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.
-
Contact the PP Team
World Cricketers' Association calls for a more equitable revenue distribution and a revamp of the ICC's governance model
- Thread starter The Bald Eagle
- Start date
harshjoshi87
Local Club Star
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2024
- Runs
- 1,777
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
Tape Ball Star
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2021
- Runs
- 842
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.
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.
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
First Class Star
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2023
- Runs
- 3,943
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.
charlie007
Local Club Regular
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2017
- Runs
- 1,637
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!!
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
First Class Star
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2023
- Runs
- 3,943
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
The first few world cups would be the easiest starting point.
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.
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.
Now say that without crying.Current status quo only benefits India.
Cricket is meant to be a global sport and not about one particular country.
Theanonymousone
Tape Ball Star
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2021
- Runs
- 842
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
First Class Star
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2023
- Runs
- 3,943
becos they are rich they can spend to get better at he sport if they are interested? thought it was common sense. then again...
sorry it is idiocy to. think that market for cricket will grow froa commercial perspective beyond India.
Spoken like a true academic (not a compliment)
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?
don't bother the rest of your post explained everything.
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.
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.
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.
Theanonymousone
Tape Ball Star
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2021
- Runs
- 842
Not a bit of logical argument, rather going with blind gut feelings. If everyone followed this logic, there wont be growth for many industries or any market expansions.
Not everyone holds a pessimistic views over expansions. Waste of time arguing with the likes of you!
Cricket is a small enough game that the likes of NZ , Wi need to be supported. They are proper test playing nations with a rich cricketing history. We can't afford to lose them.
The other countries which have a large population need to have a serious performance improvement plan though.
sweep_shot
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2016
- Runs
- 60,735
1975 to 2011. Golden period of cricket with genuine World Cups.
Modern day World Cups feel rigged to benefit one country (India).
It is a tragedy how cricket has been destroyed by Indian greed. Cricket needs to be freed from Indian grip.
The likes of Kohli and Sharma can even donate whatever money they get from playing in those leagues to a entity funding development of the game in that country and in the process not feel the pinch in the pocket, get enormous good will as statesmen of the game etc etc
And gain the amount back plus more with the increased commercial revenues
Sachin fan
Local Club Captain
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2025
- Runs
- 2,430
Wonder why have some teams not improved from 1970s onwards? And also won nothing in that golden period?1975 to 2011. Golden period of cricket with genuine World Cups.
Modern day World Cups feel rigged to benefit one country (India).
It is a tragedy how cricket has been destroyed by Indian greed. Cricket needs to be freed from Indian grip.
Rigged or non rigged, Bangladesh was always a non entity and they should have no say in such things.
rpant_gabba
First Class Star
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2023
- Runs
- 3,943
You mean the amatuer era where the price money wasn't enough to cover flight and hotel expenses? looks like that lasted all off 12 years and ended when India had to jack up the pot 5x in 1987.
Given that the money poured into
Looking at historical trend and data is illogical? Sure.
It’s about who is funding it and who gets the reward
It will be India paying the bills and rest of cricketing world getting the benefit
No thank you.
Feeling is mutual
harshjoshi87
Local Club Star
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2024
- Runs
- 1,777
Nope he is from that tiny island down south - he is a follower of legendary Prabhakaran, our beloved friend but here he claims he is from land of Shaikh Haseena, a friend of ours from the east coast.
Josh
Local Club Captain
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2013
- Runs
- 2,384
WCA ki situation par yaad aaya-
Milkar baith gye hain Majlis main Jugnu sare ,
Aur Elaan yeh hua ki Suraj ko hataaya Jaye
Milkar baith gye hain Majlis main Jugnu sare ,
Aur Elaan yeh hua ki Suraj ko hataaya Jaye
There cannot be free money given for ever. That is wrong. Creates dependency. They will never work to get off handouts.
Helping them to get there is good. But as you say, they have a rich history. Which also means they have had a lot of time to figure things out. Why have they not?
NZ has done great stuff from the limited player pool that they have.
As far as windies go , they are frustrating for sure. But I really want them to get their act together.
Really don't know how that's to be managed , but NZ have thrived despite the so called big 3 rules. Which means that the so called complaints aren't from them.
Windies , I suspect might never recover. To the point of them being a genuine test calibre team. But they come with their own set of problems.
As far as Zimbabwe goes , they've been massively underdone by their govt massively. But more international fixtures for them have to be the order of the day.
I'm still leaving Ireland and Afghanistan in the associates level right now (for various reasons, which have nothing to do with their cricketing acheivements)
Cricket really can't afford to let go of either of windies or NZ though. NZ are more or less self sustainable with their policies and the way they run their cricket.
Windies , I suspect might never recover. To the point of them being a genuine test calibre team. But they come with their own set of problems.
As far as Zimbabwe goes , they've been massively underdone by their govt massively. But more international fixtures for them have to be the order of the day.
