ICC news December 3, 2013

BCCI discusses restructure in sharing of ICC revenue

  shares 78

A changed revenue-distribution model for the ICC was one of several issues discussed between Cricket Australia chairman Wally Edwards and BCCI president N Srinivasan in Singapore last week. Edwards is also head of the ICC governance committee and his meeting with Srinivasan happened to be part of his regular rounds of talks with ICC executive board members. The BCCI is understood to be in favour of a sharing of ICC revenue that better reflects the size of its financial contribution to the game, rather than an equal split among all Full Member nations.

The Singapore discussions were said to have taken place over a middle ground between current practice and BCCI's informal stand on the subject.

Srinivasan was in Singapore for an IPL franchise-owners workshop. Along with being BCCI president and therefore member of the IPL governing council, he is also owner of the Chennai Super Kings IPL franchise.

Neither CA nor the BCCI made any formal statement about their stand on the subject of ICC revenue distribution until Tuesday. At the sidelines of the ICC awards announcement function in Mumbai, BCCI secretary Sanjay Patel said the issue was the "legitimate right" of the BCCI and was still under discussion. "This legitimate right issue has been put up before the Full Members of ICC. It is nothing but a just and fair right that we are asking for. It is not any muscle flexing." Patel told PTI. Srinivasan had put up the issue for the "first time in the history of the BCCI as a Full Member of the ICC. He has worked out very good details and very good options," Patel said.

"President Srinivasan, since last year, was looking into the financial details of ICC. He has made a private study about what could be the contribution of the BCCI into the revenue stream of ICC. On the basis of that, some formulae have been discussed among us. His own acumen as a businessman has also helped us." On the home front, the BCCI hands out 70% of its annual revenue to 27 of its affiliates in equal proportions.

Cricket Australia's own views on the subjects are not yet known in the public domain. It has however changed its own financial-revenue distribution in 2012 as part of a raft of governance changes including the move towards a fully independent board of directors. From each state receiving an equal share, revenue is now distributed on a basis of need, as decided by CA's board.

The discussion between Edwards and Srinivasan also covered matters including the vast disparity between dividends received by lower ranked Full Member countries and the top Associate nations like Ireland and Afghanistan.

Daniel Brettig is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo. He tweets here

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • on December 4, 2013, 1:07 GMT

    Just to clarify here. BCCI is not asking for more money from ICC's share of profit but from the revenue made from full time contributors.In today's game BCCI pours a huge amount of money in the development of the game.Imagine you investing with 500 shares and 5 other members with 100 share each and total pool of 1000 shares. The dividend should be hence paid out per share and 50% should be given to you. Where as current model pays of the profit equal among 6 members which obviously is not fair. YES BCCI's way of operation is not transparent to everyone and we all hate BCCI for various reasons but no need to criticize them for wrong reasons. It's not like they're not doing anything for the development of the game.

  • David_Boon on December 5, 2013, 11:50 GMT

    @JohnnyRook The IPL is a flash in the pan, and unsustainable. To think even Indians would watch it without the international talent is also ludicrous. The fact is ratings are declining, you have players and officials embroiled in fixing scandals, a corrupt board and corrupt owners. The BCCI itself has the Indian High Courts breathing down it's neck. The league is sustained by advertising money, but there are few return advertising sponsors, a clear sign that there is no value for money. Their business model is absolutely unsustainable and I would bet anything that we will be looking at a downsizing and a reduced scope in the very near future. To assume the BCCI can make money without the other Test playing nations is inherently false.

  • Biso on December 5, 2013, 10:37 GMT

    @ Biggus: The very fact that BCCI is the largest ( disproportionately high) revenue provider to ICC speaks of the fact that it is BCCI which has kept ICC's cricket programs for minor cricketing nations alive. It is a moot point that ICC have been incapable of managing even that function while the key infrastructure and logistics of ICC events are in any case provided for by the country's board where the event is taking place. So the less said about ICC's contributions the better.

  • YS_USA on December 4, 2013, 15:01 GMT

    To have interesting competitive matches, lower level teams should get more ICC money and higher ranked teams should get less money.

  • on December 4, 2013, 14:11 GMT

    Its funny hearing comments that India needs foreign players and teams. No we don't. I for one would be perfectly willing to see for example CSK to have an all Indian line up. There would be no difference if the BCCI takes the NFL route and goes for a year round domestic competition and minimal international cricket.

  • Rohit... on December 4, 2013, 14:07 GMT

    @ Alexk400 : Too bad countries can't stop their players.... Hence, IPL will always be a hit.

