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

[HitWicket]

So the surplus share per each country of the grand total amount was 15000 GBP for the 1975 world cup which equates to 142000 GBP (adjusted for 2026 inflation rates) and that qualifies as a handout ?

Are Pakistan going to be expecting similar handouts now? How much is Pakistan's handout right now again? 144M USD over 4 years. Please have some perspective of the numbers involved.

£15000 would have been massive for many of the boards at the time (and the handouts increased massively for each successive event). It would have covered the entire Indian teams match fees for the tournament nearly 40 times over for example.

 

[cricketjoshila]

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

Where is the arab league?

There’s a league in emirates though.

 

[cricketjoshila]

claimed that India increased the prize money for the 1987 World Cup by 5x. This was completely made up nonsense.

Not at all, the reason the 1987 wc was played put of England and in India because bcci made a deal with reliance to raise the sponsorship to 5 mn usd, the 83 wc prudential paid 300 k gbp

 

[cricketjoshila]

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

Since 2010 Pakistanis are dreaming of challenging BCCI, kya hua?

This association has no recognition among Indian players and bcci so they keep whining

 

[Cricfan8920]

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.

The question is: Why were Pakistan allowed to co-host the tournament?

 

[HitWicket]

Not at all, the reason the 1987 wc was played put of England and in India because bcci made a deal with reliance to raise the sponsorship to 5 mn usd, the 83 wc prudential paid 300 k gbp

We have a strong third contender for the made up nonsense championships. Unsurprisingly both of the numbers in this post are made up nonsense.

Feel free to provide a source for the prize money increasing by 5x in 1987 as well whilst you're at it.

 

[charlie007]

£15000 would have been massive for many of the boards at the time (and the handouts increased massively for each successive event). It would have covered the entire Indian teams match fees for the tournament nearly 40 times over for example.

How did you arrive at that number? So £375 should be the match fees for the whole team for the whole tournament? Do you think before you type?
Do you also realize you’re arguing against yourself when you confirm such things that countries didn’t really receive anything substantial during those times?
You’re just digging an even deeper hole for yourself.

 

[HitWicket]

How did you arrive at that number? So £375 should be the match fees for the whole team for the whole tournament? Do you think before you type?

Give or take a little bit depending on your currency conversion and the fact I said nearly, yes. The match fee for Indian players at the tournament is readily available online.

Do you also realize you’re arguing against yourself when you confirm such things that countries didn’t really receive anything substantial during those times?

My argument is that you've been making up nonsense, which is blatantly true. As an aside from that, if the money wasn't anything substantial to the BCCI it wouldn't cover the match fees for the tournament nearly 40 times over.

 

[just a fan]

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

Keep reminding us often. We keep forgetting it's existence if at all it does! They have been preparing to challenge BCCI for over a decade some strong foundation is being laid there I presume

 

[charlie007]

Give or take a little bit depending on your currency conversion and the fact I said nearly, yes. The match fee for Indian players at the tournament is readily available online.



My argument is that you've been making up nonsense, which is blatantly true. As an aside from that, if the money wasn't anything substantial to the BCCI it wouldn't cover the match fees for the tournament nearly 40 times over.

Show me your calculations on how you arrived at this?

 

[sithb]

The question is: Why were Pakistan allowed to co-host the tournament?

Because they won't split the subcontinent vote. Infact, They attempted to do this in the 1996 world cup by wanting themselves as sole hosts. After this, someone in the Sri lankan board talked to them and convinced them to join the joint asian bid. The result of that understanding was that the finals of the tournament had to be played in Pakistan.

 

[charlie007]

Because they won't split the subcontinent vote. Infact, They attempted to do this in the 1996 world cup by wanting themselves as sole hosts. After this, someone in the Sri lankan board talked to them and convinced them to join the joint asian bid. The result of that understanding was that the finals of the tournament had to be played in Pakistan.

There was a time when BCCI accorded PCB some semblance of respect. And this has also to do with the greater aura of the Pakistani team than what it has been in the last couple of decades.

 

[sithb]

There was a time when BCCI accorded PCB some semblance of respect. And this has also to do with the greater aura of the Pakistani team than what it has been in the last couple of decades.

The relation between BCCI and PCB was pretty cordial even in the 2009 etc where Pakistan was supposed to co-host the 2011 world cup and that wasn't happening because of the security issues and their matches were removed.

