ICC News: Restructuring the ICC, BCCI Influence & more

[War]

The other aspect is this question: why are these boards so dependent on Indian/Australian/English money? Can they not generate their own revenue? If sponsors in New Zealand/South Africa find rugby/soccer/[insert sport here] a more worthwhile investment than cricket, how is that the fault of the BCCI? Isn't that failure to grow the game in your base country squarely on the plate of the local boards? Those boards agreeing to this proposal after negotiations are essentially admitting that they do not have the ability to grow the game domestically in order for it to be viable financially without the crutch provided by the Big Three.

Just playing the devil's advocate.

Nah its a legitimate question, that has been discussed before in earlier pages in this thread and this is my theory on this:

Cricket has potentially fallen into a black hole so deep - that their is no way out anymore.

From a historical context, the modern ECB/AUS & the old ECB/AUS are at more blame for the current messy ICC structure & the rise of BCCI in the last 15 years.

When the Packer ordeal occurred & exposed ICC in the 1970s, since then the AUS/ENG should have brought all the members boards should have tried to formulate an ICC independently, just as how FIFA became independent when Jo?o Havelange campaigned to defeat the English FIFA head Stanley Rous circa 1974, saying he would make football more global.


ICC was never a financially viable institution before Jagmohan Dalmiya became president in the mid 90s (when ENG/AUS veto power was eased), i read once that the champions trophy was formed in 1998 to save the ICC from being bankrupt. So India has played a MASSIVE role in helping the ICC have money.

If this was done, ICC would have been a proper independent body all these years with sound finances & India rise as financial power would be as irrelevant as England financial might in world football to FIFA, despite the influence of the premier league.

Now India financial influence has grown, its using it to get back @ ENG/AUS for unsubstantiated bad treatment, they claim was death against them, as tony greig mentioned in his MCC speech b4 he died:

MCC Spirit of Cricket Lecture : Tony Greig Cowdrey Lecture: The full transcript | Cricket News | Marylebone Cricket Club | ESPN Cricinfo

"We can huff and puff as much as we like and have all sorts of external reports," Greig continued, "but this situation can only be resolved by India accepting that the spirit of cricket is more important than generating billions of dollars; it's more important than turning out multi-millionaire players; and it's more important than getting square with Australia and England for their bully-boy tactics towards India over the years. It's ironic that the world, including India, rightly worships at the Nelson Mandela altar because of his conciliatory attitude but then India eschews his approach by indulging in a little pay back."

While ENG & AUS (especially England) after years of trying to stand up to IND on the moral high ground for cricket saga, have decided to join with IND for its own benefit, because other boards especially those in the Asian block & WI/ZIM continuously get succumb to whatever money IND throws at them - Giles Clarke on verge of diplomatic triumph | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

Cricket major broadcasters also realize that the ICC is dysfunctional governing body & they simply gravitate to IND market because its a quicker easier financial deal. This is arguably the main reason why they forced the ICC to give up the test championship idea & bring back the champions trophy.

The economies of certain cricket nation aren't financial strong enough to grow the game in their territories without ICC funding. Realistically cricket should have a similar broadcast sharing deal to the English premier league.

Most fans want to see the United, Chelsea, Arsenals of the league - but not because their viewing fans contribute to the Premier League getting all this money more than a Stoke City/West Brom/Southampton - doesn't mean they should get more funds. That deal has helped the premiership be competitive & all clubs become financially strong - even the big 6 clubs still have individual financial deals.

This is why India/ENG/AUS getting more money is atrocious. Cricket won't grow now.

One or two countries dominating the broadcast money as we see in La Liga with Real/Barca, has led to La Liga being a boring two horse reals for almost two decades now - except the odd year.

 

[used2bcool]

I cannot believe I'm saying this, @War, but that was very informative. Thank you.

The economies of certain cricket nation aren't financial strong enough to grow the game in their territories without ICC funding. Realistically cricket should have a similar broadcast sharing deal like what the English premier league.

