Very interesting comments from all. I have a few to add as well, not that they should be taken to be well-informed since I have not been following this development at all:
1) The proposal makes 3 permanent members who cannot be "relegated", for lack of a better word. Relegates Bangadesh and Zimbabwe, and curtails their opportunities against the top ranked teams.
It also redistributes revenue towards the Big 3 boards. And assigns a maximum of 21.9% of the revenue to BCCI (according to cricinfo) (BUT future estimates will be flexible and that presents speculation about a future tussle given the power to be assigned to the Big 3). This is how distribution will be done. Current revenue is the first column, 1564 million
| ICC revenue | 1500 | 2000 | 2250 | 2500 | 2750 | 3000 | 3250 | 3500 |
| BCCI (Dist cost %) | 4.2 | 17.4 | 19.7 | 20.3 | 20.7 | 21.9 | 21.9 | 21.9 |
| ECB (Dist cost %) | 0.9 | 3.8 | 4.3 | 4.4 | 4.5 | 4.7 | 4.8 | 4.8 |
| CA (Dist cost %) | 0.6 | 2.3 | 2.6 | 2.7 | 2.8 | 2.9 | 2.9 | 2.9 |
| Full Member surplus payment | 52.5 | 55.5 | 59.625 | 63 | 70.5 | 73.35 | 78.98 | 85.13 |
| BCCI Dist cost | 63 | 348 | 443.25 | 507.5 | 569.25 | 657 | 711.75 | 766.5 |
| ECB Dist cost | 13.5 | 76 | 96.75 | 110 | 123.75 | 141 | 156 | 168 |
| CA Dist cost | 9 | 46 | 58.5 | 67.5 | 77 | 87 | 94.25 | 101.5 |
| Distribution cost (big three) | 85.5 | 470 | 598.5 | 685 | 770 | 885 | 962 | 1036 |
| % additional revenue captured | | 108 | 87 | 73 | 65 | 62 | 57 | 54 |
Figures in millions
Makes room for Bilateral Agreements instead of FTP, with India trying to use its lesser known stadiums for test cricket, in a two-fold attempt, I am guessing, to deepen the roots of the game in India and to cut costs for test cricket which is not popular in India. One stone, two birds.
Also, implied guarantees on touring other countries have been made by the Big 3.
Importantly, creation of a proposed Executive Committee (ExCo) - a security-council style group with three permanent members, the BCCI, Cricket Australia and the ECB. "It will report to the ICC board, which will have the right to approve or reject its recommendations." The draft states that the ExCo will act as a "sole recommendation committee … on all constitutional, personnel, integrity, ethics, development and nominations matters".
2) It is true that most Indian cricket fans (I would guess around 97%) would not be nearly interested in watching other countries play test matches. However, I do think, if adequately advertised, a significant number (maybe around 20% or even more) can be persuaded to watch T20s and ODIs for Aus vs Eng vs SA vs Pak. That is anyway a large loss of the exchequer for all countries, as BCCI holds the cards on what the Indian fan really looks for, i.e. the Indian players. I know it sounds a bit hypocritical to say this even as I claim to be an international fan, but I know I am not most Indian cricket fans. Most of my good friends would stop watching, not all, but most. And these are the educated, well-off lot.
3) However, the draft proposal and the big 3 are adamant on one thing, namely -
redistribution of the ICC central revenue being proportionate to the income generated through each member board. This amounts to a claim that the Boards of the respective countries are responsible for the revenue generated, which is, however you may put it, an outright false claim. The revenue comes through the fans, who are not the property of the BCCI. The broadcasting deals and contracts, however, (the lion's share of the revenue, as pointed out by others) are legally controlled by the BCCI, but in the capacity of fiduciary office-bearers representing the people of India. So, the question that arises now is: Is such a move beneficial for Indian cricket in the long run? I would like to hear some views on this.
4) Regarding IPL saturation - I see IPL becoming less important in terms of fervor, especially since the players are rotated between teams far too often to develop a proper long term fan following. Having said that, it will become very profitable in the years to come, as Mulog points out, for the same reasons he points out. As such, players from other countries, especially the poorer boards like WI, NZ, SL etc, will always be keen to flock to the IPL even at the expense of their international careers. Not the best players, but the ones required to maintain a healthy domestic structure in said countries. BCCI will remain a highly profitable body despite their actions and that is not clearly true for the others.
5) What can be done to thwart this Big 3 attempt at playing Big Brother?
i. The job falls to SA, Pak, WI, SL, since Bangladesh and NZ have already agreed.
ii. These are all less populated nations when compared to the big 3, which, of course, is part of the problem.
iii. Their response function will be dictated by what the big 3 do if the draft is rejected. BCCI has threatened to cancel their international arrangements post 2015 WC. I am not clear on what the other 2 think.
iv. I think the best way for these countries to act is to agree to the revenue distribution but make sure the ExCo has representation from all boards, and a constitution which guarantees funding to developement areas, and into the cash-strapped boards, and more investment in cricket structures around the world, especially more multi-team tournaments like test championships, T20 champions league getting participation from associate nations like happens in UCL in football.
Important Cricinfo excerpts:
At the top end, the dropping of the FTP merely reflects the unstated status quo. The ICC ought to have a role in defining and structuring competitions; indeed, it is hard to see what the point of the ICC is if not that. The MCC controls the laws.
However, any improvement in governance from the proposed reforms would rest on whether the big three govern sensibly and with some imagination regarding the development of the game. There is precious little evidence in the draft document to suggest they will.
The working paper trashes developmental work. There are complaints about administrative costs; of tournaments being run "without approval" (presumably the Division Three regional ones now scrapped); and of the costs of minor cricket, though it represents only a $20-30 million outgo on $1.5 billion in revenue. The cost of Associate and Affiliate cricket is inflated by including under it everything development-related, such as the women's World Cup, reserves and development funds. Any independence the development committee had is proposed to be reduced, and it is to be made subject to the F&CA committee.
There is an implied ownership of the local market. Clearly the representatives of the BCCI, the Indian team, are more marketable to the Indian public than other teams, but ICC events are organised and operated by the ICC, the business. Moreover, the money the ICC generates out of the World Cup is significantly higher than what India generates from a whole season of matches. That money should be cross-subsidising development initiatives, smaller tournaments, administration, and anything that grows cricket as an international sport. ICC revenue was already overly oriented towards funding members, and in turn, their professional programmes, instead of grassroots growth, infrastructure and development. The World Cricket League currently shuttles between a small handful of nations for lack of turf pitches and decent facilities.
Not only is ICC development funding being reduced, the 25% surplus has now been redefined to exclude the "distribution cost" that makes up almost a third of revenue in most scenarios. As the "distribution cost" is larger than the projected surplus, this represents roughly a halving of the Associate and Affiliate development payment for most revenue projections. Add in the Test fund (which will help the financially strapped Full Members with their challenges relating to "uneconomical or unfeasible tours"), also a cost, and the scrapping of subscriptions, which added to revenue, and the Full Members are getting an enormous increase in payments without giving anything back in return. Sometimes you just have to stand back and admire the sheer brazenness.
Cricket will survive it, but any notion of it growing into a global sport recedes. When investment is foregone for asset-stripping then it is time to sell your stock instead.
