ICC Finances 2024-2027

[mackembhoy]

Some may say ICC = BCCI if this is all true

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1656169696784441346

BCCI projected to earn US$ 230 million per year in ICC's new finance model

India set to get 38.5% of the US$ 600 million annual earnings in the proposed model for 2024-27 cycle

www.espncricinfo.com

 

[ataraxia]

What the **** man.

 

[Nintendo]

How much of the total cricket viewership market is Indian? Ide imagine it would be very large, if it's around that 38.5% income cut then I see nothing wrong with it. India are the ones bringing the most eyes to the game.

 

[honestbharani]

 

[centurymaker]

At least 75% of ICC revenue is being generated by Indian commercial rights alone.

Population of India = 1,420,000,000

Population of Pakistan + Bangladesh + Sri Lanka + Afghanistan + England + Australia + South Africa + New Zealand + West Indies + Ireland + Zimbabwe
= 660,000,000

Total = 2,080,000,000

So India's population is 68% of the total. Hence it is not surprising that 75-85% of the ICC revenue is coming from one country. If BCCI is taking 38%, they are taking less than half their share.

 

[Sunil1z]

Other countries should also contribute to ICC’s kitty instead of free loading on Indian market .
According to Twitter ( if this information is correct) , Indian market contributes 25 times more than England (2nd best ) for 4 years cycle .
I hope the numbers are inaccurate because otherwise this means no one cares about Cricket except India which would be shame .

 

[centurymaker]

According to Twitter ( if this information is correct) , Indian market contributes 25 times more than England (2nd best ) for 4 years cycle .
I hope the numbers are inaccurate because otherwise this means no one cares about Cricket except India which would be shame .

It's true.

 

[Flem274*]

The boards aren't in financial competition with the BCCI though, the game is in competition with other sports.

That means it's less about "fair share" among the boards and more "what revenue model lifts all boats and defeats our competition for eyes?"

Cricket could absolutely exist alone in India or the big 3. It would be a lot less interesting though compared to what it can be.

We don't want to be the NRL.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

That's a lot of money.

 

[Tom Flint]

If india was the only country that cared about the game then why are their test attendances so poor compared to England and Australia?

 

[Adders]

If India contribute 25x more to the pot than England.....why has there been England test spam for the last 15 to 20 years?

 

[centurymaker]

Indian public doesn't care about Test Cricket.

BCCI could quite easily have its own international cricket calendar too (aside for expanding IPL). It doesn't need ICC. BCCI could pay smaller boards significantly bigger sums than ICC to keep the boards tied to BCCI.

So in the long run BCCI could well split up from ICC. They would be pocketing billions instead of only taking home 38.5%.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Lol at using the population of a country to decide revenue share.

 

[Athlai]

It's a shame the BCCI underpays its stars by so much.

 

[Athlai]

Other countries should also contribute to ICC’s kitty instead of free loading on Indian market .
According to Twitter ( if this information is correct) , Indian market contributes 25 times more than England (2nd best ) for 4 years cycle .
I hope the numbers are inaccurate because otherwise this means no one cares about Cricket except India which would be shame .

I don't think you understand what you're reading here.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

The boards aren't in financial competition with the BCCI though, the game is in competition with other sports.

That means it's less about "fair share" among the boards and more "what revenue model lifts all boats and defeats our competition for eyes?"

Cricket could absolutely exist alone in India or the big 3. It would be a lot less interesting though compared to what it can be.

We don't want to be the NRL.

I reckon you might see a split from the ICC in the next decade or so, I don't see anyone really giving a **** about growing the game as opposed to just milking the T20 comps cash cow. The Indian market in particular should be big enough to sustain an EPL style thing by itself.

 

[honestbharani]

I reckon you might see a split from the ICC in the next decade or so, I don't see anyone really giving a **** about growing the game as opposed to just milking the T20 comps cash cow. The Indian market in particular should be big enough to sustain an EPL style thing by itself.

It comes back to this post I made a while back on the IPL Vs International Cricket thing.

Without international stars, almost every franchise league will lose a lot of their sheen. The novelty factor of watching consistent opponents play as team mates etc. are a big driver to these T20 leagues and especially the IPL. Also, if international cricket becomes lesser, then individual boards will have less and less to invest in the game and the interest will gradually go to other sports, which means we will be back to square one of not having enough talents to fulfil the demand.

The argument raised against this is how the likes of Jansen are being identified by franchises like MI but again, you can scout all you want but if there is not enough people interested in taking up the sport, there ain't gonna be much to find.

I am not against the IPL franchises spreading their wings and buying teams in other leagues and setting up a global presence etc. but it should not be at the cost of international cricket. That will be a classic case of killing the golden goose.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

In my mind the split would be a rival organisation staging international games, offering more money to players than the boards will give them. Don't ask me how feasible that is though.

 

[Athlai]

I really don't think cricket would become less profitable if international cricket became significantly more secondary to all these bastard franchise tournaments. Look at football.

It'd be significantly a much more terrible experience for the average CWer but in terms of $$, it could genuinely be where it goes.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Do you think that's because club football is steeped in a 100 years+ worth of history though and so the fan base is more locked in? Or you just don't think it matters?