Most fans want to see the United, Chelsea, Arsenals of the league - but not because their viewing fans contribute to the Premier League getting all this money more than a Stoke City/West Brom/Southampton - doesn't mean they should get more funds. That deal has helped the premiership be competitive & all clubs become financially strong - even the big 6 clubs still have individual financial deals.

One or two countries dominating the broadcast money as we see in La Liga with Real/Barca, has led to La Liga being a boring two horse reals for almost two decades now - except the odd year.

Agree with most of this, but I think dominance on the football field is more closely related to money than in cricket, since you can essentially *buy* a team that is stronger than some other club which has less money. I think in cricket that connection is not that clear - the richest teams haven't necessarily been the best teams in cricket history. So maybe the suggestion that we'll only have a three-horse race a few years down the road and that there'll be little competition is not as close to being realized as you think.

Your point about economies is spot on. But I'd still like to see New Zealand, West Indies, etc. try. Nothing bad can come off it, right? It's not that they're not getting any money from the new agreement, so I'd like to see them put together a genuine effort to grow the game in their own countries, if only because they feel threatened enough that cricket in NZ/WI/wherever would cease to exist otherwise. Sometimes I feel these boards rely too heavily on the assurance that oh, India is touring this year, or oh, Aussies are coming next year to really do some good governance to grow the game.

 

[War]

Agree with most of this, but I think dominance on the football field is more closely related to money than in cricket, since you can essentially *buy* a team that is stronger than some other club which has less money. I think in cricket that connection is not that clear - the richest teams haven't necessarily been the best teams in cricket history. So maybe the suggestion that we'll only have a three-horse race a few years down the road and that there'll be little competition is not as close to being realized as you think.

Well yes despite the money you have, if you don't spend it wisely your national team won't develop. Case in point the English football FA despite the richest from the premier league are lagging being the other major football nations & even the BCCI with their poor development of fast bowlers and the general domestic circuit.

So if the Big 3 don't use their added riches wisely, they could struggle. But given their financial advantage i won't be surprised if a La Liga situation develops in cricket.

Your point about economies is spot on. But I'd still like to see New Zealand, West Indies, etc. try. Nothing bad can come off it, right? It's not that they're not getting any money from the new agreement, so I'd like to see them put together a genuine effort to grow the game in their own countries, if only because they feel threatened enough that cricket in NZ/WI/wherever would cease to exist otherwise. Sometimes I feel these boards rely too heavily on the assurance that oh, India is touring this year, or oh, Aussies are coming next year to really do some good governance to grow the game.

Well as the graph shows, the other 7 boards are losing money under this system:

I can't speak clear on how NZ/PAK/SRI/ZIM/BANG boards have used their current ICC funds - but i know how Windies uses it 117 mill, since i've been able to research them better than the others.

WICB is generally made up of third world countries, only Trinidad is really a developed country that has infrastructure of similarity to North America & Europe, due to be being an oil country.

WICB uses that money run its domestic competitions, pay players, staff etc. The main side cash they get in my lifetime was from phone companies Digicel & Cable and Wireless. That all the assistance they get from co-operate Caribbean & that lack of major sponsors like what ECB, CA & BCCI is one of the main reasons why the windies don't have a long domestic season and domestic season sponsors.

Due to these factors their next major source of finance is when they play series vs India & England.

Mike Atherton was speaking about the problem recently & raised an interesting idea of using "internet rights" to alleviate the problem - Mike Atherton calls for more even distribution of game's profits | Cricket News | Cricinfo for Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

That's the route the game should be going, the ICC taking a leadership role and trying to get more broadcast money to spread around. Not three boards who are already financially well off, bullying the already lame duck ICC, to get more money in the game.

 

[CG123]

I could understand the BCCI getting like twice as much as they currently do, but almost five times as much is just ridiculous.

