India, Australia, England attempt to take control of Cricket

[Bahnz]

I would highly doubt that. How do you figure?

a) the near unanimous support for the proposal - I highly doubt Bangladesh would get on board with this if they weren't getting something in return.
b) Bangladesh play sfa cricket against the top countries already, so it's not exactly taxing on the central triumvirate to agree to a continuation of the status quo. Australia hasn't toured since 2005, India since 2009 (iirc). I imagine the central 3 will agree to something like 1 tour each of Bangladesh in the period up to 2023 and will look to try ensure that the other countries maintain Bangladesh's current average of 4-6 tests a year.

 

[simonlee48]

Don't worry, Bangladesh will still be playing against first division teams at more or less the same regularity as they are now (through bilateral tour agreements). As far as I understand it, they'll just have to play some additional matches against the associate nations to boot.

I am not worried for BD, I hardly follow their games. As per my understanding, BD will be able to play currently agreed FTP but it stops after that. Since there will be no FTP in future, I really doubt that too many nations will line up to play with BD. They may have gotten assurance from 2-3 series from big 3 but over all I think BD will play less number of test matches. Matches involving BD doesn't really make money for anyone. FTP was forcing many test nations to play them.

 

[brockley]

Bangladesh will be playing 2nd division like Zimbabwe,altho i think the ZCU will implode too indebt and the players won't play,anyone any good will join County cricket.

 

[swede]

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.

You massively overestimate the strenght of the BCCI and the IPL.

The IPL woud have exactly no chance of getting australian or english players for an expanded season against the wishes of these countries. If forced to do so both could easily double or triple player salaries and probably even subsidise selected other countries player wages beyond IPL offer if need be.
The ECB for instance give over £50 m to grass roots cricket and another 50m to counties. Imagine just 10% of that given to players in a crisis situation and its good night to the IPL.

Expansion of the IPL is also not that profitable. Ratings are generally falling typicaly with a long mid-season slump. Add weeks to the season and you extend the slump. The add-on value would almost certainly drop by every extra week. Add more teams, as you suggest is also not going to enrich a tournament dependant on TV as there are aready games every day. you seem to belive that you automatically grow income by increasing costs. .

 

[swede]

There is a reason the NFL is so lucrative. In the short term, if they had done something like revenues in proportion to contribution, five teams would have made ridiculously more money. Over the long term, they would have made a lot less.

true , but in an NFL-world the likes of NZ; WI, SL and several others would be liquidated straight away as the bring nothing to the table. Its not a great analogy. In fact you could say that the top 3 are creating an NFL among themselves whic is at least better than the behind-the-scenes vote-buying/forcing that otherwise goes on. Esepcialy because the top three could create something of more overall value for everyone. I certainly have enough faith in England and Australia not to use their power to weaken test cricket. Some may consider that naive but considering the status quo where test cricket is on death row in half the countires its worth trying. .

 

[swede]

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.

If the 80% is even true then it includes everything India is involved in, including rights they dont own. Using the figure like that the total is not 100% but far higher, makng the number pointless. The way muloghonto uses the number would be similar to a boxer insisting on taking 100 % of the money from a big fight because he is involved in 100% of the fight.

England will play India in a valuable 5-test series soon. All of that income would count towards the 80% even if its englands money because India is involved. But of course if India werent there, England would just play some one else. Sure that would mean less money but most of it would be retained. The true value of India is therefore only a fraction of what the nonsense 80% figure suggest.

 

[swede]

Yes, financially it's a problem if any of them go down but in the interest of integrity it just can't be the case. As Nasser says it makes a mockery of the system from the outset.

England, Australia and India may well have the cash but none of them have a team that you can say categorically is in the top 3 going around and will be for the next few years. Wasn't that long ago that each one of them was at one point languishing down at 5th in the rankings. England couldn't in either a home or away series beat NZ.........how can anyone say that England should be a protected side??

What would the financial ramifications be if Brazil bombs out in the first round of the FIFA WC later this year?? They aren't protected (beyond automatic qualification) Having the top draw team/player bomb is a risk that any sporting competition has to contend with.

Instead of this arrogant demand these so called powerhouses should spend their cash on making sure their teams are good enough to stay in the top tier on merit.