I'm still leaving Ireland and Afghanistan in the associates level right now (for various reasons, which have nothing to do with their cricketing acheivements)
Cricket really can't afford to let go of either of windies or NZ though. NZ are more or less self sustainable with their policies and the way they run their cricket.
sweep_shot
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2016
- Runs
- 60,735
Some people say cricket cannot run without Indian money.
My questions for those people --> was there no cricket before year 2000? Cricket's legacy goes back to 17th century. 1975 WC didn't involve any Indian money. How did it take place?
Cricket can definitely run without Indian money. It simply requires willpower and long-term vision.
Countries need to ditch BCCICC and form a new cricketing governing body with neutral leadership.
My questions for those people --> was there no cricket before year 2000? Cricket's legacy goes back to 17th century. 1975 WC didn't involve any Indian money. How did it take place?
Cricket can definitely run without Indian money. It simply requires willpower and long-term vision.
Countries need to ditch BCCICC and form a new cricketing governing body with neutral leadership.
Ask your Bangla / srilankan board to accept that first
The prize money didn't need to cover the flight and expenses because these were already covered by the tournament organisers. Unsurprisingly the claim that the prize pot increased by a factor of 5 in 1987 is more made up nonsense.
rpant_gabba
First Class Star
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2023
- Runs
- 3,943
BS. Air India had to eat the cost of the flights.
Show me sources which says other wise.
Read the link I posted. Post source if you information which proves otherwise
That is all well and good. But that does not mean they are entitled to or be given free money for ever.
charlie007
Local Club Regular
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2017
- Runs
- 1,637
Don’t confuse gate receipts (which was the primary source of revenue) and prize money (given by Prudential) with ICC revenues. There were no ICC money pools then. The TCCB (ECB was known as TCCB then) brought Prudential as the sponsor and alongside MCC they retained all operational controls and governed / owned all event economics.
The ICC didn’t have any money to share - whatever peanuts were given to other countries after taking the lion’s share, those were by TCCB and not ICC. Just so you know, before the TCCB determined what the surplus was, they already took a large majority of money for themselves as their right before again claiming a share from that surplus revenue pool. Again, ICC didn’t distribute anything.
There is no documented proof of all those percentages you are talking about. Could you share your source for the revenue share that you so confidently state?
You can't expect them to generate the tv rights when the much more populous countries don't do the necessary stuff.
Their population is way too less and their major sport isn't cricket. Their domestic cricket program remains first class though.
Long story short.
India and Pakistan were on the same boat at the onset of the 90s. India through mainly their board , their policies and their economy monetized themselves better till now.
How is India supposed to cover for countries indefinitely (not just Pakistan) who just don't do the needful?
India and Pakistan were on the same boat at the onset of the 90s. India through mainly their board , their policies and their economy monetized themselves better till now.
How is India supposed to cover for countries indefinitely (not just Pakistan) who just don't do the needful?
Sachin fan
Local Club Captain
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2025
- Runs
- 2,430
Or his new abbu, Pakistani board
From the article by Nicholas Brookes in the 2025 Wisden almanac:
I don't have to post a different source for the prize money, you've quite kindly already provided a source that very clearly shows the suggestion that the prize pot went up by 5x for the 1987 world cup is complete nonsense.
Probably time for you to stop digging...
Probably time for you to stop digging too, there's so much made up nonsense in here as well. From the same source:
rpant_gabba
First Class Star
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2023
- Runs
- 3,943
Reliance World Cup to be one of the richest ever cricketing event
Anil Aambani, executive director, Reliance Textiles, hasn't heard of the World Cup. "What's that?" he asks. But isn't his company sponsoring what it bills as the cricketing event of the century? "Oh, that's the Reliance Cup, "he says with a straight face.
To host the World Cup, India had to cough up as guarantee money, to the ICC: 1.8 million (Rs 3.8 crore).
In the 1987 Cricket World Cup (the Reliance Cup), the financial arrangements marked a significant shift, with substantial, guaranteed payments made to boards for the first time.
- Associate Member Boards: Each of the 21 voting Associate members was guaranteed £20,000 as a World Cup share.
- Full Member Boards: The primary participating Test-playing nations were offered £75,000 each, along with expenses.
- Hosting Guarantee: India and Pakistan (the Indo-Pakistan Joint Managing Committee) had to raise a total of £1.8 million (approximately Rs 3.8 crore) in guarantee money to the ICC to host the event.
rpant_gabba
First Class Star
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2023
- Runs
- 3,943
So India has been paying the bills since 1987, even during the veto era.
rpant_gabba
First Class Star
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2023
- Runs
- 3,943
his claim.
No, I have hole big enough to bury you in.
Reliance World Cup to be one of the richest ever cricketing event
Anil Aambani, executive director, Reliance Textiles, hasn't heard of the World Cup. "What's that?" he asks. But isn't his company sponsoring what it bills as the cricketing event of the century? "Oh, that's the Reliance Cup, "he says with a straight face.
1.8M GBP guranateed money to host world cup
In the 1987 Cricket World Cup (the Reliance Cup), the financial arrangements marked a significant shift, with substantial, guaranteed payments made to boards for the first time.
- Associate Member Boards: Each of the 21 voting Associate members was guaranteed £20,000 as a World Cup share.
