India, Australia, England attempt to take control of Cricket

[Muloghonto]

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.

You may think Ross Taylor or Michael Clarke may chose representing NZ/AUS over the IPL, when IPL earns them 0.5 to 1 million over a season as opposed to 0.4 to 0.7 million earned by grade-A contracts from their respective boards. And that would seem logical. Playing for your national board is the incumbent & 'safe' option over IPL, which is both new and far more result-oriented in contract renewal.

But when you have 20 weeks of IPL and not 5, you are pushing revenue up to 4 to 5x of the current scenario, which would equate to 4 to 5x more pay for the players.
And if you feel that Michael Clarke or Ross Taylor would still choose 0.6 million per year for playing for CA or NZCB to 4-5 million for playing in the IPL, you are deluding yourself.
Players too, are motivated by money. When the gap is too much, then money wins.If you are getting paid 50K for your desk job in serene hobbitland, you may not want to do the same desk job in Siberia for 70K. or even 80K. But if a Siberian firm offered you half a million a year to do the exact same job in Siberia, you are telling me that you seriously are going to turn that kind of money down ? If no, then why would Clarke or anyone else ?

 

[Blocky]

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.

Actually, due to the existing FTP agreements, they probably are.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

You may think Ross Taylor or Michael Clarke may chose representing NZ/AUS over the IPL, when IPL earns them 0.5 to 1 million over a season as opposed to 0.4 to 0.7 million earned by grade-A contracts from their respective boards. And that would seem logical. Playing for your national board is the incumbent & 'safe' option over IPL, which is both new and far more result-oriented in contract renewal.

But when you have 20 weeks of IPL and not 5, you are pushing revenue up to 4 to 5x of the current scenario, which would equate to 4 to 5x more pay for the players.
And if you feel that Michael Clarke or Ross Taylor would still choose 0.6 million per year for playing for CA or NZCB to 4-5 million for playing in the IPL, you are deluding yourself.
Players too, are motivated by money. When the gap is too much, then money wins.If you are getting paid 50K for your desk job in serene hobbitland, you may not want to do the same desk job in Siberia for 70K. or even 80K. But if a Siberian firm offered you half a million a year to do the exact same job in Siberia, you are telling me that you seriously are going to turn that kind of money down ? If no, then why would Clarke or anyone else ?

Players would go for the money option because they have a very short shelf life and need to make as much to support their family afterwards.

 

[Muloghonto]

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.

England would not have a choice in the matter if BCCI has to go it all alone. Again, as i said, an instant 5 month expansion of the IPL only happens if BCCI gets booted from the ICC. As it stands now, what BCCI would settle for is a dedicated IPL window of no more than 7 weeks, which would do mighty fine to skyrocket their earnings & viewership numbers over the next 2-3 years of growth.

Also, if a day of IPL cricket generates 10 million dollars for the BCCI and a day of international cricket generates 2 million dollars, why would the BCCI not want to shaft the international schedule for more IPL ?

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.

Yep, that might happen. But that will happen to the big-names at the prime of their careers. Players who are not garanteed a test contract for the long term (eg: Corey Anderson) or players who are nearing the end of their careers would stick to the IPL for as long as the IPL would have them. Why would they foresake 20-30 million career earnings in the IPL over 5-6 years for 4-5 million career earnings over 10 for their national board ??

You also forget that the standard sportsmen's mentality for contracts is very much 'in the present'. In the here and now because sportsmen realize that their careers are not garanteed. All it takes is one injury or one idiot driving around drunk to reduce your 10 year career to 2. Very very few sportsmen will bank on a long term future of less income than the instant bang for your buck when the gulf of disparity gets too big.

 

[G.I.Joe]

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.

It's only extortion/protection if you're obligated to a certain duty and then place the fulfillment of that obligation in abeyance in an attempt to sweeten your pot. Presumably there's a new cycle of rights' negotiations or whatever coming up at the ICC which the cricket boards are not yet committed to legally, and hence this particular point in time serves as the stage for a negotiation.

It's the difference between you signing up with an employer and then using your indispensability at a critical juncture to garner further benefits for yourself vs you arguing with the useless HR rep for a raise when appraisal season comes along. One is extortion, the other is a legitimate negotiation.

 

[Maximum]

I am really interest to know from where that 80% came from? I don't think India contribute 80% to ICC. This is just propaganda from BCCI. There no doubt that BCCI is the biggest contributor to ICC but it is hard to believe that it contribute 80%. Also the other cricket boards are not as weak as they or people, perceive them to be. I believe the mainspring behind all that is ICC, who does have power and authority, just doesn't have guts to stand up to BCCI.

As far as cricket is concerned, IPL without International players will not be worth as much as it is now, so it really depends on the players, to some extent, but again there are players like Chris Gayle and Malinga.

 

[Muloghonto]

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.

