But India doesn’t generate that money by having India A play India B, it’s because other nations play them and play a role in that too.
Similarly, an IPL without international players would essentially be a franchise version of the Syed Mushtaq Ali Trophy, and wouldn’t be worth nearly as much.
So it’s not just India that generates the revenue, and I think it’s fair that it’s more evenly shared.
Some where i read that, 80% world cricket revenue coming from India... so, taking half from that share is bad?... By the way single India A vs India B match can generate double the money than whole ICC world cup qualification tournament, if they promote it right...
By the way single India A vs India B match can generate double the money than whole ICC world cup qualification tournament, if they promote it right...
Maybe a one-off exhibition match would, but if India doesn’t consistently play other countries and doesn’t have overseas players in the IPL, the revenue would be small compared to now.
An Indian tour to most nations would help their board in getting adequate revenue to sustain the game for a year at least. I believe this is what they are riding on, when it comes to global share of the cricket market.
Indian fan following and stardom knows no bounds- So, tomorrow if India doesn't play an ICC event, the stadiums wouldn't be as full as they are right now. The ICC won't get those revenue, the TV ad spots wont sell- in short, a majority of the people won't watch. This is perhaps the reason why you see ICC events being scheduled to start at a particular hour/ tours starting at a particular hour- to suit the Indian viewership.
If the BCCI does want to take an overwhelming portion of the funding because they feel it belongs to them by virtue of being the primary generator of said funds then they have to be custodians of the game by nature. I’m struggling to see them actually fulfil that role or show much interest in it unless it benefits their overlord’s political and economic goals (marquee ICC events for publicity, the support of Afghanistan to become a full member).
The BCCI doesn't need to promote the game globally. By virtue of being the most powerful board, they aren't required to grow the game in other nations. By that logic, each full member ought to do their bit of charity as well, right?
They’re unhappy with the private franchise owners branching out in other countries with replica T20 teams which means they’d rather have it all locked in the Indian market without necessarily globalising the game, something that is proven by their reluctance to let their players participate in any form of overseas T20 leagues.
They want to make their cash-cow and child in the IPL something akin to a marquee event in the cricket calendar with how they’ve pushed for it being given a FTP free window to attract the cream of overseas pros, all of the investment plus focus provided and even not worrying about the national side failing to perform or win games in ICC events.
As mentioned before, a tour from the national side to any nations fills the coffers of that nation for quite some time. Creating a marquee property like the IPL where almost everyone vies to play is quite a spectacular effort.
As already pointed out they want the money to reinvest in their own systems. Despite that, IPL pros are quite underpaid in comparison to the revenue they generate (and compared to other sports) while the auction system and it’s way of handing out one way contracts isn’t player friendly at all no matter how much they try to pretend that one new player getting a couple of arrogant rich people to blow cash on them is proof of the system working.
I see nothing wrong in investing money into the country's cricketing eco system- the number of new stadiums that have come up is truly amazing. Most of these are world class.
Payment to IPL players isn't in the hands of the BCCI. Yes, they have instituted a max cap for all teams. However, this is to ensure a level playing field. No one is stopping MI/ CSK from paying Rohit/ Dhoni 25-50 Crores. You seem to have a problem with the auction system - aren;t all other leagues bar the Pakistan one following the same?
What is wrong in that?
To me it seems like the BCCI has no real plan for the sport in the future other than raking in as much money as possible in the short term whilst acting as the benevolent ruler for the political influence and power trip. They’re brashly confident that they have enough of a significant following in India and her overseas expats to sustain them in the future without any planning and who knows, they may be right unless other sports gain a renewed interest or the AIFF steps their game up. It’s a shame because you gotta walk the talk IMO if you’re intent on taking the money and the decision making power with you. Quite simply put, the BCCI has to do better.
Cricket fan following in India won't die out soon. The BCCI isn't wrong in doing what it is doing. Why don't you do a similar analysis on ECB and CA as well? You will find the similarities exist there as well.