How are we going to be expected to compete with a country that has 280 times the population and gets 7.5 times the money from the ICC, not to mention a lot more internally generated revenue and a lot of our best athletes don't even choose cricket compared to India where a lot more must since they are not very good at most other sports (even in hockey we're higher ranked and it isn't even professional here).

 

[War]

Firdose Moonda: Lessons cricket can learn from football and rugby | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

Ha weren't we just talking about this Callum? @CG123

 

[War]

ICC revamp : It is not a perfect world - CSA | Cricket News | Cricinfo ICC Site | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[War]

 

[CG123]

Firdose Moonda: Lessons cricket can learn from football and rugby | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

Ha weren't we just talking about this Callum? @CG123

Haha, someones been reading our PMs. I definitely like what both Rugby and Soccer do with their fixtures, having fixed international windows. Cricket is just all over the place, and it's going to get even worse with these changes.

The problem with cricket is that India is just so dominant financially, while with rugby I would guess that England, France, and South Africa are all be pretty equal at the top. (For another reason) England and France are trying to breakaway domestically from the other four nations up there, and there's a distant chance that South Africa could join them, but internationally the game's a lot more stable. The All Blacks are always going to full out stadiums where ever they go, as well as most of the other fixtures between the big ten teams selling out.

I really liked this comment, it pretty much of sums up how I feel:

This is very similar to the Super 15 scenario. In that case South Africa brings in the majority of the revenue (by far) but the money is evenly split between the three countries involved (NZ, Aus and SA). However, because the All Blacks are the best team on the planet (sadly) and have been for a quite some time, a WC without them would be a farce. A cricket WC without India will be just fine from a playing perspective, maybe not financially.

Most boards in the IRB are financially stable, not great but stable, in other words, they doing better than Sri Lanka, Pakistan, WI, NZ etc in cricketing terms. The ARU (Australian Rugby Union) has problems financially and that is because, unlike their cricket board, they face massive competition from Rugby League which many players and spectators prefer to Rugby Union.

I have no problem with India wanting more revenue, if you contribute the most you should get a fair share, but I don't agree with the 'big three' running the game.

 

[karolkarol]

Those figures are a great big f*ck you to associate cricket. Promoting the game globally my @rse.

 

[Hasimir Rossi]

Where's all this extra money going to come from that will supposedly give everyone more money? Magic?

 

[grkrama]

Heart warming satire, wish this happened in real
Blogs: Players stand up to the Big Three | Cricket Blogs | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[War]

We received threats from India for resisting Big Three: Ashraf - The Times of India

 

[War]

Barca, Real Madrid and cricket's 'Big Three' - DAWN.COM - Hassam Cheema from the Pakistan damn probably reading these forums too ha:

Barca, Real Madrid and cricket's 'Big Three'​

There's a less the ICC can take from Jose Maria del Nido's failed 'revolution' of 2011. -ICC Photo




In September of 2011, Jose Maria del Nido, the president of Sevilla FC at the time, decided that enough was enough. The distribution of the TV rights deal was to be decided. What was on the table was this: 16 La Liga clubs would get 45% of the share; Atletico Madrid and Valencia would share 11% between them; meanwhile Real Madrid and Barcelona would get 35% of the money. The inequality was to be institutionalised; Spain, as fans of everyone outside of the 'Big Two' feared, was to become Scotland with better weather.

And so del Nido had had it. Only four years earlier, Sevilla had competed for the title ? they had probably been the best team in the league that season, but a combination of inexperience and fighting on too many fronts caught with them. They managed to win the Cup and the UEFA Cup, but fell just one win short of their first league title in over fifty years. The team was young and exciting. In another country, maybe in another era, that would have been the start of a dynasty. Instead, within twelve months, their best player was in Barcelona, their coach was in London and the team was outside the Champions League spots. And despite returning to the Champions League the following season they have never come close to challenging Madrid and Barcelona since. The fact that they were forced to sell their two best players to Manchester City last summer means that any resurgence looks unlikely.