  • crick_sucks on December 4, 2013, 12:37 GMT

    It is astonishing why BCCI did not think about this 10 years back? What were the office bearers doing all this while. Millions of dollars have been lost which could have improved Indian grass root cricket much better and India could have been the dominant force by now. Better late than never. High time BCCI gets its due from ICC. Srinivasan must take this matter up at the next ICC meet and have it settled in BCCIs favor at the earliest. I would say BCCI should demand its share for the last 10-15 years as well.

  • JHT27 on December 4, 2013, 11:37 GMT

    BCCI (and therefore ICC) makes most of it's money from the attention it gets from the attention the Indian fans give to the sport. Why should this money be spent in improving cricket in countries which already have better grass-roots level programmes to promote cricket than India? The Indian fan is among the poorest among the top nations (Please refer below)

    Country GDP per capita (PPP) in USD Australia 41,954 United Kingdom 36,569 New Zealand 29,481 South Africa 11,281 Sri Lanka 6,046 India 3,843 Pakistan 3,056

    It makes sense that BCCI builds us a huge reserve funds because soon it is going to face stiff competition from other sports like soccer in India.

  • Biggus on December 4, 2013, 11:07 GMT

    @Cric_god_Sachin:-"BCCI has always supported other members and I m sure it will continue to do so better than icc." Ok, I'm willing to listen. Can you please elucidate further, you know, give some examples of BCCI's philanthropy, because I just can't be as sure as you unless I'm confronted with evidence.

  • Alexk400 on December 4, 2013, 11:02 GMT

    if every country stop sending their players to IPL , IPL will fail.

  • on December 4, 2013, 1:07 GMT

    Just to clarify here. BCCI is not asking for more money from ICC's share of profit but from the revenue made from full time contributors.In today's game BCCI pours a huge amount of money in the development of the game.Imagine you investing with 500 shares and 5 other members with 100 share each and total pool of 1000 shares. The dividend should be hence paid out per share and 50% should be given to you. Where as current model pays of the profit equal among 6 members which obviously is not fair. YES BCCI's way of operation is not transparent to everyone and we all hate BCCI for various reasons but no need to criticize them for wrong reasons. It's not like they're not doing anything for the development of the game.

  • David_Boon on December 5, 2013, 11:50 GMT

    @JohnnyRook The IPL is a flash in the pan, and unsustainable. To think even Indians would watch it without the international talent is also ludicrous. The fact is ratings are declining, you have players and officials embroiled in fixing scandals, a corrupt board and corrupt owners. The BCCI itself has the Indian High Courts breathing down it's neck. The league is sustained by advertising money, but there are few return advertising sponsors, a clear sign that there is no value for money. Their business model is absolutely unsustainable and I would bet anything that we will be looking at a downsizing and a reduced scope in the very near future. To assume the BCCI can make money without the other Test playing nations is inherently false.

  • Biso on December 5, 2013, 10:37 GMT

    @ Biggus: The very fact that BCCI is the largest ( disproportionately high) revenue provider to ICC speaks of the fact that it is BCCI which has kept ICC's cricket programs for minor cricketing nations alive. It is a moot point that ICC have been incapable of managing even that function while the key infrastructure and logistics of ICC events are in any case provided for by the country's board where the event is taking place. So the less said about ICC's contributions the better.

  • YS_USA on December 4, 2013, 15:01 GMT

    To have interesting competitive matches, lower level teams should get more ICC money and higher ranked teams should get less money.

  • on December 4, 2013, 14:11 GMT

    Its funny hearing comments that India needs foreign players and teams. No we don't. I for one would be perfectly willing to see for example CSK to have an all Indian line up. There would be no difference if the BCCI takes the NFL route and goes for a year round domestic competition and minimal international cricket.

  • Rohit... on December 4, 2013, 14:07 GMT

    @ Alexk400 : Too bad countries can't stop their players.... Hence, IPL will always be a hit.

  • crick_sucks on December 4, 2013, 12:37 GMT

    It is astonishing why BCCI did not think about this 10 years back? What were the office bearers doing all this while. Millions of dollars have been lost which could have improved Indian grass root cricket much better and India could have been the dominant force by now. Better late than never. High time BCCI gets its due from ICC. Srinivasan must take this matter up at the next ICC meet and have it settled in BCCIs favor at the earliest. I would say BCCI should demand its share for the last 10-15 years as well.

  • JHT27 on December 4, 2013, 11:37 GMT

    BCCI (and therefore ICC) makes most of it's money from the attention it gets from the attention the Indian fans give to the sport. Why should this money be spent in improving cricket in countries which already have better grass-roots level programmes to promote cricket than India? The Indian fan is among the poorest among the top nations (Please refer below)

    Country GDP per capita (PPP) in USD Australia 41,954 United Kingdom 36,569 New Zealand 29,481 South Africa 11,281 Sri Lanka 6,046 India 3,843 Pakistan 3,056

    It makes sense that BCCI builds us a huge reserve funds because soon it is going to face stiff competition from other sports like soccer in India.

