India, Australia, England attempt to take control of Cricket

[Muloghonto]

"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.

There were a few grounds in India that were 'decomissioned' from International/FC matches by the BCCI ( eg:Brabourne stadium in Mumbai, a stadium in Delhi- not FSK, the other one)which the ICL tried to play on, resulting in the lawsuit. As it stands now, virtually every single stadium that hosts any professional cricket matches- domestic or international- is BCCI private property.
Also, the players are BCCI contracted, this is why Ambati Rayudu had to quit the ICL to regain eligibility to play for Andhra/Hyderabad.

What people are talking about in terms of 'Indian market shares', is the % of revenue generated by selling the right to broadcast cricket in India by the networks to the total income of revenue in cricket.

 

[Muloghonto]

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.

Politics at the real level, not sporting level. India vs Pakistan in sports is like USA vs USSR in sports in the good old cold war days. There is too much uncertainty & unreiability due to government foreign policies for the sporting teams to bother.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

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.

Yes but £140m is still £140m. It's no pocket change when the ICC's revenue is about £1500m.

And I doubt it was that much of a concern in the politics aspect, since bilateral trade between the two was still going on and increased. Also, Pakistani singers and actors were being taken on by the Indian industry. All I am saying is that it's surprising to see the BCCI go against making money.

 

[silentstriker]

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%.

I guess it depends what you mean. Series hosted by India + IPL and Indian domestic cricket don't generate 80%. And BCCI doesn't own the TV networks. But when India tour the other country, that series rights, when sold back to Indian companies, is what makes up a huge percentage of that boards' incomes. So if India chooses to go to (for example) England instead of SL (which is more profitable for the BCCI itself), SL board can go bankrupt because SL was relying on the money from that sale back to the Indian market.

 

[silentstriker]

Yes but £140m is still £140m. It's no pocket change when the ICC's revenue is about £1500m.

But the BCCI aren't losing that money. If they did lose that money, then the BCCI would have a lot more skin in the game and the other countries would have more leverage. It's not like the BCCI are sitting at home in the meantime. If they tour England, whatever the BCCI would have made from the Pakistan tour, they still make that, and more. It's only the Pakistan board that loses money.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Selling tv rights in India is 80% of cricket's revenue.

Yes, this I can believe. How much of the tv rights revenue in India is for the IPL and how much is for bilateral international series that the BCCI could potentially lose? And I take your point that they could expand the IPL and whilst they probably want to do this, I doubt they'll want to throw away all the cash from bilateral series either.

What I don't understand is the 5 month IPL window you're proposing. That either ****s prodigiously on the Australia international window or on the English international window - both seemingly willing partners in this proposal and neither of whom would want to see their international windows significantly reduced. Which makes me think that the BCCI are actually just looking for a rigid IPL window where all players from England and Australia are available - i.e. not significantly longer than the current unsecured window.

The rest of your post is just conjecture and assumes that the BCCI aren't trying to negotiate.

 

[Muloghonto]

Yes but £140m is still £140m. It's no pocket change when the ICC's revenue is about £1500m.

And I doubt it was that much of a concern in the politics aspect, since bilateral trade between the two was still going on and increased. Also, Pakistani singers and actors were being taken on by the Indian industry. All I am saying is that it's surprising to see the BCCI go against making money.

Bilateral trade got curtailed severely with Pakistan on several instances in India. Cricket suffers because Indian politicans have gone on a famous rant of 'while they send terrorists to blow up Mumbai and our Parliament, we are playing cricket with them'. They know that its cricket with India that is the single biggest money earner for the state of Pakistan involving India. They can't be arsed about an individual singer or actor here and there or a guy trying to sell cabbage in Paksitan from India. But they are arsed about putting tens of millions in PCB coffers.
BCCI is simply not foolish enough to mess with what is a hot-button topic in Indian politics ( cricket with Pakistan).