Maybe a one-off exhibition match would, but if India doesn’t consistently play other countries and doesn’t have overseas players in the IPL, the revenue would be small compared to now.
I believe we do consistently play other nations. Pray tell, why else would we schedule a tour to the WI and Ireland right now? Surely, the richest board has the means to delay a series. ECB and CA have been perhaps more guilty of not playing the Emerging nations often. India, on the other hand, has been involved with Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, etc.
I started watching cricket in T-20 format last year and then ODI for WC qualifying. I'm now watching the new round of World Test Series games for the first time. I have some questions if you would be so kind as to please answer.
1.) No powerplays or inner circle marked on the field, correct?
2.) Wearing all white uniforms is required?
3.) When and how often are new balls introduced?
4.) Batsman approach leans towards protecting the wickets since there are not limited overs (I see way less attempts at boundaries/fours and many more maidens bowled)?
5.) Are the wicket keeper and bowler communicating via hand signal between each delivery like in baseball to decide length/width of the next bowl, or are those discussions limited to between overs?
6.) Is the batsman making his own decisions as to batting approach (protect wickets or swing) or is he communicating with the other runner/coaches?
4.) Batsman approach leans towards protecting the wickets since there are not limited overs (I see way less attempts at boundaries/fours and many more maidens bowled)?
At the moment,yes. This largely depends upon the ball used. Test cricket uses a red colored ball as the games are held during the day time. They do have day-night test matches where they use the pink ball.
The rationale is that the red/pink is easier to spot against a white background.
That said, there may come a day when they attempt to play test cricket in colored clothing as well.
An Indian tour to most nations would help their board in getting adequate revenue to sustain the game for a year at least. I believe this is what they are riding on, when it comes to global share of the cricket market.
Indian fan following and stardom knows no bounds- So, tomorrow if India doesn't play an ICC event, the stadiums wouldn't be as full as they are right now. The ICC won't get those revenue, the TV ad spots wont sell- in short, a majority of the people won't watch. This is perhaps the reason why you see ICC events being scheduled to start at a particular hour/ tours starting at a particular hour- to suit the Indian viewership.
The BCCI doesn't need to promote the game globally. By virtue of being the most powerful board, they aren't required to grow the game in other nations. By that logic, each full member ought to do their bit of charity as well, right?
Why should they globalize? Safeguarding their own property makes sense.
As mentioned before, a tour from the national side to any nations fills the coffers of that nation for quite some time. Creating a marquee property like the IPL where almost everyone vies to play is quite a spectacular effort.
I see nothing wrong in investing money into the country's cricketing eco system- the number of new stadiums that have come up is truly amazing. Most of these are world class.
Payment to IPL players isn't in the hands of the BCCI. Yes, they have instituted a max cap for all teams. However, this is to ensure a level playing field. No one is stopping MI/ CSK from paying Rohit/ Dhoni 25-50 Crores. You seem to have a problem with the auction system - aren;t all other leagues bar the Pakistan one following the same?
What is wrong in that?
Cricket fan following in India won't die out soon. The BCCI isn't wrong in doing what it is doing. Why don't you do a similar analysis on ECB and CA as well? You will find the similarities exist there as well.
Post automatically merged:
I believe we do consistently play other nations. Pray tell, why else would we schedule a tour to the WI and Ireland right now? Surely, the richest board has the means to delay a series. ECB and CA have been perhaps more guilty of not playing the Emerging nations often. India, on the other hand, has been involved with Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, etc.
What do you actually want from cricket? What is the global game you'd like to see? And do you think India taking money they don't need from the ICC revenue is a way of achieving that? You have suggested if a team can't compete in one test match against India you think they should be disbanded, so I guess this will accelerate this likelihood.
There's some valid points in your post but most of them are not really different from what I said and agreed with earlier. You've missed out on what I said in my post too that clears up some of what you asked for...
The BCCI doesn't need to promote the game globally. By virtue of being the most powerful board, they aren't required to grow the game in other nations. By that logic, each full member ought to do their bit of charity as well, right?
Why should they globalize? Safeguarding their own property makes sense.
