£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.
-
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
£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
Test Captain
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Runs
- 49,659
- Post of the Week
- 1
cricketjoshila
Test Captain
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Runs
- 49,659
- Post of the Week
- 1
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
Test Captain
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Runs
- 49,659
- Post of the Week
- 1
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
Debutant
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2026
- Runs
- 182
The question is: Why were Pakistan allowed to co-host the tournament?
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
Local Club Regular
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2017
- Runs
- 1,669
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.
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.
just a fan
Debutant
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2012
- Runs
- 136
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
Local Club Regular
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2017
- Runs
- 1,669
Show me your calculations on how you arrived at this?
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
Local Club Regular
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2017
- Runs
- 1,669
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.
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 ?
One more hole he persists in digging for himself
1500 INR x 11 x 3 = 49500 INR = £392
This is something I've never suggested isn't the case. Nice strawman though.
charlie007
Local Club Regular
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2017
- Runs
- 1,669
I’m assuming 11 is the number of players you used. What’s 3?
The number of matches.
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.
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.
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...
charlie007
Local Club Regular
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2017
- Runs
- 1,669
Your claim: 15000 GBP for the whole team AND for the whole tournament AND 40 times over
Let us debunk that claim through data instead of opinion.
Match fee per player: INR 1500
Touring Party:
There were 15 members in the touring team --> 14 players and 1 manager
1983 Cricket World Cup squads - Wikipedia
Conversion of GBP to Indian Rupee in 1983:
1 GBP = 16.13 Indian Rupee
Exchange rate history of the Indian rupee - Wikipedia
Number of matches India played: 8 (6 group games + 1 semi final + 1 final)
1983 Cricket World Cup - Wikipedia
Using the above data, India should be paid:
Match fee per member x 15 members in the touring party x number of matches
Which is 1500 x 15 x 8 = INR 180,000
Converting that into GBP at INR 16.13 (rate in 1983) is it already GBP 11,159.33
Now 40 times that would be: 11,159.33 x 40 = GBP 446,373.22
So your amount of 15,000 GBP that should have covered the match fee 40 times over is 3.36% of what would have covered the cost of the Indian match fee. You are off by 96.64%. In other words, you are way out of your depth on this argument and letting your emotions in the way of a logical, data backed argument. Simply put, you are WRONG!!
?Your claim: 15000 GBP for the whole team AND for the whole tournament AND 40 times over
Let us debunk that claim through data instead of opinion.
Match fee per player: INR 1500
Touring Party:
There were 15 members in the touring team --> 14 players and 1 manager
1983 Cricket World Cup squads - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Conversion of GBP to Indian Rupee in 1983:
1 GBP = 16.13 Indian Rupee
Exchange rate history of the Indian rupee - Wikipedia
Number of matches India played: 8 (6 group games + 1 semi final + 1 final)
1983 Cricket World Cup - Wikipedia
Using the above data, India should be paid:
Match fee per member x 15 members in the touring party x number of matches
Which is 1500 x 15 x 8 = INR 180,000
Converting that into GBP at INR 16.13 (rate in 1983) is it already GBP 11,159.33
Now 40 times that would be: 11,159.33 x 40 = GBP 446,373.22
So your amount of 15,000 GBP that should have covered the match fee 40 times over is 3.36% of what would have covered the cost of the Indian match fee. You are off by 96.64%. In other words, you are way out of your depth on this argument and letting your emotions in the way of a logical, data backed argument. Simply put, you are WRONG!!
My numbers were based on 1975 not 1983, but at the same time I do realise that I've made an error in the conversion rate at the time that does mean the numbers are a bit out. The handout the BCCI received would still have been enough to cover the squads match fees several times over though.
Look at that, it may be a new concept to you but I'm willing to concede I made an error, maybe it's something you can grow up and learn from.
1983 Bonus: India was the first team to truly "double dip" because they received the base fee plus the winner’s purse. However, this total of £35,000 (roughly ₹5.5 lakh then) was still barely enough to cover the team’s travel and administrative expenses for the month-long stay in England.
So India earned the highest in 83 world cup. How is that many times over ?
Except £35,000 is yet another number you've made up that's well below the actual figure in reality, and the travel fees and expenses of the visiting teams are paid separate to this as we already established earlier. Do you never learn?
If the participant fee + winning bonus was just about enough to cover the team's travel + daily costs + administrative expenses in 1983 , It stands to believe that the contribution to BCCI for participating in the 75 and the 79 world cups would have left India in the red.
Where does the question of handouts arise ?
Where does the question of handouts arise ?
charlie007
Local Club Regular
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2017
- Runs
- 1,669
1. You're wrong again on the "several times over" - check the data instead of opinion for whichever WC you want to.
2. I have absolutely no problems in admitting when I'm wrong, below is one example from another thread.
Also, I don't make anything up - everything that I say comes from some source - web or AI - but I am not a man who argues on opinions, there's always some source. And if I'm wrong, I'll say I'm wrong - better to be a man educated with new information than remaining ignorant. If you see my other posts, there's hardly ever any jingoism or claims that I cannot back.