Thus, in 2011, del Nido decided to call for a resistance, he even compared it to the French Revolution at one stage. Representatives of 12 of the 18 other league clubs (i.e. apart from Madrid and Barca) turned up to a meeting in Seville a week before the official meeting at the league headquarters. They agreed to be part of the resistance. A week later only Villareal and Sevilla stood up, the rest had wilted under the pressure from the ?Big Two? ? the revolution was dead before it had begun.

The argument from Madrid and Barcelona was simple: we are the ones earning the dough, it?s because of us that the TV companies pay so much. But what they failed to acknowledge was that in trying to stay ahead financially of the other clubs in Europe they would need to grab bigger and bigger pieces of the pie as time went on, as relatively speaking, the La Liga rights would be worth less as the league became a less attractive proposition compared to Germany, Italy and particularly England. There?s only so much lack of competition the casual fan can handle. It is no surprise that the two the biggest sporting leagues in the world (The Premier League and the NFL) are almost socialist when it comes to their TV rights deals ? especially when it compares to La Liga.

International cricket is not club football. The difference in finances purely from TV rights does not have as big an effect on performance; and you can?t ?buy? success in international cricket (apart from when you are fixing matches that is) as easily as you can in club football. Money isn?t the elixir of all problems - otherwise BCCI would have found a decent pace bowler in a billion people. But it does help. It helps in providing the best facilities and coaches from the national team down to the lowest levels, it helps with keeping the players focused and professional, it helps with attracting the best foreign talent for development of your lot and it helps (supposedly) with keeping them away from nefarious dealings.

And it?s what the other nine boards are signing on for. The meetings in Dubai on 28th and 29th of January started off with calls for revolution from the ?Small Seven?. The ?Small Seven? ended up being the ?Spineless Seven? ? with all due to respect to Pakistan, South Africa and Sri Lanka. Carrots were dangled and they jumped on them like hungry rabbits. Turkeys voted for Christmas because they were told that chicken would be on the dinner table. Much like del Nido and his allies, the revolution wilted even before it had gotten off the ground. In trying to protect their narrow short term interests, the boards (particularly Bangladesh) have given up all power and sense of equality they could ever hope to achieve. If at any time over the next decade a board complains about Test cricket not being ?financially suitable? or cancels/rearranges tours because of its coffers, then one can always point to these series of meetings where they decided they would be happy to get less money because they didn?t have the courage or unity to stand up. Every time another domestic T20 league is launched, every time the board members complain about not having the money to invest in grass roots cricket, every time they talk about not being able to play bilateral series against the ?Big Three?, they?ll have to be reminded of this era when they decided to relinquish the initiative.

So, the immediate future for cricket is pretty clear. Pakistan might tour India or it might not; Australia, India and England will keep playing each other; South Africa get no respect despite being the best in the world; and the inequality will be formalised. Pakistan fans can look forward to some more series against South Africa, and a lot more against Sri Lanka. 2013 will be repeated ad infinitum. I guess we?ll get used to it.

 

[used2bcool]

Haha, does seem like they've been reading this space. I remember having part of this discussion with you.

 

[War]

Sri Lanka Cricket News: 'Unanimous' SLC backs ICC revamp | ESPN Cricinfo

He said that for the next seven years Sri Lanka were due to get an income of $60 million from bilateral tours, and out of this figure, one Indian tour for one month would bring $28m, one England tour $12m and one Australian tour $7-8m.

"When you calculate, a series with these three countries will bring us a revenue of $47-48m. If we are going to object to their proposals our cricket is going to suffer," Ranatunga said. "People who talk about principles and all that will not give us the money. We have to make our money from these tours.

"When any other country comes for a full tour we bear the same cost to host them but the returns are very small compared to the other three countries."

This reality for SRI, which is the same for PAK/WI/NZ/SA is what is the essential problem of world cricket.