and Bangladesh) and that depends on the two boards working well to improve their structure.

BCCI shouldn't be footing the bill , certainly not anymore than its aready doing just because the other countries and their boards are really bad in negotiation of broadcast rights / incompetent/ corrupt.

It's all well playing the moral high game and demanding socialism. But asking the custodians of the game in India to take 10% while their country (on the back of the very good work that bcci has done in promoting the game in India) raises 80-90% of the revenue for the global game is dishonest.

 

[U$ofA]

Too less population in NZ/WI/Zim for the sport to be sustainable without icc revenues backing them up.

The subcontinent countries in the other hand need to buck up their investment in the game , both w.r.t interest in the game , building better players and ensuring much better monetization

I hope you are not suggesting that they be given $$$ perpetually. No end game?

Suporting with $$ is one thing. But has to also come with checks and balances, monitoring, demanding results, measurable progress. Most importantly an end goal requiremnt of self sufficinecy.

NZ, WI, SL, Zim should get no more than 5-7 years of support. No more. If they are not able to stand on their feet by then, well....move on.