  • Biggus on December 4, 2013, 11:07 GMT

    @Cric_god_Sachin:-"BCCI has always supported other members and I m sure it will continue to do so better than icc." Ok, I'm willing to listen. Can you please elucidate further, you know, give some examples of BCCI's philanthropy, because I just can't be as sure as you unless I'm confronted with evidence.

  • Alexk400 on December 4, 2013, 11:02 GMT

    if every country stop sending their players to IPL , IPL will fail.

  • Cric_god_Sachin on December 4, 2013, 10:26 GMT

    Also.. BCCI has always supported other members and I m sure it will continue to do so better than icc.

  • Cric_god_Sachin on December 4, 2013, 10:25 GMT

    @ nursery ender. are you really gonna talk about the opposition coz last time I checked SA was pleading to play India just for the revenue and also W Indies series few months back in W Indies was also help WICBto make some money. BTW I totally support the decision from BCCI and this will only mean one thing - more you give in more you take out.

  • keptalittlelow on December 4, 2013, 10:16 GMT

    There was a time when England, West Indies and Australia were the largest contributors to ICC, and India was one of the lowest contributors. Well then England, West Indies and Australia never demanded more money than what India was given. As a result of the generosity of the biggest contributors of the past the low ranking countries like India flourished and prospered and have reached the position where they can contribute better. I request BCCI to think in the larger interest of the game, and don't forget 'what goes around comes around'.

  • nursery_ender on December 4, 2013, 8:53 GMT

    Don't have time to read all the comments in detail, so apologies if this has already been covered. BCCI needs to bear in mind that 50% of the revenue generated by its matches can be ascribed to the opposition for the simple reason that no opposition means no matches and therefore no revenue. They need to be very careful what they wish for.

  • Sanjiyan on December 4, 2013, 8:40 GMT

    I dont mind the BCCI receiving more of the revenue BUT if there going to act like a kid every time something doesnt go the way they want it to then they dont deserve anything extra. Its all fine and dandy to ask what could be legitimately theirs but i find they way they handle certain matters verging on childish behavior. act like a responsible board( yes im referring to the way the SA tour was handled) and with more professionalism and you will get what you deserve.

  • IndiaGoats on December 4, 2013, 6:03 GMT

    Agree with @arnie66. Because of BCCI's efforts (much as I loathe most of its office bearers on a personal level), cricketers around the world earn a lot more. ECB and CA (with all their 'generosity') didn't have it in them to monetize cricket properly. Because of BCCI's efforts, Indian cricketers can think of a career in cricket. Eventually, this will also lead to more and better grounds, facilities and infrastructure.

  • JohnnyRook on December 4, 2013, 5:57 GMT

    @David_Boon. Actually now they can, at least for next decade. IPL can be made around the year business like Measure League Baseball. And you may try to stop your players from playing in IPL. But then they might just choose IPL instead of international cricket.

    BCCI is asking for what is right and I am surprised it took them so long. It may not be good for cricket but this is the same free market which India gets lectured on often outside the cricketing arena.

  • jimbond on December 4, 2013, 5:46 GMT

    Yes, I suppose the bigger contributors to be World Bank and the EU have a bigger say in their functioning, and I guess this is something on those lines. Afterall, we are talking about cricket- the spectator sport where people watch to see the big boys tangle, even if neglect of the smaller nations may not be good for the long term future of the game.

  • chapathishot on December 4, 2013, 5:23 GMT

    There are many comments saying what happens if other teams don't tour India,But the reverse is happening.If you remember after 92 India was not given a tour by Australia until 99.Now they are hosting India regularly because of the revenue board earns by hosting India.Even with all the humiliation SA board has allowed even a short tour for the revenue only.Srilanka cricket has sustained only because of the regular tours by India otherwise they might have been bankrupt and unless the players are paid they may rebel and join other leages.So the other teams will happily tour India if they want revenue as they have no choice and BCCI with its financial might and Business acumen will make sure of that.

  • gpair on December 4, 2013, 3:48 GMT

    Why BCCI needs more of the revenue,because it has more revenue needs than others. Keep in mind that it is a country of over a billion people and there is hardly any cricket infrastructure in indian countryside, where it's most fans live. So take your pick, if you want to send that money to people who do not know cricket and do not know how to play it or to the people who know cricket but have no place to play it.

  • sray23 on December 4, 2013, 2:07 GMT

    This was definitely a long time coming. The health of cricket is now tied to the Indian cricket economy and society like never before. The point is now that BCCI gets more money, how will the money be used? The history of India and Indian cricket points to only one thing: the money will go into certain powerful individuals with no accountability and be used to further vested interests of influential people within the board. And that is the actual tragedy. For all their historical flaws, at least if this money went to the aus or eng cricket boards, there is enough accountability structure to be confident the money will end up in the right places.