As I did state at the start of the post this policy of 'safeguarding' their property from other similar products in cricket or from other boards is extremely short-term. The real rival to cricket or BCCI's version of it is other forms of sport and entertainment.
The BCCI isn’t competing against other cricket boards in the long run, it’ll be competing against other sports and entertainment for interest and funds. Sure, the BCCI can pretend to be benevolent by claiming that they don’t take any revenue their presence generates in the Asian Cricket Council or by giving back more than they create technically but in the long run it doesn’t matter if the sport as a whole isn’t attractive enough to new audiences globally or if it is overshadowed by other forms of entertainment which has been happening steadily.
Cricket fan following in India won't die out soon. The BCCI isn't wrong in doing what it is doing. Why don't you do a similar analysis on ECB and CA as well? You will find the similarities exist there as well.
...is also what I said is likely true. I don't think it's as much of a guaranteed thing though. I've been reading 'Inverting the Pyramid' recently which traces the origins of modern football and from what it describes cricket had the head start on football in the 19th century in terms of infrastructure, clubs and recognition. A lot of football clubs in both England and Europe plus South America were offshoots or branches/extensions of the already functioning cricket clubs. Now the reason why football took off in a lot of these other countries compared to cricket is because it was easier to get into and required minimal investment for participants plus I imagine it is a lot easier to follow. England still had cricket as the premier sport among the middle class and elite for a very long time while football was the working man's sport but we all know how that tale ends. It may not be football in India's case but it will be something else and the BCCI remaining in stasis like it currently is doing won't help if that situation comes to pass.
I've been critical of the failure of the Imperial Cricket Conference in failing to grow the game in many previous posts. The only reason I didn't bring them up in this one was because the initial discussion revolved around the BCCI's revenue share.
Indian fan following and stardom knows no bounds- So, tomorrow if India doesn't play an ICC event, the stadiums wouldn't be as full as they are right now. The ICC won't get those revenue, the TV ad spots wont sell- in short, a majority of the people won't watch. This is perhaps the reason why you see ICC events being scheduled to start at a particular hour/ tours starting at a particular hour- to suit the Indian viewership.
Now this is where it gets tricky again. This wasn't something I talked about it in my post but since it's here might as well address it. Pandering to the Indian audience is understandable for an ICC event but there has to be a balance... you risk alienating the existing local populace and failing to bring in a new crowd should you go overboard with it. A prime example of this is the current CPL starting at 10AM local time, it's utterly ridiculous and is done only for the purpose that you mentioned. In this instance it wouldn't even matter much as beyond a small crowd nobody else would be interested in the CPL from India. This small portion may be more than enough to generate money for you in the short-term but in the longer run you won't have any form of crowd or local interest and then your small Indian crowd leaves due to those reasons anyway. Again, short-term goals over long term sustainability and I originally regarded the CPL as a league to perhaps follow for other upcoming ones given that it had some local enthusiasm and wasn't going overboard on trying to be the biggest T20 event of the year.
I see nothing wrong in investing money into the country's cricketing eco system- the number of new stadiums that have come up is truly amazing. Most of these are world class.
Payment to IPL players isn't in the hands of the BCCI. Yes, they have instituted a max cap for all teams. However, this is to ensure a level playing field. No one is stopping MI/ CSK from paying Rohit/ Dhoni 25-50 Crores. You seem to have a problem with the auction system - aren;t all other leagues bar the Pakistan one following the same?
What is wrong in that?
I did say that it was a compelling argument and a fair thing to invest in your grassroots cricket system in my post. I don't think the best way to go about it is by building an expensive stadium in every state possible but that does provide a big boost in the facilities available and I know how crucial that is given the current state of our football team struggling without similar infrastructure that can be accessed. Not sure why you picked on it when my only counter was that some of the other test nations aren't as well equipped and that a lot of the money funneled into our system gets skimmed off at every level due to corruption.
