ICC News: Restructuring the ICC, BCCI Influence & more

[icyman]

IPL is so valuable because of overseas players

Could the IPL be profitable without overseas players? Cuz I think the league has reached a stage where the foreign player’s input is negligible to draw crowd.

Now, in the above case, we have 2 separate POV- @CerealKiller is talking about the value whereas @Chhinnamasta69 refers to the crowd-pulling ability of the league.
Interestingly enough, this is a debate that will be never ending.

Overseas players will draw crowds for sure and this proves to be valuable in the initial days of any league. In a country like India, with cricket fanatics everywhere, people are bound to throng the stadiums if the superstars are playing. Case in point, whenever Sachin, Saurav used to play Ranji, the crowds used to come in. In that way, the foreign player's pull to draw crowds is totally negligible.

If we focus on the value, yes, the overseas player will bring in a lot more than the usual domestic one. Crowds aren't going to be treated to watching Dewald Brevis, AB (just to name a few) playing every now and then. This adds to the team's structure and valuation. It is very much similar to how Manchester United or any other football franchisee would be valuated. IPL, has had a history of having some of the best in the business representing the franchisees. It would be the same for any other league as well. Conversely, if an Indian player like Rohit, Kohli were to ply their trade for BBL, The 100, the value of that league too would go up by leaps and bounds.

BCCI has more than it actually needs. Sharing it with the teams and nations actually needing it to improve the quality of cricket will help the sport more.

And all other international boards as well are operational for the reason of maintenance and welfare of cricket operations and not to earn money like a Corporation.

The IPL contracts are structured in a way that the team owners get a chunk of the revenue and sponsorship deals brokered by the BCCI. The money actually flows back to the franchisee owners. Leave aside the IPL, the India-home series deals with PayTM /Mastercard/BYJUs and Star are also drafted in a similar manner. Here, the money goes to the state association like Mumbai, Maharashtra, etc. What the franchisee/ state association does with it is another ballgame. What the BCCI has done so far- pay coaches, build new stadiums, build NCAs (another one is coming up) and put in money into development of the game at the U-19, U-23 level.

As to us sharing with other boards/ countries- we might as well take care of our own needs first and then help someone else. Furthermore, I firmly believe it is the prerogative of the ICC to do with member nations what the BCCI does with its franchisees/ state associations.

My biggest worry is that BCCI is a more benevolent bully than the Imperial Cricket Council of the past. Shows just how awful the latter was when it was in power. The effects of it are still seen by how the ECB has done nothing significant for the growth of cricket in Europe barring the odd bilateral series at the international level, their push to restrict ten teams in the ODI WC and the Sky deal that took cricket off FTA. CA has been steadily killing the golden goose of BBL and is turning more cricket into pay to view too.

Just makes me wonder how different and popular the sport would be if we had a better leading board back then or even this version of BCCI.

Agree with your thoughts on the Imperial Council- they were far more dictatorial in nature and perhaps to an extent considered themselves as an extended arm of the then-British Empire.

Further to your point n the ECB not doing enough for Europe- again, refer to my point above- Shouldn't they take care of their cricket first? Also, is it not the responsibility of the ICC to develop the game further? The 10 team World Cup was actually voted upon by all the member nations- In all fairness, the ICC shouldnt have allowed this motion to pass- especially when it was under the tutelage of Shashank Manohar.

The SKY deal- again mate, nothing wrong in that. Why do we blame the ECB when the BCCI/CA also have similar deals with Star and Fox respectively? The answer lies in the fact that the Govt of India/ Australia have mandated that national cricket be simulcast of FTA channels like Doordarshan and Channel9 or that the one who wins the bid needs to have a FTA channel.

 

[Bevab]

Now, in the above case, we have 2 separate POV- @CerealKiller is talking about the value whereas @Chhinnamasta69 refers to the crowd-pulling ability of the league.
Interestingly enough, this is a debate that will be never ending.

Overseas players will draw crowds for sure and this proves to be valuable in the initial days of any league. In a country like India, with cricket fanatics everywhere, people are bound to throng the stadiums if the superstars are playing. Case in point, whenever Sachin, Saurav used to play Ranji, the crowds used to come in. In that way, the foreign player's pull to draw crowds is totally negligible.

If we focus on the value, yes, the overseas player will bring in a lot more than the usual domestic one. Crowds aren't going to be treated to watching Dewald Brevis, AB (just to name a few) playing every now and then. This adds to the team's structure and valuation. It is very much similar to how Manchester United or any other football franchisee would be valuated. IPL, has had a history of having some of the best in the business representing the franchisees. It would be the same for any other league as well. Conversely, if an Indian player like Rohit, Kohli were to ply their trade for BBL, The 100, the value of that league too would go up by leaps and bounds.



The IPL contracts are structured in a way that the team owners get a chunk of the revenue and sponsorship deals brokered by the BCCI. The money actually flows back to the franchisee owners. Leave aside the IPL, the India-home series deals with PayTM /Mastercard/BYJUs and Star are also drafted in a similar manner. Here, the money goes to the state association like Mumbai, Maharashtra, etc. What the franchisee/ state association does with it is another ballgame. What the BCCI has done so far- pay coaches, build new stadiums, build NCAs (another one is coming up) and put in money into development of the game at the U-19, U-23 level.

As to us sharing with other boards/ countries- we might as well take care of our own needs first and then help someone else. Furthermore, I firmly believe it is the prerogative of the ICC to do with member nations what the BCCI does with its franchisees/ state associations.



Agree with your thoughts on the Imperial Council- they were far more dictatorial in nature and perhaps to an extent considered themselves as an extended arm of the then-British Empire.

Further to your point n the ECB not doing enough for Europe- again, refer to my point above- Shouldn't they take care of their cricket first? Also, is it not the responsibility of the ICC to develop the game further? The 10 team World Cup was actually voted upon by all the member nations- In all fairness, the ICC shouldnt have allowed this motion to pass- especially when it was under the tutelage of Shashank Manohar.

The SKY deal- again mate, nothing wrong in that. Why do we blame the ECB when the BCCI/CA also have similar deals with Star and Fox respectively? The answer lies in the fact that the Govt of India/ Australia have mandated that national cricket be simulcast of FTA channels like Doordarshan and Channel9 or that the one who wins the bid needs to have a FTA channel.

A very big and informative post but I just wanna respond to the last point for now. The ECB successfully lobbied to take cricket off the essential sports that must be broadcast on FTA channels list in the aftermath of their 2005 Ashes triumph which is why it’s no longer available there. So this was indeed the ECB’s fault. I’ve seen a couple of people point out that domestic cricket would have never been sustained in the long run without the Sky money in England but I’m unsure of how true that is given that a lot of these counties are a century old.