ICC News: Restructuring the ICC, BCCI Influence & more

[Satan666]

I wish if ICC to be structured would be done as performance based rather than money and media hype stuff, The way AB grilled indian bowling in the last ODI, SA surely deserves a top spot in ICC management.

Its an interesting topic as to why SA is always sidelined from the cricketing heirachy despite being the top team or second top for the last couple decades or so. However think its more to do with the English and Australians, sadly the apartheid days are present in some aspects, this being one perhaps!

 

[CerealKiller]

Why not have a 10-year cycle, in which 2 full-members get to "govern" the ICC for 2 years each? For example for the first 2 years India and Australia, then England and Pakistan, then South Africa and New Zealand and so on?

 

[IceAgeComing]

why not run the icc as an independent body, like those of most other sports?

 

[Markkkkk]

Na that will never work...

 

[Satan666]

Yeah these will never work because the full member nations want to split the revenue between themselves only, even with the Big 3 in charge they make more revenue than the other 7 members. The World Cup is the major revenue stream for the ICC hence they want to limit it to 10 teams, with that type of attitude they will never allow independance, yet they go on about spreading the game! Despicable people!

Over the last couple years the MCC rules are being altered and in some cases not being adopted by the ICC neither, next institution to be squashed![DOUBLEPOST=1446233093][/DOUBLEPOST]At the end of it all what irks me the most is to see and read so call fans of cricket continual support of the Big 3 format, this all started with the Indian Administrators, the world is a cycle, may not be in our lifetime but it will end with them also. Daily cricket as we know it is continually being eroded off!

 

[VC the slogger]

N Srinivasan likely to lose ICC chairmanship | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[IceAgeComing]

Since this is kind of a rant thread about Associate Cricket I'm going to cross-post something from the England/Pakistan thread here.

England are playing a one day game against the UAE and a T20 game against Hong Kong as warmups before the games against Pakistan, and despite the fact that the former has ODI status and the latter has T20 status they aren't being described as full internationals, which confused me when I first saw it. The reason is allegedly because England don't want to pay higher match fees in order to give the game full status which is quite frankly ridiculous considering they are the second richest board. I can see them making both into silly "whole squad plays" crap, and if they do I'll be very angry...

N Srinivasan likely to lose ICC chairmanship | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

This is a good thing for a variety of reasons: from a somewhat selfish perspective he was one of the big road blocks to a better World Cup so hopefully we can get something better with him gone.

 

[themusketeer]

this all started with the Indian Administrators,

Totally wrong IMO. It all started with the bullyness of Aussies and English. India were always treated badly.

 

[Satan666]

Totally wrong IMO. It all started with the bullyness of Aussies and English. India were always treated badly.

Even if that was true does it make it right that India enjoys the largest share of revenue? Or the fact that the WC is now 10 teams meaning no revenue for the Associates and Affiliates, thereby stifling the game from spreading further? Or perhaps because India were supposedly bullied makes it right for the West Indies team to quickly be eroded while the lame duck ICC does nothing?

 

[Satan666]

Since this is kind of a rant thread about Associate Cricket I'm going to cross-post something from the England/Pakistan thread here.

England are playing a one day game against the UAE and a T20 game against Hong Kong as warmups before the games against Pakistan, and despite the fact that the former has ODI status and the latter has T20 status they aren't being described as full internationals, which confused me when I first saw it. The reason is allegedly because England don't want to pay higher match fees in order to give the game full status which is quite frankly ridiculous considering they are the second richest board. I can see them making both into silly "whole squad plays" crap, and if they do I'll be very angry...



This is a good thing for a variety of reasons: from a somewhat selfish perspective he was one of the big road blocks to a better World Cup so hopefully we can get something better with him gone.

Wow that is rather sad, disgusting but not unexpected.

 

[themusketeer]

Even if that was true does it make it right that India enjoys the largest share of revenue?