- Full Member Boards: The primary participating Test-playing nations were offered £75,000 each, along with expenses.
- Hosting Guarantee: India and Pakistan (the Indo-Pakistan Joint Managing Committee) had to raise a total of £1.8 million (approximately Rs 3.8 crore) in guarantee money to the ICC to host the event.
Yes, becos, TCCB are honest bunch with no shenanigans what they define as "profit"
rpant_gabba
First Class Star
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2023
- Runs
- 3,943
For comparison
in 1983, ICC distributed a total on 200K GBP. between 8 boards and 175K GBP among associates
for those mathematically challenged full members in creased their share 300% payment to associates added upto 400K GPB
in 1983, ICC distributed a total on 200K GBP. between 8 boards and 175K GBP among associates
for those mathematically challenged full members in creased their share 300% payment to associates added upto 400K GPB
Struggling to keep up with the sheer amount of false information being posted in this thread so thought I'd do a quick summary.
@rpant_gabba claimed Indian cricket never received handouts whilst contributing very little. This is blatant nonsense given India received equal handouts to other nations from the early World Cups despite contributing next to nothing financially to them.
@charlie007 claimed that 100% of the revenue from the 1975, 1979 and 1983 World Cup went to the ECB. This was completely made up nonsense.
@rpant_gabba claimed that the prize money from the early World Cups wasn't enough to cover boards travel and hotel expenses. He also claimed Air India covered had to eat the costs of the flights for the India team for these events. Travel and hotel expenses for the early world cups were already covered for the visiting nations.
@rpant_gabba claimed that India increased the prize money for the 1987 World Cup by 5x. This was completely made up nonsense.
@rpant_gabba claimed that the 1987 World Cup saw a 300% increase in surplus distributions to full members. This was... you guessed it... completely made up nonsense.
I've got no doubt both users in questions will respond to this post with the usual deflections, but what you'll notice in the responses is both users will be unable to provide genuine proof that any of the above claims are actually true, and that despite that both users will still be unable to concede that they were spreading false information.
@rpant_gabba claimed Indian cricket never received handouts whilst contributing very little. This is blatant nonsense given India received equal handouts to other nations from the early World Cups despite contributing next to nothing financially to them.
@charlie007 claimed that 100% of the revenue from the 1975, 1979 and 1983 World Cup went to the ECB. This was completely made up nonsense.
@rpant_gabba claimed that the prize money from the early World Cups wasn't enough to cover boards travel and hotel expenses. He also claimed Air India covered had to eat the costs of the flights for the India team for these events. Travel and hotel expenses for the early world cups were already covered for the visiting nations.
@rpant_gabba claimed that India increased the prize money for the 1987 World Cup by 5x. This was completely made up nonsense.
@rpant_gabba claimed that the 1987 World Cup saw a 300% increase in surplus distributions to full members. This was... you guessed it... completely made up nonsense.
I've got no doubt both users in questions will respond to this post with the usual deflections, but what you'll notice in the responses is both users will be unable to provide genuine proof that any of the above claims are actually true, and that despite that both users will still be unable to concede that they were spreading false information.
charlie007
Local Club Regular
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2017
- Runs
- 1,637
You came up with quite exact 7.5% share crap - can you provide the source of your claim? If not, zip it.
For their support of the 1987 World Cup in Asia, the Associates were offered a new deal - a guaranteed £20,000 each as the World Cup share. This was against the £3000-4000 per member each Associate hoped to get if England retained the World Cup. Full Member nations were offered £75,000 each, plus expenses for participating in the event.
The total amount of the Prudential Assurance Company's sponsorship was £500,000, and the gate receipts came to £1,195,712. The aggregate attendance was 232,081, compared with 160,000 in 1975 and 132,000 in 1979. The surplus, distributed to full and associate members of the International Cricket Conference, was in excess of £1,000,000, this being over and above the prior payments of £53,900 to each of the seven full members and one of £30,200 to Zimbabwe.
In addition to the Trophy and silver-gilt medals for each player, India received £20,000 for their victory. As runners-up West Indies won £8,000. The losing semi-finalists, England and Pakistan, each won £4,000. There were also awards of £1,000 to the group winners, plus Man of the Match awards (£200 for the group matches, £400 for the semi-finals and £600 for the final).
There really wasn't too much surplus generated after the 1987 world cup as the rights were given to government broadcasters who even then wanted to get paid for broadcasting the matches instead of paying for the rights. The article on the 1987 world cup says it out clearly, India-Pakistan had to pay the associates an increased amount in order to get the votes needed for the world cup.
It was only at the time of hosting the 1996 world cup that TV rights came into play (with cable tv and private tv channels being popular) and that's when the Asian bloc really started monetizing the world cups. Australia probably monetized it the best in 92 though.
Asks me to provide a source for something I've already provided a source for whilst completely failing to actually provide a source for his own made up claim?
Bingo! How incredibly predictable.
Appreciate you providing additional sources to prove both of these claims were made up nonsense, thank you.
Similar threads