  • arnie66 on December 4, 2013, 1:18 GMT

    I agree with BCCI on this one as ICC has been very inefficient with it's resources. Most ppl here crib about how the BCCI bully the ICC and other member countries. For the ppl not familiar with the BCCI activities, let me offer you an alternate point of view. Though I don't agree with all the BCCI policies, I believe that the BCCI is far more efficiently run than the ICC. The BCCI heads have displayed sound business acumen to market cricket in India and milk every penny. Over the last few years, they have also put the money to good use by building a strong cricketing infrastructure in India via grants/contracts/IPL type opportunities (For e.g. a few days back, there was a award given to a 14 yr old cricketer who scored 546 runs in a prestigious local school level tournament). My point is that ICC needs to have people who can manage the organization better to develop the game worldwide rather than having a few ex cricketers as office bearers who donot have any business sense.

  • ashok16 on December 4, 2013, 0:06 GMT

    The question to ask is this: if the top cricketing nations of Australia, South Africa, Pakistan and England were not to play India anymore, how much would the ad ratings take a hit? How much does an ad slot cost in the IPL compared to matches with these countries? If the rest of International cricket were to drop off, can the BCCI sustain itself with an IPL-like event for most of the year? Does the Indian TV audience need a tour to the big 4 nations every now and then to keep their interest in cricket fresh. I think the rest of the world is not going to give in to BCCI that easily and BCCI will be forced to lay down all its cards on the table to win this one.

  • dunger.bob on December 3, 2013, 23:37 GMT

    In business terms this would probably fall under the heading of Returns on Investment. From what I've read here it's hard to see anything wrong with what the BCCI is doing. The way I'm reading it, at the moment every member gets the same return regardless of investment levels and income generation. Is that correct? .. Hardly seems fair to me. .. I don't say this very often at all, but I'm with the BCCI on this one.

  • Biggus on December 3, 2013, 23:23 GMT

    Seems an appropriate time for the rest of the cricketing nations to set a price on an IPL window. If the BCCI expects everyone else to down tools for that period and make their players available then there should be a cost attached to that. I'm sure that Mr Srinivasan will understand, after all he is a businessman and time is money.

  • on December 3, 2013, 23:13 GMT

    No worries for me @Screamingeagle except that you need to read my post again to comprehend. And I will comply by getting your lordship's permission before I write again.

  • David_Boon on December 3, 2013, 22:58 GMT

    One, why would the other members ever agree to this? And two, why on earth aren't they using an NFL-style revenue sharing model? The BCCI may make more money, but without any visiting teams to play they wouldn't make a cent. The notion that they could be self-sustainable by only playing domestic cricket is ridiculous.

  • Rj_Kiwi on December 3, 2013, 21:15 GMT

    It's the simple economics of the capitalist system. It's perfectly alright for BCCI to want more and it will be nothing more than a negotiation process. BCCI will have to respect they need an opposition to generate such income in the first place, and other parties will all have to respect the size of the Indian economy. In the end, no one will lose except the fans for the fact of the way the game is already poorly managed. That's the bigger issue.

  • on December 3, 2013, 21:05 GMT

    The BCCI does not own Indian cricket fans. Just because a large percentage of revenue comes from Indians doesn't mean that the BCCI has any more right to that income than anyone else.

    It is up to the fans how they go about spending their money. It's the BCCI's job to ensure that they're getting enough money from their own events. Which they are already good at.

  • on December 3, 2013, 20:13 GMT

    Did anyone else notice the difference in Indias stance that they themselves hand out money to their 27 member states on an equal basis, yet at the higher level, they want a larger share of the pie based on how much "they" put in. Surely some states in India contribute more to the game than others, so why not get India to stuff up their own system first by handing out income to states that put "more in" and thus create an even more unbalanced system in their own country which would make some states uncompetitive. Then after they have done that, then let them see for themselves how well that system works.

  • Harmony111 on December 3, 2013, 20:05 GMT

    @keptalittlelow:

    ---"As a result of the generosity of the biggest contributers of the past low ranking countries like India flourished and prospered and have reached this position."---

    Completely wrong & rather boastful to say that India owes its position to any other board's generosity. It is all due to Dalmiya's vision in the mid 90s that India has become a powerhouse financially.

    Btw, where was the money anyways in the old days? The remunerations did become reasonable by the early 90s but they were still not really much. The real money came into the game when players started getting endorsement offers eg. Sachin's World Tel's 5 yr contract in 97.

    A 2nd reading of your comment in fact leaves an even more bitter impression to my mind. What generosity are you talking about?