There is no ifs and buts. If India gets largest share of revenue then India deserve it i think. I don't think Aussies and English board are that sweet that they will let India have the largest share without any reason and they will just watch it silently.

the fact that the WC is now 10 teams meaning no revenue for the Associates and Affiliates, thereby stifling the game from spreading further

I am against it as much as others are. Game shouldn't limited to some top class teams. It should expand further and further.

Btw, I like the way you refrain from including the other guys of BIG 3 . They are as much part of this management thing as india is. They are called Big 3 for a reason.

Indies team to quickly be eroded while the lame duck ICC does nothing?

WI Board ,their team ,their internal co-ordination and their performance is the reason for decline and their current situation. I don't any reason why would anyone attack WI and make sure they go out of the cricket. They aren't world beaters anymore. Only WI board and their players can revive it.

And Yes, India doesn't seem to have any reason to attack WI. If you are stuck on that series thing, Get over it quickly.

 

[PokerAce]

There is no ifs and buts. If India gets largest share of revenue then India deserve it i think.

Found this great article on the issue.

"Srinivasan asked a private agency to study the model and find out who is responsible for what amount and we found that India is responsible for 72 percent and ICC worked out that it was 68 percent. We had a meeting with the ICC officials in Dubai and we informed that 68 to 72 percent is not an issue but it was clear that the majority of the income is coming from India, so why should India take only three to four percent?"

Seems a good question don't you think. BCCI is asking for more of what it itself generates, its not asking for a cut of what others are generating. Is that so rude?

Lets be honest here, this clearly shows that all the other boards have been riding off BCCI's coattails when it comes to revenue. BCCI generates double of what all the other boards put together generate. Yet despite this when BCCI wants a larger share given how much more it generates, everyone wants to have a go at the BCCI for it. WICB, NZC, SLC, etc generate peanuts in regard to revenue, and yet when it come to redistribution of the pool, want an equal share with the BCCI. Just how long was the BCCI supposed to put with this exploitative model.

You generate the most, by a country mile, but in return get the same share as the ones who generate and contribute not even a fraction of what you do.

India gets largest share because India generates hardest revenue. Before the restructuring, India was generating 68-72% of ICC gross and getting a mere 3-4% in return. This is as unfair as it could get. If any other board was doing the same, one would never hear the end of it from them, but since its BCCI all hell has broken lose. BCCI contributes the largest share to ICC revenue, and hence it gets the largest share of it. Seems fair to me.

If ten people had to work to generate a revenue pool, and I worked and earned 70 of the 100 dollars that the pool eventually got, and then was given 10 dollars as my share, I would be very upset. BCCI had the same situation, and naturally didn't want to put up with this very exploitative model. The new model is great. As BCCI gets a larger share, but at the same time everyone else also gets an increase on what they were getting in the previous cycle.

BCCI was naturally very upset with the previous model, and even went to the extent of forming a seperate/parallel ICC. It was only when the other boards realised that their golden egg laying hen is pulling away, and if it did, then the boards will be left to redistribute the peanuts they generate among themselves, which would not even be a fraction of what they get under the new model, only then did the boards agree to this model.

 

[themusketeer]

That's what i was talking about. If India gets it, they deserve it too. Everyone gets what they earn.
On the Associate thing, I read somewhere that BCCI does provide funds for 1 or 2 Associate countries to help their domestic cricket structure.

 

[IceAgeComing]

Seems a good question don't you think. BCCI is asking for more of what it itself generates, its not asking for a cut of what others are generating. Is that so rude?

...yes?