Its not simple greed over doing the right thing. Had it been something like a monopolistic utilities jacking up the prices despite delivering the exact same product (eg: electric board), then it would be greed vs doing the right thing.
But it is clear that 90% of cricket fans care more about 20-20 cricket than Test cricket. Yes, marketing 20-20 more aggressively to them earns more money but it also gains more viewership, which is the fundamental objective of any sports (to gain more fans). So how is it just about greed ? It would be just about greed if BCCI wanted more money for the same contribution (assuming ofcourse, they were being paid fairly to begin with) but if their objective is to curtail Tests to get more 20-20 in, its a win-win for fans and those who want to make money. I don't see how it is not the right position.

What i see so wrong in cricket is to hold back the popularity of the game by pandering to a form of the game (test cricket) that has sentimental value to the traditionalists but far less appeal to the fans than 20-20 cricket.
Thats anti-development due to conservative traditionalists.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

It's greed because the more money they make the more they can slip into their Swiss bank accounts.

Anyway, it's unfair for Pak players because they won't get an invite to the IPL to earn money like everyone else.

 

[Bahnz]

Actually, due to the existing FTP agreements, they probably are.

The BCCI never signed the FTP agreements. That's why they were able to wriggle out of longer tours of SA and NZ so easily. That's also the main reason why Martin Snedden is so supportive of the reforms: because he thinks he'll be able to nail down bilateral touring agreements with the BCCI.

 

[Muloghonto]

It's greed because the more money they make the more they can slip into their Swiss bank accounts.

Anyway, it's unfair for Pak players because they won't get an invite to the IPL to earn money like everyone else.

Is it also greed when you make more money by attracting more fans to cricket ? Or is that legitimate gains for a legitimate services provided ?

Imagine this: you got a food stall at a fair that you've had for the last 50 years, selling cabbage rolls. You make enough money to eke out a living. Then I show up, set up a butter chicken & naan stall besides you, steal half your customers and get 9 out 10 new commer to the fair. I make a killing, but i also sell to far more people than you. Am i still 'greedy' or am i making my money by the highest principles of free enterprise, which is, I am entitled to make more money than you if i can sell to more people than you ???

It is unfortunate for the Pak players but their inability to play in the IPL has very little to do with BCCI, it has far more to do with Indian Foreign Ministry refusing to grant them visas.
Pak ineligibility in IPL has nothing to do with cricket. It has everything to do with national level politics, so they are screwed regardless of what BCCI does.

 

[silentstriker]

Actually, due to the existing FTP agreements, they probably are.

The FTP is not a legally binding document. Under the new proposed system, the bilateral agreements would be.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Is it also greed when you make more money by attracting more fans to cricket ? Or is that legitimate gains for a legitimate services provided ?

It is unfortunate for the Pak players but their inability to play in the IPL has very little to do with BCCI, it has far more to do with Indian Foreign Ministry refusing to grant them visas.
Pak ineligibility in IPL has nothing to do with cricket. It has everything to do with national level politics, so they are screwed regardless of what BCCI does.

Greed isn't just about money but also power. For example not being relegated unlike the smaller nations.

 

[Muloghonto]

Greed isn't just about money but also power. For example not being relegated unlike the smaller nations.

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!

 

[Muloghonto]

Muloghonto actually had some reasonable and maybe even interesting points regarding the business domain of T20, and these could have led to a good discussion if it were possible to separate them away from the odious worldview.

You get to call it an odious worldview when you do not benefit from living in a society which values free enterprise and private property as beyond reproach. So unless you are posting from North Korea or Cuba, you are nothing more than a hypocrite, trashing the same system that is enriching you just because in this instance it is going against your sentimental values. To pretend to be a blood donor when you too are a blood sucker is a far more odious position than being straight-up about your bloodsucking enterprise.
The latter maybe called ruthless, souless or heartless but all those epithets are better than being a phony.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

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!

That's fair enough but I'm not referring to income. I'm talking about flexing your muscle (by the 3 boards) to not being relegated in Test cricket, which is completely unfair for say a team like RSA. If India, Australia or England perform poorly, they would still be in the top tier.

 

[Muloghonto]

That's fair enough but I'm not referring to income. I'm talking about flexing your muscle (by the 3 boards) to not being relegated in Test cricket, which is completely unfair for say a team like RSA. If India, Australia or England perform poorly, they would still be in the top tier.

Compensation is of two type: financial or decision-making. You either compensate BCCI the fair-value of their contribution to the sport or you compensate BCCI by letting them have the decisive say about decision-making towards the sport.
I don't see how their position is unjustified. The least they deserve for putting more money in than taking out, is a bigger say in what happens to the game. Otherwise they get nothing despite contributing far more than everyone else.

It is not fair from South Africa to expect equal say in the matter and greater slice of the pie (proportionately) than they are contributing. That is putting South Africa in a priviledged position, which is unfair to BCCI/ECB/CA.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

With the new draft wouldn't they get both the money and the decision making?