I don't have an issue with a salary cap nor have I ever insinuated that in any post. It's absence is one of my biggest issues with modern football. My main gripe with the auction system is that it is very much luck based and quite unfair in reality which gets ignored because as I did say... people hyper-fixate on those few blokes who get someone to overpay for them. A lot of players get underpaid in practice. I say this as a fan of CSK, a franchise which has won three of it's last IPL titles by abusing these mechanics of the auction system. The number of players we had that were heavily underpaid in comparison to what they should have been was ridiculous. Now these players may well be paid under the table and perhaps that is why they choose to stay with the same side until the next mega auction alongside having access to excellent facilities that a richer franchise can guarantee... (looking at you MI).
My other issue with the current IPL system doesn't necessarily have to do with auctions but with the way the contracts work. If I'm right the players only get their full sum of money depending on the number of matches they play or are available to participate in. The IPL team can also cancel your contract with no consequence if you fail to turn up for one season. Both of these are quite anti-worker in nature which isn't surprising given the league is the BCCI's brainchild after all. This is on top of the players being underpaid in comparison to the revenues the league is currently generating. You can still have a level playing field while raising the official salary cap in relation to the revenue. Which brings me to my main point of the entire post which is...
...that I would prefer the BCCI to be the benevolent dictator which looks out for everyone, nurtures the game globally and grows it all over the place since it is intent on being the dictator anyway. But hey if it decides to screw all of that like you said it would and if the only way for a form of cricket to have a long-term future is for it to be evil... then at least be a competent evil dictator if that makes sense? Turn Indian cricket into something that is truly special in domestic cricket, private league cricket or international cricket whichever one you want it to be! Make it something special among all sports! Make the sport more accessible to supporters (to their credit Jio has been doing stellar work on it since they got some of the rights). What's the point of building these 'world class' stadiums if the supporter experience when you actually go to them and watch games is miserable?
Since this post is getting too long already like most of mine... I'll keep the rest of it in another post. To end this one on a positive note...
An Indian tour to most nations would help their board in getting adequate revenue to sustain the game for a year at least. I believe this is what they are riding on, when it comes to global share of the cricket market.
As mentioned before, a tour from the national side to any nations fills the coffers of that nation for quite some time. Creating a marquee property like the IPL where almost everyone vies to play is quite a spectacular effort.
I believe we do consistently play other nations. Pray tell, why else would we schedule a tour to the WI and Ireland right now? Surely, the richest board has the means to delay a series. ECB and CA have been perhaps more guilty of not playing the Emerging nations often. India, on the other hand, has been involved with Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, etc.
I've never said the BCCI shuns certain other teams (other than the one we all know it does shun) like the ECB and CA do. I've also been appreciative of the way the BCCI always looks out for some teams like Sri Lanka irrespective of the situation. There is a political element to it, let's not be naive about it but it is something that they are doing and I've always said that it is one aspect of theirs that I do like (which gets scorned by others who want them playing 'high quality' opposition all the time).
If by live scoring you mean following it on Cricinfo or Cricbuzz... I find it useful during a test session that isn't entertaining, an ODI/T20 session on a road with mindless hitting and easy strike rotation.
I generally try to watch it whenever possible live. It is easier for me to do so given subscriptions are more affordable compared to our brethren in Australia and England. However my watching has also significantly dwindled due to a lack of free time. I'd say the TV experience is significantly better because you get to see the live play and judge it for yourself. Live coverage on those two sites can sometimes become shoddy and the user submitted comments are utterly stupid sometimes.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
It's absence is one of my biggest issues with modern football. My main gripe with the auction system is that it is very much luck based and quite unfair in reality which gets ignored because as I did say... people hyper-fixate on those few blokes who get someone to overpay for them. A lot of players get underpaid in practice. I say this as a fan of CSK, a franchise which has won three of it's last IPL titles by abusing these mechanics of the auction system. The number of players we had that were heavily underpaid in comparison to what they should have been was ridiculous. Now these players may well be paid under the table and perhaps that is why they choose to stay with the same side until the next mega auction alongside having access to excellent facilities that a richer franchise can guarantee... (looking at you MI).