 

[Blocky]

Why don't South Africa fund a team of lawyers to go after BCCI on extortion charges? I mean the recent "We will pull out of all ICC events if you don't back our proposal" has all the hallmarks of an extortion case, involving a large stake of money and political pressure in order for people to make a decision that they don't want to.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Yes, this I can believe. How much of the tv rights revenue in India is for the IPL and how much is for bilateral international series that the BCCI could potentially lose? And I take your point that they could expand the IPL and whilst they probably want to do this, I doubt they'll want to throw away all the cash from bilateral series either.

What I don't understand is the 5 month IPL window you're proposing. That either ****s prodigiously on the Australia international window or on the English international window - both seemingly willing partners in this proposal and neither of whom would want to see their international windows significantly reduced. Which makes me think that the BCCI are actually just looking for a rigid IPL window where all players from England and Australia are available - i.e. not significantly longer than the current unsecured window.

The rest of your post is just conjecture and assumes that the BCCI aren't trying to negotiate.

He's talking about a scenario where BCCI was kicked out of the ICC and hosted 5 months of IPL. WHy would they then care for England or Aus. Their market would generate huge amounts of money for them which they would keep. Or in the scenario where BCCI, ECB and CA go alone together. Why would the ECB and CA care about IPL messing up their window when the IPL money can be distributed equally between the 2. No one cares about cricket over money.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

He's talking about a scenario where BCCI was kicked out of the ICC and hosted 5 months of IPL. WHy would they then care for England or Aus. Their market would generate huge amounts of money for them which they would keep. Or in the scenario where BCCI, ECB and CA go alone together. Why would the ECB and CA care about IPL messing up their window when the IPL money can be distributed equally between the 2. No one cares about cricket over money.

Ah, that old chestnut again. I missed the point, and for that I can only apologise.

 

[Bahnz]

Nah disagree with that. There's nothing illegal with the BCCI pulling out of ICC tournaments. If they feel that they'll make more money by pulling out of ICC events than by continuing with the status quo, then they're quite entitled to negotiate on that basis.

 

[Blocky]

He's talking about a scenario where BCCI was kicked out of the ICC and hosted 5 months of IPL. WHy would they then care for England or Aus. Their market would generate huge amounts of money for them which they would keep. Or in the scenario where BCCI, ECB and CA go alone together. Why would the ECB and CA care about IPL messing up their window when the IPL money can be distributed equally between the 2. No one cares about cricket over money.

Players will. Even guys like Taylor and McCullum from NZ who earn more in six weeks with the IPL than they do the entire international season for NZ have expressed that they put test cricket over all other forms. Hard to see players like Michael Clarke (who turned down IPL initially to work on his test cricket) or Mitchell Johnson turn against the idea of their regular at home series of tests. Players have more control than any administrator, go back to the Kerry Packer years, it was player power that orchestrated all of that.

 

[Muloghonto]

Yes, this I can believe. How much of the tv rights revenue in India is for the IPL and how much is for bilateral international series that the BCCI could potentially lose? And I take your point that they could expand the IPL and whilst they probably want to do this, I doubt they'll want to throw away all the cash from bilateral series either.

What I don't understand is the 5 month IPL window you're proposing. That either ****s prodigiously on the Australia international window or on the English international window - both seemingly willing partners in this proposal and neither of whom would want to see their international windows significantly reduced. Which makes me think that the BCCI are actually just looking for a rigid IPL window where all players from England and Australia are available - i.e. not significantly longer than the current unsecured window.

The rest of your post is just conjecture and assumes that the BCCI aren't trying to negotiate.

IPL does not count. It is BCCI personal property, all proceeds of the IPL goes to BCCI only. if you wish to include IPL numbers for total cricket pie, it pushes Indian contribution to cricket finances well over 85%, close to 90%.
But i am discounting it, because the income from IPL does not exist for anyone outside of BCCI and the players participating.

I don't see the incentive of the cash from bilateral series being a carrot vs the IPL. The IPL generates more money per hour of broadcast than anything in cricket, except knockout stages of the world cups. Bilateral revenue generated is lower and has to be shared. So when you replace bilateral series with more IPL, BCCI makes far more money.