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Yep, that might happen. But that will happen to the big-names at the prime of their careers. Players who are not garanteed a test contract for the long term (eg: Corey Anderson) or players who are nearing the end of their careers would stick to the IPL for as long as the IPL would have them. Why would they foresake 20-30 million career earnings in the IPL over 5-6 years for 4-5 million career earnings over 10 for their national board ??

You also forget that the standard sportsmen's mentality for contracts is very much 'in the present'. In the here and now because sportsmen realize that their careers are not garanteed. All it takes is one injury or one idiot driving around drunk to reduce your 10 year career to 2. Very very few sportsmen will bank on a long term future of less income than the instant bang for your buck when the gulf of disparity gets too big.

But you miss the point that guys like Richie McCaw, Dan Carter, Ma'a Nonu and Kieran Read have stayed loyal to NZ Rugby despite this having cost them millions and millions to do so. Your assumption is that the majority of players will forsake playing for their country in order to play the IPL, I would argue that this isn't the case. And then there are guys who will choose to end their career making the big dollars, but make sure they've had the prime years of their career playing for their country - Jerry Collins, Doug Howlett, Mils Muliaina, Joe Rokocoko - they went to take the big money in Europe only when they knew their career was in the decline and their reputations would still earn them a number of seasons of big payouts.

The difference we're talking between what they get paid by NZ Rugby and what they could earn in Europe is not a dissimilar order of magnitude.

And just to clarify this:

You may think Ross Taylor or Michael Clarke may chose representing NZ/AUS over the IPL, when IPL earns them 0.5 to 1 million over a season as opposed to 0.4 to 0.7 million earned by grade-A contracts from their respective boards. And that would seem logical. Playing for your national board is the incumbent & 'safe' option over IPL, which is both new and far more result-oriented in contract renewal.

Ross Taylor wouldn't earn anywhere near that from his NZC contract. I think the top contract value is at most $200,000. The article below says $181k

Millmow: Contentious calls on NZ cricket list | Stuff.co.nz

 

[silentstriker]

But you miss the point that guys like Richie McCaw, Dan Carter, Ma'a Nonu and Kieran Read have stayed loyal to NZ Rugby despite this having cost them millions and millions to do so. Your assumption is that the majority of players will forsake playing for their country in order to play the IPL, I would argue that this isn't the case. And then there are guys who will choose to end their career making the big dollars, but make sure they've had the prime years of their career playing for their country - Jerry Collins, Doug Howlett, Mils Muliaina, Joe Rokocoko - they went to take the big money in Europe only when they knew their career was in the decline and their reputations would still earn them a number of seasons of big payouts.

The difference we're talking between what they get paid by NZ Rugby and what they could earn in Europe is not a dissimilar order of magnitude.

And just to clarify this:



Ross Taylor wouldn't earn anywhere near that from his NZC contract. I think the top contract value is at most $200,000. The article below says $181k

Millmow: Contentious calls on NZ cricket list | Stuff.co.nz

If you are interested in reading a very in depth post on the finances of cricket: Idle Summers - Observations on Cricket Finance

Some highlights:

India is perhaps the easiest market to estimate, because the BCCI generates relatively little profit from external sources. Their annual report puts average four year revenue (adjusted for currency) at USD$168m, of which $25m is dividends from the IPL or CLT20. Those two competitions have approximately $240m in revenue. The ICC brings in around $200m in revenue a year, of which India is the source of approximately 60% (by most accounts). Finally we must estimate the amount of revenue earnt by playing India at home, and which therefore goes to the local board. If that is assumed to be around $100m then the Indian market is roughly three times that of Australia and England: around $600-700m. This is less than most estimates, but consistent with their annual reporting.
.....


The BCCI earns around $4m more than average from home matches, as does England, with Australia on $2.7m. (All give or take $1.2m; the Ashes earns at the top-end of those numbers - i.e.. above $4-6m per day). This makes intuitive sense. It also shows the importance of attendance versus TV in the revenue streams of otherwise smaller markets, and the weakness of the BCCI in creating a home schedule that meets what they might earn. As the annual reports bear out, India earns less from their home internationals than England, which doesn't accord with their perceived financial muscle.

....

Playing India earns $1.6m for the home team more than Australia or England, and $2m more than any other team.

.....

There is, nevertheless, strong encouragement to the idea that cricket could have 20 nations of a standard somewhere between that historically maintained by New Zealand and currently by Bangladesh. With the assumption that, given that, at least a half dozen of those teams will have a transcendent talent (ala Hadlee or Muralitharan) that will allow them to compete with the big-4. A future post may look into this; as some nations will surprise.

 

[Bahnz]

Ross Taylor wouldn't earn anywhere near that from his NZC contract. I think the top contract value is at most $200,000. The article below says $181k

Millmow: Contentious calls on NZ cricket list | Stuff.co.nz

Yeah but you've gotta factor in match fees as well, and given that Taylor will play every test, odi and t20 that he's available for that probably amounts to another $100,000 on top of his base salary.