@Hit-Wicket
Most major Indian sports outlets (ESPNcricinfo, The Hindu, Times of India) have long-form features on the 1983 win that cite the BCCI's lack of funds for basic logistics.
Most major Indian sports outlets (ESPNcricinfo, The Hindu, Times of India) have long-form features on the 1983 win that cite the BCCI's lack of funds for basic logistics.
- Key Source: “The 1983 World Cup: The Victory that Changed Indian Cricket” * The Detail: In multiple interviews, N.K.P. Salve recounted how the board had to rely on a "pay-now, collect-later" system. The £15,000 participation fee was essentially a reimbursement. To get the team to London, the BCCI had to utilize its own domestic reserves (which were nearly empty) to secure tickets.
The £15,000 was the additional money that covered the Indian teams expenses for their travel and expenses for the tournament. The handout and prize money was paid on top of that.
We seem to have conflicting links. Can you post the link where it says that the travel fees were seperately reimbursed ?
1500 INR match fee in 1975 = £81.57 based on your own provided exchange rate table.
£81.57 x 15 touring members = £1224 per game
£1224 x 3 games = £3672
£15,000 covers £3672 several times over.
I don't see where we've got conflicting sources at all. You've got a source that says the Indian teams expenses were covered when they travelled. My source also says the visiting teams has their expenses covered for those events:
charlie007
Local Club Regular
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2017
- Runs
- 1,669
What are you on about?
A quick AI check:
How much did India get paid in the 1975 world cup?
What India earned in 1975
- India did not reach the semifinals (they were eliminated in the group stage)
- Prize money was only awarded to:
- Winner
- Runner-up
- Semi-finalists
Known prize distribution:
- Winner (West Indies): £4,000
- Runner-up (Australia): £2,000
- Semi-finalists: £1,000 each
Teams eliminated in the group stage (like India):- Received £0 in prize money
Did India receive anything at all?
Possibly—but not documented clearly:- Teams may have had:
- Travel costs covered
- Basic participation support (if any)
- However:
- No official records show a payment to India
- No participation fee structure existed
Final Answer
India’s official earnings from the 1975 World Cup = £0 (in prize money)
Important Context
This highlights how different early World Cups were:- No participation fees
- No broadcast revenue sharing
- Only top teams earned money
So financially, India’s participation was:- Prestige-driven, not revenue-driven
If you want, I can estimate:
- How much India indirectly spent vs earned
What was India's participation fee in the 1975 cricket world cup?
There was no participation fee paid to India in the 1975 Cricket World Cup. What India received (financially)
For the 1975 Prudential World Cup:
No participation fee existed- No guaranteed payment for teams
- No revenue-sharing model
Teams were not paid simply for participating What
The tournament only offered limited prize money:- Winner: £4,000
- Runner-up: £2,000
- Semi-finalists: £1,000
- Did not reach the semifinals
India received £0 in prize money
What about expenses?
- In many cases, basic expenses (travel, accommodation) were:
- Either partially covered by organizers
- Or supported by the national board (Board of Control for Cricket in India)
But:- These were cost reimbursements, NOT participation fees
- No documented fixed payment to India exists
Key takeaway
The 1975 World Cup was financially very different from today:- No broadcasting revenue
- No central ICC payouts
- No participation guarantees
It was essentially:
Final Answer
India’s participation fee in the 1975 World Cup = £0 (No such fee existed in the tournament structure)What are you on about?
A quick AI check:
How much did India get paid in the 1975 world cup?
- India did not reach the semifinals (they were eliminated in the group stage)
- Prize money was only awarded to:
- Winner
- Runner-up
- Semi-finalists
Known prize distribution:
- Winner (West Indies): £4,000
- Runner-up (Australia): £2,000
- Semi-finalists: £1,000 each
- Received £0 in prize money
Possibly—but not documented clearly:
- Teams may have had:
- Travel costs covered
- Basic participation support (if any)
- However:
- No official records show a payment to India
- No participation fee structure existed
This highlights how different early World Cups were:
- No participation fees
- No broadcast revenue sharing
- Only top teams earned money
- Prestige-driven, not revenue-driven
If you want, I can estimate:
- How much India indirectly spent vs earned
What was India's participation fee in the 1975 cricket world cup?
For the 1975 Prudential World Cup:
The tournament only offered limited prize money:
Since India:
- Winner: £4,000
- Runner-up: £2,000
- Semi-finalists: £1,000
- Did not reach the semifinals
- In many cases, basic expenses (travel, accommodation) were:
- Either partially covered by organizers
- Or supported by the national board (Board of Control for Cricket in India)
- These were cost reimbursements, NOT participation fees
- No documented fixed payment to India exists
The 1975 World Cup was financially very different from today:
- No broadcasting revenue
- No central ICC payouts
- No participation guarantees
Your complete reliance on AI here and lack of ability to think for yourself here is pretty astounding. It's already been reliably established in this thread that the excess revenue from the 1975 world cup was split between the participating nations and the ICC, yet you're still blindly believing this clearly incorrect AI babble...?