It would have zero consequences whatever Brazil did in the world cup, a tournament which itself hardly matters all that much to football being played over a few weeks every four years and of declining relative importance.

And its hardy a good idea that they should just spend more money to stay top. If that was all that mattered, the status quo would be fine as that would likely soon eliminate most competitors. I would rather see over all cooporation between a bunch of countries facing very different realities to create something usefull for all. Money is best redistributed in a system, where those who effectively support others also have a bigger influence.

.

 

[Shri]

The true value of India is therefore only a fraction of what the nonsense 80% figure suggest.

Surely not just a fraction. Because if that were true, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.

 

[swede]

Surely not just a fraction. Because if that were true, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.

a fraction for England in the example, in the sense that if England couldnt play India, they would play someone else and probably not loose more than perhaps 10-20% of the income for the matches. England make the vast majority of the money from tests at the ground and from home market tv deals which does not depend on India.

Yes the discussion is still relevant because many minnows does rely on income from hosting india as they barely have a home market and make nothing at the ground.

If the 80% figure was true, there wouldnt be a big 3, there would be a big 1.

 

[Garson007]

It is not greed if you want fair compensation now, is it ? BCCI contributes 70-80% of the money earned in cricket. It takes home 4-6% of it. So how is it greedy if BCCI wants more money or more power ? If i put more money in than you but withdraw far less proportionately, how am I not entitled to some intangiables, like a bigger say in the venture or straight up more money ??

I don't consider the BCCI's position as greedy at all. I consider it fair and legitimate. It is fair to want either more control or proportionate share of the money you are generating if you are generating the decisive chunk of the income.

It is patently unfair to have the exact same rights as another, despite contributing 70% of the income and gaining only 5% of it in return!

You keep on forgetting that 70% of the income comes from India, not BCCI. They're not the same thing. The BCCI doesn't contribute anything to the income. All it is doing is taking advantage of the gold mine they were gifted to begin with.

They're basically saying it was they who created the Indian cricket fans to begin with - which is utter nonsense. I'm sorry, they do not own the fans.

They already get disproportionate amounts of money for their own events - they really don't have to rob the ICC from the money it generates during the WC.

 

[silentstriker]

a fraction for England in the example, in the sense that if England couldnt play India, they would play someone else and probably not loose more than perhaps 10-20% of the income for the matches. England make the vast majority of the money from tests at the ground and from home market tv deals which does not depend on India.

Yes the discussion is still relevant because many minnows does rely on income from hosting india as they barely have a home market and make nothing at the ground.

If the 80% figure was true, there wouldnt be a big 3, there would be a big 1.

No.

 

[Muloghonto]

So, on that basis, the IPL isn't as lucrative to the BCCI on an institutional level than I'd expect. Thus, some bilateral series must make more money for the BCCI than the IPL does.

Though, of course the IPL could grow and I'm guessing a number of BCCI luminaries also have a thumb or two in the individual franchise pies.

$25 million for a 5 week event at a discounted 10% cut ( discounted because the league is new and lots of teams havnt recovered their initial investment costs yet) for an event that is only a startup is a sh*t ton of money. I would be highly surprised if BCCI still kept it at a 10% cut in a few years after most teams have completely paid off their investment and even if they do, i highly doubt it will be only 25 million for broadcasting rights once the league is fully matured.
There are a couple of series which may make more money for BCCI than IPL but anybody with basic understanding of business will be foolish to argue that the IPL income for BCCI wont be orders of magnitude greater than any international series once the startup business costs are paid off.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

You keep on forgetting that 70% of the income comes from India, not BCCI. They're not the same thing. The BCCI doesn't contribute anything to the income. All it is doing is taking advantage of the gold mine they were gifted to begin with.

They're basically saying it was they who created the Indian cricket fans to begin with - which is utter nonsense. I'm sorry, they do not own the fans.

They already get disproportionate amounts of money for their own events - they really don't have to rob the ICC from the money it generates during the WC.

But the problem is like most other fickle fans, Indian fans only want to watch Indian players who are employed by the BCCI. So the BCCI in a way does generate that revenue because if they stop their players from participation, Indian fans will switch off their TV screens.