  • screamingeagle on December 3, 2013, 19:46 GMT

    @Thomas Ratnam, don't you worry about how BCCI is making their money and how they are spending it. The states do get plenty and the retired cricketers also get good money. Do not make statements about things you do not know.

  • screamingeagle on December 3, 2013, 19:43 GMT

    Not sure it is a good idea. Just because most of the ads and sponsors come from India does not mean BCCI should get more. Point is, the profit here is from ICC events, not bilateral stuff. However, I saw a post about how India benefited from Eng and Aus supporting Indian cricket when India was not so big. Really? I think that is just another fact pulled from the hat by someone. Granted BCCI is not everyone's cup of tea, but they do know how to run the game and make money out of it. Can't say the same about some other countries. I am pretty sure BD, SL etc have similar following for cricket. If that was the sole criteria, they should be minting money as well. Maybe that is also the fault of the BCCI. Pak is an interesting case, are they making money? I am sure they actually lose money by playing in the UAE since they have to pay for the stadium etc. Unless UAE is helping Pak. WI, Zim are a mess.

  • on December 3, 2013, 19:18 GMT

    I was thinking if ICC can not come up with some sort of arrangement like UN has on its Security Council, let them have like that. The other thing I am asking ICC, HOW MUCH HAVE YOU TRIED TO INTRODUCE THE GAME OF CRICKET IN CHINA?

  • bonaku on December 3, 2013, 18:57 GMT

    Can any one explain clearly what is the difference between existing model and proposed model.

  • Temuzin on December 3, 2013, 18:56 GMT

    Growing and popularizing cricket is the job of all cricket boards and not only of BCCI. All other boards should be able to gebnerate income on their own and should not depend on BCCI to generate income for them. Only associate members and other upcoming cricket boards should be provided with free bees Not the full members. BCCI is right to ask its share of income generated by BCCI.

  • on December 3, 2013, 18:29 GMT

    Sorry, it was 75% of the profits and not 85% of the revenue in my earlier comments.

  • PratUSA on December 3, 2013, 18:22 GMT

    One good thing that may come out of this is that countries like Ireland may realistically able to become full member as one of the major roadblocks has been the issue of equally sharing the same pool of revenue with more parties. If this happens BCCI might see new full members as vote banks and allow it to happen. Such a move will likely kill cricket in places like Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka may never host a test again and what not, but it may just be able to bring in more full members and in my mind the reality is that we need to have more than just 10 countries to eventually end the financial power of India and yet have the game survive and even thrive.

  • warneneverchuck on December 3, 2013, 18:15 GMT

    Nothing wrong in asking more revenue when it is universal fact that around 80 % income is generated by india

  • on December 3, 2013, 18:13 GMT

    The logic is flawed from both BCCI supporters and haters. The fact that 85% of the revenue of an ICC event goes to the pocket of full member nations. Why? Because, they generate more revenues! The fact that BCCI is asking for more share goes along the same line. BCCI-haters who blame BCCI just for depriving other boards, need to understand the similar deal is handed over by all full member nations to the associates and rest of the world. I am very happy to support a true globalization effort of cricket, i.e. most of the revenue of icc events to be dedicated to new/upcoming cricketing nations.

  • dreamliner on December 3, 2013, 18:07 GMT

    All those in favour of BCCI's stance need to correct their tunnel vision by reading the comments by keptalittlelow, Thomas Ratnam and Jonah58 over and over until they finally see the light and begin to understand what they must do to defend and grow the sport we have all come to love.

  • on December 3, 2013, 17:58 GMT

    85% of the ICC revenue goes for an equal split among the full members which is totally unfair to the upcoming Associate members. To be fair, this colonial distribution model is the lone blockade against new Test teams coming up. Now, with the money coming to cricket, it's easy to spread it over the rest of the world. For that, more money should go to Associate level as investment and not back to the full members as profits. My ideal distribution is 50% back to the full members and equal share to the other participating teams. The rest should be spent for development of cricket alone. I understand some of the cricket boards (such as Sri Lanka) might oppose it as they have little source of alternative revenue, but there's no other way to promote cricket throughout the world. Oh, yes, this will also reduce BCCI's iron-grip that everyone complains about. If we get 20 countries playing regular cricket, BCCI's share will go well below 40% or even lower ...

  • on December 3, 2013, 17:53 GMT

    BCCI is already awash with cash. Lalit Modi, despite all his flaws was a genius at squeezing the last fan dollar and redirect it to the IPL coffers. I agree with my friends here who are suggesting that ICC funds will be better spent if they help out the minnows and the even newer teams. The newest teams are sometimes in countries where cricket is barely played and largely unknown. Lets spend the ICC cash promoting the game the world over, making cricket as popular as soccer.

