India, Australia, England attempt to take control of Cricket

[Bahnz]

The primary concern of every board- particularly the smaller boards- is furthering the game in their nation and survival. Zimbabwe isnt going to complain about never ever playing India if BCCI doubles the revenue for Zimbabwe by creating an IPL window (and the trickle down effect of massively more funds to everyone). What they are going to care about, is that not playing India ever again in Tests equates to them not being broke, them being able to pay their players and not go extinct. That matters- or atleast, should matter- more to the Zimbabwe board than being able to play Test cricket vs other teams, 'improve their cricketers via international exposure' but not being able to pay them anything and risk losing a product you've developed (players).

I actually think the primary concern of a number of people at the head of Zimbabwe Cricket is funnelling as much revenue into their own bank accounts as they possibly can without being had up for embezzlement (which in a failed state like Zimbabwe is probably heaps). In that sense I think some of the proposals for greater checks and balances on the distribution of ICC revenues is a good thing.

 

[Bahnz]

80% of the total revenue generated in cricket is from Indian cricket rights?

Can you clarify exactly what you mean by that? 80% of the revenue is generated from BCCI 'owned' events? Or is it that 80% of revenue is generated from Indian networks?

Can you also give a source for this 80% claim? I know it must be high, but that seems ridiculously high given how much money is generated from Ashes series and from TV rights in England and Australia, and presumably from Pakistan too.

It's the number that everyone is bandying about atm. I know that the TV rights for Pakistan's last cricket cycle were sold for about $140m of which $90m were related to series against India - so that on it's own would suggest a figure of at least 70% (and given how little cricket Pakistan has played against India in the last 5 years, that's probably an underestimate of the true value).

 

[Muloghonto]

I actually think the primary concern of a number of people at the head of Zimbabwe Cricket is funnelling as much revenue into their own bank accounts as they possibly can without being had up for embezzlement (which in a failed state like Zimbabwe is probably heaps). In that sense I think some of the proposals for greater checks and balances on the distribution of ICC revenues is a good thing.

How to embezzle money without getting caught is the primary concern on 99.99% executives. Don't kid yourself that the Aussies or the English are more honest than the Zimboks or the Indians, they are less likely to embezzle because their legal system is far more efficient at detecting & punishing embezzlers than the India or the Zimbabwean system is.
So what you said is true, but true for all.

 

[Prince EWS]

Zimbabwe gets to visit India in this triangular scenario. Remember those ODI tours in India back in the 90s, where 2 other teams would show up, play 2 ODIs vs each other, top two play a final ?
That setup earns Zimbabwe more money than 10 tests hosted by Zimbabwe in a calendar year.

As far as I'm aware, the only games that actually earn money for Zimbabwe are home games against India - be they Tests or ODIs or whatever - as they can sell the TV rights to Indian broadcasters. All other home games and all away games in general run at a loss.

 

[Muloghonto]

80% of the total revenue generated in cricket is from Indian cricket rights?

Can you clarify exactly what you mean by that? 80% of the revenue is generated from BCCI 'owned' events? Or is it that 80% of revenue is generated from Indian networks?

Can you also give a source for this 80% claim? I know it must be high, but that seems ridiculously high given how much money is generated from Ashes series and from TV rights in England and Australia, and presumably from Pakistan too.

80% of cricketing revenue is generated based on television rights for Indian cricket. 80% is not ridiculously high, given that there is far greater viewership of the Ranji Finals than the Ashes.
What do you not get about the simple concept that a market with 1.2 billion potential customers following the sport as first choice generates far more tv revenue than a market with 100 million potential customers following cricket as #2 or #3 choice sport to watch ??

 

[Muloghonto]

ICC should call BCCI's bluff. No way is the Indian public going to be happy with India not taking part in WCs.

It all depends on the reason BCCI picks on. Regardless of whether the BCCI is bluffing or not, the potential of India not playing in the world cup is enough to massively deflate the value of the world cup in the network's eyes. BCCI doesnt have to pull out of the worldcup to make the ICC bleed money. They simply have to threaten and not confirm their participation till the 11th hour. Even doing that might push the entire world cup- ICC's top money earner- into the red.