 

[Muloghonto]

There is a reason the NFL is so lucrative. In the short term, if they had done something like revenues in proportion to contribution, five teams would have made ridiculously more money. Over the long term, they would have made a lot less.

There is no team in the NFL who's revenue is 3x or more than the 2nd most earning team in the league. Ie, NFL does not have a scenario where the #1 earning team is earning 3-4x the #2 earning team. Neither does soccer, ice hockey or basketball. In cricket, the #1 earning team is earning more than the rest of the cricketing world put together and is earning 3-4x more than the #2 earning team. In such a huge financial disparity, to equally revenue share is patently unjust to the #1 earning team. The gulf of income is too big.

 

[Muloghonto]

You massively overestimate the strenght of the BCCI and the IPL.

The IPL woud have exactly no chance of getting australian or english players for an expanded season against the wishes of these countries. If forced to do so both could easily double or triple player salaries and probably even subsidise selected other countries player wages beyond IPL offer if need be.
The ECB for instance give over £50 m to grass roots cricket and another 50m to counties. Imagine just 10% of that given to players in a crisis situation and its good night to the IPL.

If you can get your national governments to subsidize cricket- which is a non starter btw- there is absolutely zero chance of England or Australia even maintaining current salary levels for their contracts,let alone doubling or tripling it.
England cannot sustain undecutting their domestic salaries by 10% indefinitely. As it is, their domestic cricket players make 50-80K per year, which is decent but in no way enough to sustain a 10% reduction in salary. People will quit playing FC cricket and get day jobs. Your proposal is akin to robbing Peter to pay Paul. Works in a pinch but unsustainable. Particularly with a IPL season expansion eating into the calendar for English cricket. The IPL revenue and carrot to the players on the other hand, is set to increase at a stupendous rate as the market matures. IPL has far more implied profit, since no business venture, even if it starts making profit right away, is peaking in profit or market-share right off the bat.

Expansion of the IPL is also not that profitable. Ratings are generally falling typicaly with a long mid-season slump. Add weeks to the season and you extend the slump. The add-on value would almost certainly drop by every extra week. Add more teams, as you suggest is also not going to enrich a tournament dependant on TV as there are aready games every day. you seem to belive that you automatically grow income by increasing costs. .

Ratings falling mid-season is something every sporting league endures. The opening few games of a new season invariably gets more viewership, as the fans are starved since last season, then interest peters off a bit, till the finale attracts more viewership as it is the closing stages and thus more competetive. This didnt prevent the NHL to expand their season from 60 games to 82 games.
You are forgetting that IPL is still a startup. Its been around for less than a decade. Kindly compare, with inflation costs adjusted, for a franchise-based sporting league, their revenue for the first ten years of existence to that of 15-20 years of existence. The latter figure is usually 2-3x more, even for the same # of matches/games played due to optimisation of the fanbase and the startup costs being paid off.
The IPL is already making more money than 99% of cricketing activity, despite having existed for 5 years or so. Standard business model predicts that it is only set to double or triple its income, even without expansion, in another 5 to ten years.

 

[Muloghonto]

If the 80% is even true then it includes everything India is involved in, including rights they dont own. Using the figure like that the total is not 100% but far higher, makng the number pointless. The way muloghonto uses the number would be similar to a boxer insisting on taking 100 % of the money from a big fight because he is involved in 100% of the fight.

England will play India in a valuable 5-test series soon. All of that income would count towards the 80% even if its englands money because India is involved. But of course if India werent there, England would just play some one else. Sure that would mean less money but most of it would be retained. The true value of India is therefore only a fraction of what the nonsense 80% figure suggest.

Anything less than 100% is technically speaking,a fraction. If England-India were replaced by England-anyone, the income potential is closer to less than 50% of it. It is England's money but generated due to Indian participation, therefore it is money India is contributing towards England's income.

 

[Muloghonto]

You keep on forgetting that 70% of the income comes from India, not BCCI. They're not the same thing. The BCCI doesn't contribute anything to the income. All it is doing is taking advantage of the gold mine they were gifted to begin with.

They're basically saying it was they who created the Indian cricket fans to begin with - which is utter nonsense. I'm sorry, they do not own the fans.