  • British_North_America on December 3, 2013, 17:45 GMT

    BCCI is getting its share from its home series, IPL, etc.Why do they want greater share of ICC? What is the purpose of forming an union then? Split up and play bilateral series on mutual agreement.

  • Tigg on December 3, 2013, 17:04 GMT

    No. The money needs to help the smaller members and associates develop, not fatten t.

  • Rohit... on December 3, 2013, 16:50 GMT

    This decision was long due.... No other business holders had provided freebies to their competitors for so long.

  • on December 3, 2013, 16:42 GMT

    The main ICC revenue is derived from the ICC selling broadcast rights into the future for ICC events such as the Cricket World Cup or the T20 World Cup. These rights are sold to international companies in the form of broadcast rights or sponsorship rights. These companies come from all over the world, some are not even from cricket playing countries. eg. LG, Pepsi Cola etc. India may generate the most viewers for the broadcasts of the ICC events but this does not entitle BCCI to a greater share of the revenue.Contests outside of ICC events with two or more member boards, India vs Pakistan etc., provide each board the opportunity to maximise or increase revenue from these series. This is where BCCI should look increase revenue. If the BCCI continues down this path,scoops up more of the ICC revenue distribution, cricket will be weakened worldwide.BCCI will end up playing itself as countries will become financially weak, standards will decline.Do not kill the goose laying the golden egg.

  • on December 3, 2013, 16:40 GMT

    What short memory India seems to have!

  • brusselslion on December 3, 2013, 16:36 GMT

    Usual knee-jerk reaction from some posters i.e. BCCI right/wrong because it's always right/wrong

    The ICC gains nothing from bi-lateral series and by far, it's main source of income is from sponsorship and television rights of the World Cup (US$1.6 billion between 2007 - 2015; source: wikipedia)

    The breakdown of sponsorship costs/ of television rights by country is not easy to find but, I think it's fair to assume that most of this revenue is generated from India.

    If India were to withdraw from tournaments then the ICC's revenue stream would take a severe hit. However, by the same token, the absence of a (group of) other members would make the World Cup less attractive to sponsors/ TV.

    The article doesn't mention exactly what the BCCI's proposal is so, it's difficult to pass any reasoned comment on it but a simplicist "70% in, 70% out" formula, as one poster suggests, is not the answer.

    Moreover, surely the ICC should use some income to promote the game?

  • keptalittlelow on December 3, 2013, 16:36 GMT

    There was a time when England, West Indies and Australia were the largest contributers to ICC, and India was one of the lowest contributers. Well then England, West Indies and Australia never demanded more money than India was given. As a result of the generosity of the biggest contributers of the past low ranking countries like India flourished and prospered and have reached this position. I request BCCI to think in the larger interest of the game.

  • Jonah58 on December 3, 2013, 16:33 GMT

    The ICC is the global body to promote and manage cricket, its revenues belong to ALL the members of the ICC. India, England, Australia already keep all the money they make on their matches. The money the ICC makes is mainly from its own sponsors and from the rights to ICC events. We need NOW an independent group of people running the ICC who are prepared to run cricket GLOBALLY for the good of the game not to be yet another revenue stream for the already wealthy few.The time when the running of the game is left to the very few who run the game purely for their own self interest is long past and either the ICC see this or the game has a limited life left as a niche sport played in only a very few countries.

  • cricket-india on December 3, 2013, 16:27 GMT

    can the bcci also commit to doing something more to reflect its power as the pre-eminent cricket board? how about making available some world class umpires, to start with? isn't it a shame india doesn't have a rep on the elite panel?

  • on December 3, 2013, 16:20 GMT

    great decision by the bcci there is nothing wrong in asking for what one deserves we contribute more to the revenue than the other nations do combined

  • eyballfallenout on December 3, 2013, 16:12 GMT

    @ gsingh7 the icc is not a company.

  • on December 3, 2013, 15:38 GMT

    Please; all of us should try to find out FACTS, before we post. Comments based on wrong info, pushes the discussion on a tangent (at best), or degenerates into acrimonious debates (at worst).

    I am not marking this as a reply to any particular comment, since such comments seem to have been made innocently.

  • on December 3, 2013, 15:25 GMT

    @Muhammad Mansha.

    Just for your info. It is not as simple as you thought.

    When India plays against different countries (even within India), the rate per 30 seconds slots (just as an example) charged by he broadcasting channel differ quite a bit. Even in the same match, especially in Tests. Rates may change from the 1st day to the subsequent dates, depending on how more attractive or less attractive the match has become. Only a few corporates buy TV time fr the entire match. The TV channels also do not like to sell all available ad slots for the entire match, especially, if they expect the match is likely to become more exciting to watch.

    Incidentally, the rates are the highest, when India plays Pakistan, in India.

