ICC revamp January 30, 2014

Non-Full Members to gain from proposed revenue model - Richardson

'Associates will be better off than before' - Richardson

David Richardson, the ICC chief executive, has said that the new revenue distribution model, which is an integral part of the revamp of the ICC structure as proposed by the Big Three, will actually favour the Associates and Affiliates and not leave them with smaller budgets.

Speaking at the end of the ICC board's two-day meeting in Dubai, Richardson contested the view of former ICC president Ehsan Mani, who had predicted that the Associates and Affiliates were in danger of losing $300 million due to the proposed restructuring.

"The largest losers are the Associate and Affiliate members, who will be $312.5m worse off under the distribution proposed in the paper," Mani had said. Mani's remarks were part of a 13-page document in a point-by-point rebuttal against the proposals listed in the 'position paper', which was drafted by a working group of the ICC's Finance & Commercial Affairs Committee.

Richardson noted the new set of resolutions were yet to be finalised, but said that the proposals had more advantages for the Associates and Affiliates. "They will not be 300 million dollars worse off," Richardson said. "There hasn't been any agreement on the financial model at this stage. But in the proposals they are much better off than they were before."

Mani had worked that figure out based on $2.5bn revenue, as listed in the position paper, that would be generated from the selling of ICC's commercial rights in the proposed distribution model for 2015-2023.

On Tuesday, at the end of the first day of the board meetings that stretched into the late evening, an ICC release stated that one of the "principles" agreed was: "A larger percentage from the increasing Associate Members' surplus will be distributed to the higher performing non-Full Members."

Such a proposal, Richardson admitted, could raise doubts in the minds of the Associates, but his suggestion to them was to not misread the issue. "I can understand why from just reading the draft policy agreement people jumped to conclusions and thought they will be losing this money, but factually that is not correct," Richardson said.

Nagraj Gollapudi is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Gihan on January 31, 2014, 7:38 GMT

    Now this is heading a way that the so called "BIG 3" (I doubt to say that, they are 'big' as what is happening now to Eng and Ind) are misleading the fans. We all fans have to be very alert on this, as now they put forward the REVENUE issue and not the biggest threat of TAKING CONTROL OVER THE GAME. So they are misleading the fans, since the BIG 3 can give any promise now, but that also till they get the votes. I doubt after they take over the power, we could not even touch their tail.

    So all true fans must anonymously reject this proposals even the big 3 come out with several pieces of the pie, since those pieces are actually like ants in front of an elephant.

    I hope and pray that, CRICKET WILL WIN.

  • Jayant on January 30, 2014, 17:48 GMT

    So my question is...who (or what) loses?

    Something has to give. If ECB, CA,CNZ and BCCI are all for it they must be better off. Now we are told by the ICC that Associates and Affiliates will be better of. WICB is projecting a 100% revenue increase. BCB which is broke is making Test Status a one point agenda so financially they must be at least as well off as before.

    So are the remaining members (PCB, SLCB and SACB) the big losers? Or are they protesting for non-financial reasons. If they are also financially at least as well off as before then, the size of the pie must be growing as a result of these proposals.

    If the size of the pie will grow the "Big 3" must have either found a way to make Test cricket lucrative or plan on increasing ODIs, T20Is and Champion's League type events.

    I highly doubt that Test Cricket will suddenly become lucrative just by abolishing the FTP so...these proposals must be designed to increase revenue by reducing the amount of Test Cricket played.

  • niaz on January 30, 2014, 17:40 GMT

    We fans are going to be worse off, everyone else will be better off.. all the boards.. They sold us off. We should protest by not spending a dollar on cricket as long as they donot bring fairness back. I am not against india getting more money. I am against BCCI, ECB and CA controlling the games with money in their mind.

  • Md on January 30, 2014, 10:56 GMT

    No bargaining. This proposal should be defeated.

  • Chris on January 30, 2014, 9:34 GMT

    ok, so from the articles I have been reading NZ and WI going to be better off, the associates are going to be better off and everyone else going to be better off!! No brainer than huh!! Someone has got to be wrong!!

  • aman on January 30, 2014, 5:33 GMT

    England, Australia and India will firm their places in all rankings, by playing all the tests, ODIs with each other. Tournaments will only be in these countries. Development of the game will higher in these countries. The gap of quality between the Big 3 will be bigger than the rest, which will undermine competition. The best players from WI, NZ, SA (maybe PK too) will become free agent mercenaries playing for IPL, Big Bash, T20England, and will not play West Indies vs New Zealand. A West Indies vs NZ series will lose revenue because their best players will be playing leagues in BIg 3 leagues. WI & NZC will have less money (as they will have less proportion of money) to develop their own players. Hence they will rely more on an India visiting them which will make them more dependent on the big 3. The other countries will become feeder nations to the Big 3 in terms of exporting talent and the country competition will become a joke. In the long run, it erodes the World Cup as well

  • Kashif on January 30, 2014, 5:08 GMT

    Big three are trying to divert people's attention on revenue numbers.....more dangerous thing in my opinion is the Control that they will have on the game. They will decide who will play against which team on what venue and when....Imagine India decides that South Africa will play against England in Melbourne just becuase they will earn more money not withstanding the fact that fans from both countries will not be able to watch the match in their country. This is the fundamental flaw in this proposition. It's high time that Teams other than the big 3 stop talking about revenue and should start questioning the Control and Decision making model.

  • No featured comments at the moment.