ICC Finances 2024-2027

[TheJediBrah]

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.

Absolutely. Income should be directly correlated to generated profit.

However the loonies who think women athletes whose professions lose money should make the same as men who generate millions will presumably demand that Cricket Namibia get the same cut as the BCCI

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Yeah you tell those loonies

 

[TheJediBrah]

Grow the game in underfunded areas and demographics on your own dime

 

[Athlai]

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?

I think the "cricket tour" model was fairly unique within sport as the sport itself takes so long to play, and it was only popular in fairly niche countries. So we have a sporting culture and tradition based around a model that began because it made the most sense to get the highest level cricket at the time.

T20 cricket though? If it has its own audience (and it does) is going to benefit far more from imitating the successful league systems found in other sports. It won't happen overnight, as you've mentioned, club football has a storied history that frankly doesn't exist in cricket. (People may argue about the legacies and pride of certain cricketing clubs, but I think they're still more representative of a touring model like international cricket than they are of "club" rivalries)

I'm not saying that I definitely cricket will see this schism between T20 leagues and internationals form, right now the ICC and BCCI make the best of both worlds. But I do think it's incorrect to say T20 league models (particularly in India) can only thrive if international cricket exists. I don't think thats true at all.

 

[Athlai]

Absolutely. Income should be directly correlated to generated profit.

There is a legitimate argument that the BCCI do not pay their fair share in terms of contribution. Do they have the largest audience? Absolutely. Do they have the most fans? By a mile. Would they make as much on these TV deals without high level opposition? Probably not.

I think the current split is fine more or less, I'd be inclined to slightly more support given to that high level opposition in years where they don't tour India (particularly the top 9 excluding Eng and Au that have cricket boards struggling to remain profitable). But that should still be an outcome that favours India greatly and just helps the other cricket boards keep the lights on and their level of cricket high.

I also think how BCCI money gets invested back into the game is fairly troubling. Players should be making far more and no doubt there are a whole heap of administrators pocketing cash that shouldn't be anywhere near it. But that's a problem spread across pretty much every sport.

Everyone in here that has even mildly rumbled along nationalistic lines or ****ing population for how a competitive sporting league splits its profit is an idiot though.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah India bad I always knew

 

[honestbharani]

Interesting discussion. I still stand by the post i made in the other thread and quoted here.

But funnily enough, BCCI getting this much of the pie may actually end up being the biggest reason international cricket will continue. So... ?‍

 

[Immenso]

This is (I think) the current ICC distribution model, for comparison:

ICC Cricket Revenue Sharing Model (Breakdown By Country)

The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) receives a large share of the ICC's revenue, $405 million from the current cycle to be exact

www.totalsportal.com

 

[Immenso]

versus the new model, as per article linked in OP.

View attachment 35789

 

[Athlai]

Interesting discussion. I still stand by the post i made in the other thread and quoted here.

But funnily enough, BCCI getting this much of the pie may actually end up being the biggest reason international cricket will continue. So... ?‍

Nah I disagree with that. From a pure profit perspective, the BCCI could gut the international game and really focus hard on franchise based cricket and it'd probably work and may even prove to be the best possible revenue earner.


Thankfully I think the BCCI do have a commitment to caretaking the game as well, and don't want to see the end of international cricket even if hyper-capitalist Americans or kleptocratic FIFA officials would steer the organisation in a different direction if they had the reins.


While I don't think the BCCI will harm the game or intend to, they are easily powerful enough now to do so if that changes. I appreciate that the ICC and BCCI do not strictly treat cricket as an exercise to make the most revenue. Sure they don't want any part of it to be "unprofitable" but the current future of the game looks far less grim than it could.


TLDR
Things could definitely be way worse, so thats kinda nice.

 

[Athlai]

versus the new model, as per article linked in OP.

View attachment 35789

For context, the previous model was basically everyone but India taking 8%, Associates 14% and India up to 24%.

 

[Xix2565]

T20 cricket though? If it has its own audience (and it does) is going to benefit far more from imitating the successful league systems found in other sports. It won't happen overnight, as you've mentioned, club football has a storied history that frankly doesn't exist in cricket. (People may argue about the legacies and pride of certain cricketing clubs, but I think they're still more representative of a touring model like international cricket than they are of "club" rivalries)

I'm not saying that I definitely cricket will see this schism between T20 leagues and internationals form, right now the ICC and BCCI make the best of both worlds. But I do think it's incorrect to say T20 league models (particularly in India) can only thrive if international cricket exists. I don't think thats true at all.

This definitely. The bilateral mode of international cricket has long overstayed its welcome and things should change to be a more sustainable, long term entertainment product, like how some people want T20 franchise cricket to be.

Of course, it doesn't help that in the past the people in charge weren't exactly keen on being more open and inclusive towards nations wanting to play any cricket.

 

[Starfighter]

Nah I disagree with that. From a pure profit perspective, the BCCI could gut the international game and really focus hard on franchise based cricket and it'd probably work and may even prove to be the best possible revenue earner.

If they did that then the likely outcome would be the team owners' power greatly increases and the BCCI's own share of the revenue would dwindle towards zero.

 

[Athlai]

If they did that then the likely outcome would be the team owners' power greatly increases and the BCCI's own share of the revenue would dwindle towards zero.

How come? It'd transform the BCCI into a similar entity to the NFL or EPL. Controlling the media rights would be ridiculously lucrative.

 

[Starfighter]

How come? It'd transform the BCCI into a similar entity to the NFL or EPL. Controlling the media rights would be ridiculously lucrative.

In those two the teams themselves actually own the leagues. The BCCI is not structured like that, it's a body constituted of the state cricket associations for the administration of cricket in general.

The BCCI as currently structured contributes near zero to the value of the IPL. The value of the league is in the teams and their audience. Therefore in your scenario of 'cut-throat capitalism' the franchise owners could easily gain the leverage to radically restructure the administration of the league that would greatly reduce the power and revenue that the current administrative structure controls.

 

[Sunil1z]

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

Bilateral series money doesn’t go to ICC . The money they get are for organising ICC ODI WC , T20 WC , Champions Trophy etc .
For eg. ECB will keep all the money of upcoming Ashes.

 

[Athlai]

In those two the teams themselves actually own the leagues. The BCCI is not structured like that, it's a body constituted of the state cricket associations for the administration of cricket in general.

The BCCI as currently structured contributes near zero to the value of the IPL. The value of the league is in the teams and their audience. Therefore in your scenario of 'cut-throat capitalism' the franchise owners could easily gain the leverage to radically restructure the administration of the league that would greatly reduce the power and revenue that the current administrative structure controls.

The value of the league is in the media rights, which are owned by the BCCI.

Sure it could result in scenarios where team owners, worm their way into BCCI management itself to maximise profits. And by could, I mean yeah thats probably already happening. In terms of hypothetical scenario, the well being of the BCCI as it exists today genuinely doesnt matter.

 

[Sunil1z]

Is ICC World Cup not that big in AUS, ENG and NZ ? I refuse to believe the revenue numbers I am seeing from these countries about ICC tournaments.
This only means that Ashes series aside , a large percentage of Aus/Eng public isn’t that much interested in Cricket

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Maybe post the revenue numbers so we can see them.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Is ICC World Cup not that big in AUS, ENG and NZ ? I refuse to believe the revenue numbers I am seeing from these countries about ICC tournaments.
This only means that Ashes series aside , a large percentage of Aus/Eng public isn’t that much interested in Cricket

Not a complete explanation for the disinterest but most World Cups are played in places where the games are aired at the dead of night in AU. Unless one is held in AU/NZ most of the games are unwatchable for the majority of Australia.