BCCI doesnt care much for impinging on the English or Aussie window for expanded IPL. Reason being, if IPL teams are willing to pay 1 million dollars to a top player for 5 weeks of cricket, they will pay 4 to 5 million dollars for top rate- at the very least- for a 20 week window. At that scale of money, something that will take a grade-I ECB or CA contracted player to earn over 7 to 10 years, they will poach every single player who is IPL capable.

Regardless, a 5 month IPL window starting from February and ending in June does not impinge much on the English or the Aussie calendar. England's cricket season is from April to early October, Aussie cricket season is from October to March/early April. A 5 month IPL window from Feb to June snips 30-40% of the English calendar and 15-20% of the Aussie calendar. Seems like a compromise they might as well make or lose their top players to the kind of money they will earn over one season as they would barely earn over their entire career!

Besides, this instant 5 month expansion of IPL is what applies in a scenario where BCCI gets booted out of ICC or as some would say, 'call BCCI's bluff'. It obviously won't get there for a while if this draft proposal goes through but if BCCI gets marginalized in the international calendar and is forced to subsist only on IPL revenue, you can bet your bottom dollar they are going to expand the heck out of the IPL for their most optimal season window.

 

[Гурин]

There were a few grounds in India that were 'decomissioned' from International/FC matches by the BCCI ( eg:Brabourne stadium in Mumbai, a stadium in Delhi- not FSK, the other one)which the ICL tried to play on, resulting in the lawsuit. As it stands now, virtually every single stadium that hosts any professional cricket matches- domestic or international- is BCCI private property.
Also, the players are BCCI contracted, this is why Ambati Rayudu had to quit the ICL to regain eligibility to play for Andhra/Hyderabad.

What people are talking about in terms of 'Indian market shares', is the % of revenue generated by selling the right to broadcast cricket in India by the networks to the total income of revenue in cricket.

I see. Interesting to know that there are no public stadiums in India (unless there are but have some kind of a lease contract to BCCI). Still, there could be ways to work around that (drop-in pitches); on the other side I won't speculate about what would all the players do by the end of their BCCI contracts. Human choices are never absolutely predictable, expecially at macro-level.

About those revenues, I'd still like to go a step further and take a look at the hard numbers of average viewers which are generating those prices paid by the broadcasters; given that rights are often sold in bundle, it's difficult that looking at $$$ spent alone will tell us much about fans' preferences.

I'd do this research myself If I wasnt stuck with a bloody 2kb/s connection (damn rechargeable bandwith)

 

[Blocky]

Nah disagree with that. There's nothing illegal with the BCCI pulling out of ICC tournaments. If they feel that they'll make more money by pulling out of ICC events than be continuing with the status quo, then they're quite entitled to negotiate on that basis.

There is nothing illegal about the BCCI pulling out of an ICC tournament, unless they're imposing a condition on partners within the ICC who are supposed to have the same voting rights as they have by imposing huge penalties on them through their lack of participation. It's no different to bribery or extortion in my view. "Do what we say, or we'll see to it that you have huge financial damage if you don't"

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Bilateral trade got curtailed severely with Pakistan on several instances in India. Cricket suffers because Indian politicans have gone on a famous rant of 'while they send terrorists to blow up Mumbai and our Parliament, we are playing cricket with them'. They know that its cricket with India that is the single biggest money earner for the state of Pakistan involving India. They can't be arsed about an individual singer or actor here and there or a guy trying to sell cabbage in Paksitan from India. But they are arsed about putting tens of millions in PCB coffers.
BCCI is simply not foolish enough to mess with what is a hot-button topic in Indian politics ( cricket with Pakistan).

Trade actually increased:

You can check the figures from the Indian Department of Commerce (and for subsequent years):

http://commerce.nic.in/ftpa/

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Ah, that old chestnut again. I missed the point, and for that I can only apologise.

No, I am on your side. I don't think cricket should be ruined thanks to a few greedy people. But I guess I am not in that position so don't know what I'd do.

 

[Muloghonto]

Why don't South Africa fund a team of lawyers to go after BCCI on extortion charges? I mean the recent "We will pull out of all ICC events if you don't back our proposal" has all the hallmarks of an extortion case, involving a large stake of money and political pressure in order for people to make a decision that they don't want to.