 

[Muloghonto]

As far as I'm aware, the only games that actually earn money for Zimbabwe are home games against India - be they Tests or ODIs or whatever - as they can sell the TV rights to Indian broadcasters. All other home games and all away games in general run at a loss.

zimbabwe does get paid for participating in events outside of zimbabwe due to the revenue sharing plan.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

80% of cricketing revenue is generated based on television rights for Indian cricket. 80% is not ridiculously high, given that there is far greater viewership of the Ranji Finals than the Ashes.
What do you not get about the simple concept that a market with 1.2 billion potential customers following the sport as first choice generates far more tv revenue than a market with 100 million potential customers following cricket as #2 or #3 choice sport to watch ??

I'm trying to clarify whether this is in relation to BCCI events or in relation to sales to the Indian market.

If the 80% if in relation to BCCI events, then the ICC is in a corner.

If the 80% if in relation to any and all worldwide cricket coverage being sold to Indian television networks then that's a big difference. Because, yes 1.2bn people who will devour any cricket coverage doesn't mean that is the BCCI's product to sell and thus the extent of the problem isn't as great.

For example, in Bahnz's post about the Pakistani cricket rights being sold for $140m and $90m being for the Indian Market, that's 70% to the Indian market but 0% for the BCCI.

 

[Muloghonto]

I'm trying to clarify whether this is in relation to BCCI events or in relation to sales to the Indian market.

If the 80% if in relation to BCCI events, then the ICC is in a corner.

If the 80% if in relation to any and all worldwide cricket coverage being sold to Indian television networks then that's a big difference. Because, yes 1.2bn people who will devour any cricket coverage doesn't mean that is the BCCI's product to sell and thus the extent of the problem isn't as great.

For example, in Bahnz's post about the Pakistani cricket rights being sold for $140m and $90m being for the Indian Market, that's 70% to the Indian market but 0% for the BCCI.

Indian players are contracted to BCCI, IPL is a BCCI owned event (meaning, if BCCI bars you, you are auto-barred from IPL) and every single state or international level cricket venue in India is a BCCI private property.
So whether the revenue is generated due to BCCI events or due to the Indian market, the result is the same. Unless the ICC is willing to tie itself up in court for the next decade and dedicate 2-4 billion dollars to build new venues in India, BCCI equals the Indian market. Period.
You cannot play cricket in India without BCCI consent, since BCCI owns the cricket grounds. So now what ?

And the big fail of the whole 'get rid of BCCI and get a new entity in town' idea assumes that the new guys are going to be perfectly happy contributing 80% of the revenue and getting 4% of it in return.
How on earth is that not a legitimate gripe of BCCI or any businessman ( to generate 80% of the income and take home 4% of it) is something that is yet to be explained.
At the very least, they should get a veto or two votes or something similar to give up so much of the financial pie. But as it stands right now, BCCI is the money-earning parent while the rest of cricket world are the housewife and children. You either give the money-earner the power or let them do what they wish with the money they earn or they walk out. Its perfectly legitimate in my opinion for the BCCI to resent the free ride it gives to the other boards with zero gain-materially or in terms of policy.

 

[Furball]

All the fans of countries who aren't England, Australia or India now know how us associate fans feel about the World Cup.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Indian players are contracted to BCCI, IPL is a BCCI owned event (meaning, if BCCI bars you, you are auto-barred from IPL) and every single state or international level cricket venue in India is a BCCI private property.
So whether the revenue is generated due to BCCI events or due to the Indian market, the result is the same. Unless the ICC is willing to tie itself up in court for the next decade and dedicate 2-4 billion dollars to build new venues in India, BCCI equals the Indian market. Period.
You cannot play cricket in India without BCCI consent, since BCCI owns the cricket grounds. So now what ?