  • ladycricfan on December 3, 2013, 15:17 GMT

    The money ICC generates is from sponsors and advertizers. It is not BCCI's money. The current system of sharing equally should stay. Because in ICC world tournaments only one team from each nation participates.

  • on December 3, 2013, 15:06 GMT

    This is all wrong by BCCI

  • on December 3, 2013, 15:04 GMT

    Giving more matches to a particular country does NOT guarantee more revenue for its Board. It is not the NUMBER of matches; but the AD REVENUE (directly and indirectly through sponsorship) which generate a lion's share of the revenue.

    The corporates who spend Ad budget make their own decisions. And, often their decision depends on who are playing. Or, at least, who is one of the teams. If neither team attracts enough eye-balls, the bottom line often shows up in red. More such matches only means more red.That is the unfortunate reality.

  • on December 3, 2013, 15:03 GMT

    Anyone tell Can India contribute amount of money they are contributing without playing against any test team Come on people this is wrong thinking that India is contributing more They are contributing but how people of republic India watch cricket because they are playing against SA , Pak ,Eng , Aus Actually this is right o these teams to get equal contribution

  • gsingh7 on December 3, 2013, 15:03 GMT

    excellent approach by bcci. fully support them in this regards just as i did regarding drs. when bcci contributes to 70% of icc revenue , then why it shouldn't get icc shares accordingly?? it only feels right if bcci gets major shares in profit as they are the major contributors of revenue for icc. anybody who thinks otherwise lacks basic economic's knowledge.biggest company always makes most profit,in every country of this world.

  • karan1609 on December 3, 2013, 14:52 GMT

    Completely agree with the BCCI. Its like having a company with two people, with one contributing 70% of the revenue. That person sure deserves to be paid more than the one contributing only 30% of the revenue.

  • Thomas_Ratnam on December 3, 2013, 14:51 GMT

    Surprise! BCCI and it's fans want their pound of flesh! It makes perfect business sense to them alright! After all they are businessmen politicians and not sportsmen. Keep going BCCI! What exactly is the revenue generated by the BCCI? It must be from the fans, I presume. For the distribution of resources of a sports body equitably the fans need to be seen as nationless. The revenue generated thereof should go into a common pool. I don't think the cricket administrators of India have got there yet!

  • BigINDFan on December 3, 2013, 14:32 GMT

    Interesting tactics to push the review of the distribution model. BCCI is right in pointing out that they get a fair share of what they bring in. However the current structure is so flawed that cricket development in lot of countries will stop without the money from BCCI. One way to fix it is host more games in countries in Associate nations like tri-series or even bigger games. This will bring revenue to those boards and also get them excited about cricket. The other way is to give more ownership of ICC to the bigger boards that contribute financially. For example, BCCI can sponsor teams such as Zimbabwe and Kenya and run the sport using a franchise model. This will dilute the ICC brand though. The best way is to work out a reasonable financial model with all the members that is proportional but not equal.

  • CricIndia208 on December 3, 2013, 14:23 GMT

    BCCI is right, it has every right for a greater share of the revenue.

  • on December 3, 2013, 14:15 GMT

    Well the number of international matches that India play compared to other countries like BD , ZM is phenomenal . If BCCI do not want fair share among all , at least give other countries to contribute .

  • yuvi_gladiator on December 3, 2013, 13:57 GMT

    like it or hate it, but this is logical and right thing to do

  • milepost on December 3, 2013, 13:56 GMT

    It's tricky but is it in the long term interests of the sport? Absolutely not, it will merely further the distance between associates the India/England/Australia trio and the remaining full members. It's a terrible idea for cricket and we recently saw that India haven't a clue about cricket in the long term after the shambles for Sachin's farewell.

  • YorkshirePudding on December 3, 2013, 13:51 GMT

    Surely the revenue generated should be used to spread cricekt like getting China, America and others involved at a higher level, and funding developing countries FC systems like Afghanistan, Ireland, etc. Rather than going back into the BCCI's pockets.

  • 1_234 on December 3, 2013, 13:49 GMT

    BCCI should let other countries also contribute to the ICC revenue. It should not be the point that they contribute more therefore they need more. Instead they should ask for more and more cricket for other nations, which will be good for cricket, perhaps not good for BCCI in terms of money. A time will come when cricket will be played only in India, by India and off-course for India.

  • on December 3, 2013, 13:48 GMT

    When Atherton argued for an egalitarian distribution of ICC revenue in the recent panel discussion in Australia, I expected this counter offensive from the current bosses of BCCI. Subsequent memorial lecture by Chapell provided further push. But, I hope, it is the start of a process, which may lead to a balanced judgement, which include healthy contribution to those who are in dire need. And, not further bitterness.