The problem is to 'fund' such a team. Extortion cases are extremely hard to prove in a court of law unless it involves direct physical threats. Extortion against corportations are extremely hard to prove- even class action lawsuits of corporate extortions against civillians in USA (such as corporations dicking over the city council over protests due to their existing factory) takes years to process. And this being the US. In India, where the wheels of the law turn twice as slow, it will take over a decade. Footing the bill till a verdict is what is the major snag in that proposal. You cannot win a court case if you cannot continue to pay your lawyers.
So unless you are 100% or near-100% sure of winning, its not a good idea. In any extortion case- even individual person to person, where direct threats to a person have not been made, its barely 50-50. In corporate vs corporate, its far less than that.

 

[Bahnz]

Yeah, but their partners aren't entitled to the revenues that they are ensured by India's participation at the World Cup and other major events. I'm not saying that it isn't a dick move on behalf of the BCCI but I don't see it as anything other than legitimate bargaining. The problem lies in the fact that none of the other members really have anything to bargain with, but that doesn't make the situation illegal.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

IPL does not count. It is BCCI personal property, all proceeds of the IPL goes to BCCI only. if you wish to include IPL numbers for total cricket pie, it pushes Indian contribution to cricket finances well over 85%, close to 90%.
But i am discounting it, because the income from IPL does not exist for anyone outside of BCCI and the players participating.

I don't see the incentive of the cash from bilateral series being a carrot vs the IPL. The IPL generates more money per hour of broadcast than anything in cricket, except knockout stages of the world cups. Bilateral revenue generated is lower and has to be shared. So when you replace bilateral series with more IPL, BCCI makes far more money.


BCCI doesnt care much for impinging on the English or Aussie window for expanded IPL. Reason being, if IPL teams are willing to pay 1 million dollars to a top player for 5 weeks of cricket, they will pay 4 to 5 million dollars for top rate- at the very least- for a 20 week window. At that scale of money, something that will take a grade-I ECB or CA contracted player to earn over 7 to 10 years, they will poach every single player who is IPL capable.

Regardless, a 5 month IPL window starting from February and ending in June does not impinge much on the English or the Aussie calendar. England's cricket season is from April to early October, Aussie cricket season is from October to March/early April. A 5 month IPL window from Feb to June snips 30-40% of the English calendar and 15-20% of the Aussie calendar. Seems like a compromise they might as well make or lose their top players to the kind of money they will earn over one season as they would barely earn over their entire career!

Besides, this instant 5 month expansion of IPL is what applies in a scenario where BCCI gets booted out of ICC or as some would say, 'call BCCI's bluff'. It obviously won't get there for a while if this draft proposal goes through but if BCCI gets marginalized in the international calendar and is forced to subsist only on IPL revenue, you can bet your bottom dollar they are going to expand the heck out of the IPL for their most optimal season window.

But bilateral series still brings in $$$, and if money is the be-all-and-end-all then unless the IPL runs 24/7 all year round, then bilateral series top up the coffers on top of the IPL, so it still wouldn't make much sense for the BCCI to be unwilling to negotiate on this regard from a financial point of view. And if you think England would be willing to sacrifice 30-40% of their earning window, then I disagree. I expect they've already come to some willing compromise behind the scenes as to how things might play out, and I doubt 30-40% of England's season was on the chopping block. But that's just my speculation.

EDIT: And, I hasten to add, if 4-5Million per season was on offer for an IPL contract, I suspect we are likely to see things pan out as they have somewhat in rugby. Players bugger off for a season to the IPL, make their $5m and then head back to their home tournament safe in the knowledge their finances are safe in the event of injury or crises, but returning to the game they prefer. We see this relatively frequently with Kiwi rugby players heading to Europe to earn megabucks and then return to NZ for World Cup series or once they've made enough coin. Otherwise, most NZ rugby players stay in NZ despite the much lower wages and head overseas when they're older and their career is on the wane.