And the big fail of the whole 'get rid of BCCI and get a new entity in town' idea assumes that the new guys are going to be perfectly happy contributing 80% of the revenue and getting 4% of it in return.
How on earth is that not a legitimate gripe of BCCI or any businessman ( to generate 80% of the income and take home 4% of it) is something that is yet to be explained.
At the very least, they should get a veto or two votes or something similar to give up so much of the financial pie. But as it stands right now, BCCI is the money-earning parent while the rest of cricket world are the housewife and children. You either give the money-earner the power or let them do what they wish with the money they earn or they walk out. Its perfectly legitimate in my opinion for the BCCI to resent the free ride it gives to the other boards with zero gain-materially or in terms of policy.

Does the BCCI own the television networks in India, because surely Pakistan can sell their product to the Indian networks regardless of what the BCCI is doing or not doing. Or are you saying that the television rights of international series hosted by India + IPL + Indian domestic cricket are 80% of the revenue generated in the world? I'm legitimately confused here. Is it the Indian Market which accounts for 80% of worldwide cricket revenue or is it BCCI owned product which accounts for 80% of the revenue? Because if it is the former rather than the latter, then the BCCI shouldn't have as much to complain about - though I don't doubt that the BCCI owned product also generates a vastly more significant stake than 4%.

 

[silentstriker]

80% of the total revenue generated in cricket is from Indian cricket rights?

Can you clarify exactly what you mean by that? 80% of the revenue is generated from BCCI 'owned' events? Or is it that 80% of revenue is generated from Indian networks?

Can you also give a source for this 80% claim? I know it must be high, but that seems ridiculously high given how much money is generated from Ashes series and from TV rights in England and Australia, and presumably from Pakistan too.

I'm trying to clarify whether this is in relation to BCCI events or in relation to sales to the Indian market.

If the 80% if in relation to BCCI events, then the ICC is in a corner.

If the 80% if in relation to any and all worldwide cricket coverage being sold to Indian television networks then that's a big difference. Because, yes 1.2bn people who will devour any cricket coverage doesn't mean that is the BCCI's product to sell and thus the extent of the problem isn't as great.

For example, in Bahnz's post about the Pakistani cricket rights being sold for $140m and $90m being for the Indian Market, that's 70% to the Indian market but 0% for the BCCI.

No, that's 70% for the BCCI because the $90m was for the series against India. If the BCCI didn't play a series against Pakistan, most of that $90m would disappear. The ratings of neutral Test matches aren't good. The 80% number was also in this very draft proposal.

 

[Furball]

It's not going to happen though, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, it's becoming clear that CA and the ECB are just as self-interested as the BCCI; they're more interested in forming a triumvirate with the BCCI as it furthers their own interests best. Secondly, all the boards are far too spineless in general to try such a thing anyway.

Every board is self-interested; why do you think India got invited for a tri-series against the West Indies and Sri Lanka last summer when we should have been watching a Test series between the latter two?

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

No, that's 70% for the BCCI because the $90m was for the series against India. If the BCCI didn't play a series against Pakistan, that $90m would disappear. The ratings of neutral Test matches aren't good.

But for away series, the BCCI doesn't own the rights but the Indian networks would still pay megabucks, surely?

A similar series held in Sharjah would sell for a similar value, but owned by the PCB instead of the BCCI and then the 70% (or slightly less) wouldn't be BCCI owned?

 

[silentstriker]

But for away series, the BCCI doesn't own the rights but the Indian networks would still pay megabucks, surely?

A similar series held in Sharjah would sell for a similar value, but owned by the PCB instead of the BCCI and then the 70% (or slightly less) wouldn't be BCCI owned?

BCCI doesn't own the rights but the money that is generated comes from the fact that it's the Indian team that's touring them. If BCCI don't tour, there is no money.

Ten Sports’ broadcast rights deal with PCB was valued at $140 million. However, by the end of the rights cycle, PCB had to take a hit of almost $80 million since the designated India tour did not happen during the five-year rights cycle due to deterioration of relationships between the two countries. The PCB broadcast rights is not considered lucrative since it does not have the India series. Among the Indian broadcasters, Ten Sports is aggressively vying for the rights with or without India tour since it has a full-fledged presence in Pakistan with its sports channels downlinking in the country.