There was no handout. It's been confirmed that all the other countries got was participation fees + win bonus.
Send me one credible link where it says that the additional profits were shared between the other countries equally.
Page 6/21 - Excerpt
Acricket world cup of one-dayers soon followed and the first three cups,regardless of the financial aspects of the choice, were held in England –even though alternative venues like India and Australia would haveprovided much larger gates and purses.The members of the ICC were also conservative in their distribution ofbroadcasting rights to their product. Traditionally, state broadcastingcorporations, that paid a pittance in royalties, got to handle the broadcast ofthe game.
One link which corroborates this ?
"...10% passed straight to the TCCB, and 7.5% to each of the seven other participants; the rest went to the ICC."
charlie007
Local Club Regular
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2017
- Runs
- 1,669
Dude, share the posts and links instead of peddling crap. We all rely on news here from the internet, unless you were in the governing council of the world cup in 1975, so save me the tears. And AI knows a lot more than you ever did or ever will. I am compiling data and information and not "think for yourself" - which will amount to opinion instead of facts.
Pretty terrifying really if this is how a lot of people think (or show a lack of doing exactly that). You've had it proven to you that your AI slop is incorrect yet are still repeating the nonsense it's spit out for you as fact and claiming AI knows best. I sincerely hope you're not in education or a role that requires any kind of basic critical thinking.
charlie007
Local Club Regular
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2017
- Runs
- 1,669
I can think a lot more critically than you ever will be able to - I showed you the mirror through data and calculations on how wrong you were. And yes, AI might be wrong sometimes, but the way to argue against that is not to attack the person who's posting but the post itself that's wrong substantiating it with data. And you shared that link above that was a good thing to do and I appreciate that.
When you attack a person instead of the post, he'll respond in kind and will not be very charitable, right? Very honestly, I can bring you down very quickly and I can get nasty too, but that would be unlike me and I don't want to go there, so please remain on the topic and don't get personal.
Yes, you showed my calculation was incorrect for me, which I conceded and went back and corrected it to show that the handout would still cover the players match fees from the 1975 world cup multiple times.
The link I've provided above is literally the same article I've provided and referenced multiple times through this thread.
If despite that clear evidence you're still going to deny basic factual information because 'AI knows best' then yes I'm going to attack your critical thinking ability.
Flight and Accomodation were taken care of by the erstwhile ECB for the 1975 world cup only. There was no Participation Fee and only a profit surplus + prize money was given. This gives India 15000 GBP for participating in that world cup.
10% cut to England , 7.5% to each of the countries and then 45% back to England ( The ICC was more or less an extension of the English Board by then). There were no indications that the money went elsewhere.
charlie007
Local Club Regular
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2017
- Runs
- 1,669
All you have done is to retract your wild 40 times over claim drastically.
Yes, I retracted my 40 times claim and reduce it to several times instead. The fact you're biggest criticism is the fact I was willing to concede I made a mistake and corrected it says volumes.
charlie007
Local Club Regular
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2017
- Runs
- 1,669
So based on those numbers, the better you played and won, the more loss you are going to be in, correct?
You've quite literally provided a source about for India getting £15,000 to cover expenses for the 1983 world cup.
Except that's not how it worked, the remaining 37.5% was split between non-participating nations with the remainder out towards the operating costs of the next tournament.
In what way? No one was making a loss.
- 79 world cup
- Participation Fee (Grant): £15,000 to £20,000 (Approx. ₹3 Lakhs). This was the standard amount given to Full Members to cover airfare and stay.
- Surplus Share: £15,000 (Approx. ₹2.7 Lakhs). This was India's 7.5% share of the tournament’s net profit.
- Prize Money: Nil (India failed to win a single group match; the winner's pot was £10,000).
- Total for BCCI: ~£35,000.
- 83 world cup
- Participation Fee (Grant): £20,000 (Approx. ₹3.5 Lakhs). This was the reimbursement for travel and logistics.
- Surplus Share: ~£55,000 (Approx. ₹9 Lakhs). This was India's share of the reported £1M+ surplus.
- Prize Money: £20,000 (Approx. ₹3.2 Lakhs). This was the winner's check for defeating West Indies in the final.
- Total for BCCI: ~£95,000 (Approx. ₹15–16 Lakhs at 1983 exchange rates).
All while ECB continued to take a 10% share and then a further 45% share.
Jeez, you're going down the blind faith in AI route as well now are you? The 7.5% share remained through 1979 and 1983 which proves the numbers in your AI slop are incorrect. The suggestion the ECB had any kind of further 45% share also isn't just more nonsense you've made it, it's also more nonsense where you're repeating your incorrect basics maths despite me already correcting it for you. Did you ask AI to do that for you too?
The further 45% share after the 83 world cup never reached the other associations. This was only ever a cynical ploy by the ECB to ensure that they continue bribing the associations to ensure that the world cup remained with them. By the time of the 87 world cup, BCCI and PCB offered double what ECB promised and the associations swung to their side.
Similar threads