 

[sithb]

Does any other country in the world have the bizarre situation in place where they are forced to have all their games shown by a state broadcaster? Is there actually any situation to be a court case over?



Thank you, I think you've pretty conclusively proven that the 7.5% to each participating nation was a handout rather than a participation fee. Your reference above mentions that participation fees are intended to cover overheads and expenses, which the source I've already provided confirms were covered for all touring nations, and that the 7.5% was a share of the excess revenue remaining after that.

So by that metric, India / Pakistan gave more in terms of money to the other boards in the 87,96 world cups than what England did in the 75,79,83 world cups

So they are still negative in terms of any money received by the English Cricket Board. They paid more than what they got. You can do the math. Or the problem is only when India get the participation fees and not when the other boards get those participation fees ?

How did you arrive at that number? So £375 should be the match fees for the whole team for the whole tournament? Do you think before you type?
Do you also realize you’re arguing against yourself when you confirm such things that countries didn’t really receive anything substantial during those times?
You’re just digging an even deeper hole for yourself.

One more hole he persists in digging for himself

 

[HitWicket]

Show me your calculations on how you arrived at this?

1500 INR x 11 x 3 = 49500 INR = £392

So by that metric, India / Pakistan gave more in terms of money to the other boards in the 87,96 world cups than what England did in the 75,79,83 world cups

So they are still negative in terms of any money received by the English Cricket Board. They paid more than what they got. You can do the math. Or the problem is only when India get the participation fees and not when the other boards get those participation fees ?

This is something I've never suggested isn't the case. Nice strawman though.

 

[charlie007]

1500 INR x 11 x 3 = 49500 INR = £392



This is something I've never suggested isn't the case. Nice strawman though.

I’m assuming 11 is the number of players you used. What’s 3?

 

[HitWicket]

I’m assuming 11 is the number of players you used. What’s 3?

The number of matches.

 

[sithb]

This is something I've never suggested isn't the case. Nice strawman though.

You suggested that India got handouts from ICC/England/Australia during the 75-96 WC periods. I've said that both India and Pakistan paid more to host the 87 and 96 world cups and got less for the other 4 world cups that they didn't host. It's not a strawman. It's me pointing out the fallacy in your posts. Whether you choose to accept it or not is up to you.

The equal revenue sharing model for the initial world cups hindered more than helped India and Pakistan for the first 6 world cups. And are you suggesting that we return to that model where India keeps giving and the other boards keep taking ?

 

[HitWicket]

You suggested that India got handouts from ICC/England/Australia during the 75-96 WC periods. I've said that both India and Pakistan paid more to host the 87 and 96 world cups and got less for the other 4 world cups that they didn't host. It's not a strawman. It's me pointing out the fallacy in your posts. Whether you choose to accept it or not is up to you.

The equal revenue sharing model for the initial world cups hindered more than helped India and Pakistan for the first 6 world cups. And are you suggesting that we return to that model where India keeps giving and the other boards keep taking ?

No need to put words in my mouth, when did I ever mention anything up to 1996?

I was asked when there was ever a period where Indian cricket received more in handouts than it contributed. I responded by saying the first few world cups, which we've quite clearly established here is the truth.

 

[sithb]

The next ICC rights revenue cycle will not have the 3b USD anymore. It's being estimated at being 2.5b. BCCI's quite happy to sit on that percentage which is already more than generous. It's up to the other teams to maximize their earnings from the domestic t20 leagues, get suitable broadcasters in who can provide better broadcasting packages if they still want to have their revenues coming in. Otherwise, it's big trouble time for most of the boards.

 

[sithb]

I was asked when there was ever a period where Indian cricket received more in handouts than it contributed. I responded by saying the first few world cups, which we've quite clearly established here is the truth.

You've selectively chosen the first 3 world cups when choosing the first 4 world cups would clearly show both India and Pakistan are net contributors.

 

[HitWicket]

You've selectively chosen the first 3 world cups when choosing the first 4 world cups would clearly show both India and Pakistan are net contributors.

So lets just get this straight here. You're complaining that when I was asked to provide a period where Indian cricket got more in handouts than it contributed, I selected and provided a period where Indian cricket got more in handouts than it contributed, rather than a period where it didn't...? Why don't you read that back again...