Read more at: PCB to end interim arrangement, sell 5-year TV rights in mid-2014 | TelevisionPost.com | TelevisionPost.com

 

[Гурин]

"and every single state or international level cricket venue in India is a BCCI private property"

That's interesting. So where were ICL games played? Didn't the ICL won a trial against BCCI because BCCI was booking the stadiums to prevent their games, or I'm possibly not remembering it right? Because, if they were booking those stadiums, clearly not every venue is in the hands of BCCI.


Anyway I'm not interested in conjectures, but it would be nice to know about what exactly is everybody on about when talking about 'indian market shares'.

What are the average viewers for an IPL game in India (I'm talking viewers, not percentages)? And how they compare with tests-odis-t20s involving (or not) India? Also, how they compare with average viewers of games in other countries?

If there are public available numbers, it would be nice to see them. I seem to remember than an entire edition of the IPL was totalling in the hundred(s) of millions, but that's it.

 

[Muloghonto]

Does the BCCI own the television networks in India, because surely Pakistan can sell their product to the Indian networks regardless of what the BCCI is doing or not doing. Or are you saying that the television rights of international series hosted by India + IPL + Indian domestic cricket are 80% of the revenue generated in the world? I'm legitimately confused here. Is it the Indian Market which accounts for 80% of worldwide cricket revenue or is it BCCI owned product which accounts for 80% of the revenue? Because if it is the former rather than the latter, then the BCCI shouldn't have as much to complain about - though I don't doubt that the BCCI owned product also generates a vastly more significant stake than 4%.

Selling tv rights in India is 80% of cricket's revenue. You can sell Pak vs England (for eg) to Indian networks without the BCCI having any say but you really think that you would be able to sell any event for even half the money generated by Indian team to Indian audience ?
Bear in mind that network rights are usually a package deal. Network A or B will pay X amount of money for broadcast rights to the Indian public for Y amount of years.
This inherently assumes that it is selling Indian cricket to Indian fans to generate the biggest slice of the pie.
How on earth are you going to make any money selling cricket to Indian audience if the Indian team is not going to be on the cards ever ?

To give you an idea, what happens if BCCI gets booted from the ICC and BCCI deciedes to expand the IPL to a 5 month a year schedule involving 20 teams ? If teams are willing to pay 1-1.5 million dollars for the top rated 20-20 players for 5 weeks of cricket, they will pay upwards of 5 million for the top players on a 5 month schedule.
So what happens to the network rights when IPL is nearly 50% of the calendar and the rights of those series which conflict with the IPL schedule ?? Zero money for those games.
I hope you realize that the most watched test series not involving India is, indisputably, the Ashes. And if you think that you can sell the Ashes to the networks in India while there is IPL going on, you are living in fantasy land. Maybe they will pay some pocket change to carry the Ashes for the 2am to 9am window.

BCCI equals Indian cricket, simply because without BCCI consent, Indian players do not get to participate in cricket and most importantly, you cannot hold cricket matches in India without BCCI consent, since the grounds are BCCI private property.

 

[silentstriker]

Other sources:

The broadcasting deal is one of the major sources of income for the PCB. The previous TV deal, worth approximately USD 140 million suffered a hefty loss of USD 80 million following the cancelation of two bilateral series against India.

Pakistan Cricket News: PCB strikes up short-term TV-rights deals | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Agent Nationaux]

I'm surprised that the BCCI has put off playing Pakistan for so long despite the fact that a series with them generates so much money. It goes against their style.

 

[silentstriker]

I'm surprised that the BCCI has put off playing Pakistan for so long despite the fact that a series with them generates so much money. It goes against their style.

Aus and Eng generate more money I believe. Due to the GDP and demographics, each viewer in Australia or England is 'worth' a lot more to advertisers than a viewer in the subcontinent. Plus, quite a bit of that is politics.