They already get disproportionate amounts of money for their own events - they really don't have to rob the ICC from the money it generates during the WC.

Semantics. As i have noted and feel free to verify, there can be no cricket involving Indian players or in India without BCCI as they own all the cricke grounds in India and have exclusive rights to Indian players. Therefore, the net effect, is that the money that is generated via Indian fans, is completely at BCCI's mercy. They are not a NGO who are overseeing a public department- that you can simply replace with. They are a private entity who own all infrastructure to Indian cricket and player rights.

 

[Garson007]

Semantics. As i have noted and feel free to verify, there can be no cricket involving Indian players or in India without BCCI as they own all the cricke grounds in India and have exclusive rights to Indian players. Therefore, the net effect, is that the money that is generated via Indian fans, is completely at BCCI's mercy. They are not a NGO who are overseeing a public department- that you can simply replace with. They are a private entity who own all infrastructure to Indian cricket and player rights.

Players do not equal fans.

You honestly think that 100% of Indian fans will shirk away from international cricket if India isn't present?

 

[swede]

If you can get your national governments to subsidize cricket- which is a non starter btw- there is absolutely zero chance of England or Australia even maintaining current salary levels for their contracts,let alone doubling or tripling it.
England cannot sustain undecutting their domestic salaries by 10% indefinitely. As it is, their domestic cricket players make 50-80K per year, which is decent but in no way enough to sustain a 10% reduction in salary. People will quit playing FC cricket and get day jobs. Your proposal is akin to robbing Peter to pay Paul. Works in a pinch but unsustainable. Particularly with a IPL season expansion eating into the calendar for English cricket. The IPL revenue and carrot to the players on the other hand, is set to increase at a stupendous rate as the market matures. IPL has far more implied profit, since no business venture, even if it starts making profit right away, is peaking in profit or market-share right off the bat.



Ratings falling mid-season is something every sporting league endures. The opening few games of a new season invariably gets more viewership, as the fans are starved since last season, then interest peters off a bit, till the finale attracts more viewership as it is the closing stages and thus more competetive. This didnt prevent the NHL to expand their season from 60 games to 82 games.
You are forgetting that IPL is still a startup. Its been around for less than a decade. Kindly compare, with inflation costs adjusted, for a franchise-based sporting league, their revenue for the first ten years of existence to that of 15-20 years of existence. The latter figure is usually 2-3x more, even for the same # of matches/games played due to optimisation of the fanbase and the startup costs being paid off.
The IPL is already making more money than 99% of cricketing activity, despite having existed for 5 years or so. Standard business model predicts that it is only set to double or triple its income, even without expansion, in another 5 to ten years.

you seem to misunderstand something. There would be no need to cut county cricket wages. The ECB does support county cricket by close to £50m but they hand out another 50 million to purely grass roots cricket. In a major crisis they could give their top 5 players another milion pound every year by cutting funding for grass roots just 10%. I dont think they should or would. But they could. Look at english premier league football clubs. they spend some 60-70% of income on salaries. The ECB spend some 10-20% . They dont have to spend more because the players cant go elsewhere. But if that changed, they might pay more and there is no way the IPL could compte and even if they could, the money would be so big already that it wouldnt entice players.

Its a somewhat unrealistic theory that any business will automatically triple income in five years. I dont think thath happens for all. And the value of the IPL has probaby fallen over the last few years.

The NHL and otheramerican sports are differentin the sense that they make money at the grounds, not just from tv, which means they can make money playing lots of games all the time and the tv market is big enough for different games to be broadcast in different part at the same time. Not so,the IPL. They make next to no money at the grounds. All games must be on tv.

 

[swede]

Anything less than 100% is technically speaking,a fraction. If England-India were replaced by England-anyone, the income potential is closer to less than 50% of it. It is England's money but generated due to Indian participation, therefore it is money India is contributing towards England's income.

This simply isnt true. India wouldnt attract larger crowds than Australia or South africa and grounds are likely full for most others anyway. India are also not more valuable for a home tv deal than those countries. Only the overseas deal would drop. But thats still relativey small sums. But even if accepting your 50% for the sake of the argument, its hardly that significant for england if a few tests every four years dropped in value. A return to six matches in the ashes would likely solve that.