Every other sports governing body works on a principal of wealth redistribution; using the money from those that are big fans of a sport in order to support development in other nations. The reason behind this is incredibly sensible: by funding development, you bring more nations into the world game, which generates more money and in the long term pays off for everyone. All that the structure that cricket is currently developing does is dramatically hurt the game: by the rich nations hoarding all the wealth and making it harder for smaller nations to develop, all that will happen is that the game is shrunk and that in a good few years, cricket is nothing outside of India, England and Australia. Cricket is increasingly governed as a sort of plutocracy and they simply do not work in the long terms because short term greed kills long term growth. It goes beyond money even: the whole Olympics thing would bring a lot more money into the game but some within the ICC don't like that because the vast majority of that money would be to support teams at the bottom and not to those at the top (I'm including a fair few test teams in that definition, not just the "big 3") despite the fact that we can see that getting teams in that sort of multi sports thing has worked - there's Cricket in the Asia Games and despite the fact that its still early days and its not a competition with the reputation of the Olympics we are starting to see governments support the building of cricket infrastructure especially in South Korea and China (both teams that currently get the ICC minimum funding of $20,000/year) and both are starting to improve because of that: it'll be a long process but if we could get the latter to play Cricket even as an extreme minority sport then from a revenue perspective that is huge.

On the Associate thing, I read somewhere that BCCI does provide funds for 1 or 2 Associate countries to help their domestic cricket structure.

and? Why should I support the ICC funding some associates a bit more money when the vast majority aren't even given enough to fund a single full time coach? That's where the real problem is: not with the Irelands, Afghanistans or Scotlands of the world but with the teams that have to work incredibly hard to do anything since they get fearsome tweak all from their governments (because Cricket isn't an Olympic sport) and $20k from the ICC which is less than the average weekly salary in most parts of the world. A set of those flashy bails that they use in International T20 games costs more than more associate members get from the ICC annually - I think that says something...

 

[PokerAce]

...yes?

Every other sports governing body works on a principal of wealth redistribution; using the money from those that are big fans of a sport in order to support development in other nations. The reason behind this is incredibly sensible: by funding development, you bring more nations into the world game, which generates more money and in the long term pays off for everyone. All that the structure that cricket is currently developing does is dramatically hurt the game: by the rich nations hoarding all the wealth and making it harder for smaller nations to develop, all that will happen is that the game is shrunk and that in a good few years, cricket is nothing outside of India, England and Australia. Cricket is increasingly governed as a sort of plutocracy and they simply do not work in the long terms because short term greed kills long term growth. It goes beyond money even: the whole Olympics thing would bring a lot more money into the game but some within the ICC don't like that because the vast majority of that money would be to support teams at the bottom and not to those at the top (I'm including a fair few test teams in that definition, not just the "big 3") despite the fact that we can see that getting teams in that sort of multi sports thing has worked - there's Cricket in the Asia Games and despite the fact that its still early days and its not a competition with the reputation of the Olympics we are starting to see governments support the building of cricket infrastructure especially in South Korea and China (both teams that currently get the ICC minimum funding of $20,000/year) and both are starting to improve because of that: it'll be a long process but if we could get the latter to play Cricket even as an extreme minority sport then from a revenue perspective that is huge.

Cricket Board of X - So what if the BCCI is generating all the money and we are generating nothing, I still want an equal cut with the BCCI of all the money it generates. BCCI must continue to be the donkey which I will exploit to my financial benefit. BCCI can earn all the money, while I will be a lazy sod, and sit on my arse all day, and then at the end of the year, BCCI and I each get an equal share. Its not that I am being greedy, its just better for the good of the game you see

Thats classic communism for you. A poor beggar on the street thinks he is entitled to a share (that too an equal share) of the wealth of an entrepreneur who has slogged his arse off to get the revenue.

Also wealth redistribution. I think you will find that Wealth redistribution is still taking place. Under the new model BCCI is earning the money (as it was before), and others are getting a cut of it, which is far larger than the most of the other boards can ever hope to generate themselves. That is wealth redistribution, and it is happening in the ICC under the new model. Only the Wealth redistribution has been made less exploitative of the BCCI, by giving them a larger share of the revenue, the bulk of which was generated by the BCCI to begin with.

Sounds perfectly fair. Or why stop there, why not extend the logic and lets both of us pool in what we earn annually with Bill Gates' annual income and then split the pool every year 3 ways with Bill Gates?