    I don't think, BCCI need (and really want) distribution of ICC dividend in proportion to the revenue generation of respective Boards.This is 'posturing'; taking an extreme position to kick-start an inter-business negotiation process, as a competitive tactic, as we teach in "Business Strategy Courses", in Business Schools.

  • on December 3, 2013, 13:23 GMT

    I appreciate BCCI's point but it is bad for the sport . Equal share will help smaller nations cope with lack of revenue and develop cricket at club and school level

  • muzika_tchaikovskogo on December 3, 2013, 13:16 GMT

    The BCCI's argument is admittedly logical, but I'm opposed to the proposal nonethless. With their already precarious financial situation, smaller boards like Zimbabwe, New Zealand and Sri Lanka might no longer find it viable to keep the game running. There's also the fact that associate boards too are struggling to run the game in their respective countries. The BCCI would do well to lend them greater support.

  • FanCric111 on December 3, 2013, 13:14 GMT

    BCCI has all right to ask its own share . It doesn't matter how much others are earning i will ask my payment in my office. Does anybody want to share their payment with co-workers only because they are earning less.

  • on December 3, 2013, 13:04 GMT

    It's about time that the ICC recognizes the contribution of the BCCI to the ICC's finances. 80% of the sponsors of ICC events are Indian including the title sponsor. We don't see any equal sharing of revenue by FIFA. Why should cricket be any different? If smaller nations want to develop the sport they should do it on their own. India did it with little to no help from outside.

  • ElPhenomeno on December 3, 2013, 12:53 GMT

    Its going to be hard for many to digest but it makes a lot of sense. You cannot contribute a lion's share to the revenue and then have it split "equally" among all members. Makes no sense. <br><br> On the other hand, cricket is such a small community that if the revenue's are split according to the contribution, it might get even smaller.

  • ODI_BestFormOfCricket on December 3, 2013, 12:37 GMT

    i know it will affect associate nations, but bcci has every right to ask.

  • on December 3, 2013, 12:15 GMT

    The way cricket is governed has no place in the modern sports world. Memberships and segregation between nations playing each other. This change in revenue sharing would destroy world cricket as it is! Only India, England, South Africa and Australia make major profit off the sport. The rest of the world is struggling. in LARGE because of the ICC and its refusal to grow the game like most other sprots have!

  • on December 3, 2013, 12:15 GMT

    The way cricket is governed has no place in the modern sports world. Memberships and segregation between nations playing each other. This change in revenue sharing would destroy world cricket as it is! Only India, England, South Africa and Australia make major profit off the sport. The rest of the world is struggling. in LARGE because of the ICC and its refusal to grow the game like most other sprots have!

  • ODI_BestFormOfCricket on December 3, 2013, 12:37 GMT

    i know it will affect associate nations, but bcci has every right to ask.

  • ElPhenomeno on December 3, 2013, 12:53 GMT

    Its going to be hard for many to digest but it makes a lot of sense. You cannot contribute a lion's share to the revenue and then have it split "equally" among all members. Makes no sense. <br><br> On the other hand, cricket is such a small community that if the revenue's are split according to the contribution, it might get even smaller.

  • on December 3, 2013, 13:04 GMT

    It's about time that the ICC recognizes the contribution of the BCCI to the ICC's finances. 80% of the sponsors of ICC events are Indian including the title sponsor. We don't see any equal sharing of revenue by FIFA. Why should cricket be any different? If smaller nations want to develop the sport they should do it on their own. India did it with little to no help from outside.

  • FanCric111 on December 3, 2013, 13:14 GMT

    BCCI has all right to ask its own share . It doesn't matter how much others are earning i will ask my payment in my office. Does anybody want to share their payment with co-workers only because they are earning less.

  • muzika_tchaikovskogo on December 3, 2013, 13:16 GMT

    The BCCI's argument is admittedly logical, but I'm opposed to the proposal nonethless. With their already precarious financial situation, smaller boards like Zimbabwe, New Zealand and Sri Lanka might no longer find it viable to keep the game running. There's also the fact that associate boards too are struggling to run the game in their respective countries. The BCCI would do well to lend them greater support.

  • on December 3, 2013, 13:23 GMT

    I appreciate BCCI's point but it is bad for the sport . Equal share will help smaller nations cope with lack of revenue and develop cricket at club and school level

  • on December 3, 2013, 13:48 GMT

    When Atherton argued for an egalitarian distribution of ICC revenue in the recent panel discussion in Australia, I expected this counter offensive from the current bosses of BCCI. Subsequent memorial lecture by Chapell provided further push. But, I hope, it is the start of a process, which may lead to a balanced judgement, which include healthy contribution to those who are in dire need. And, not further bitterness.

    I don't think, BCCI need (and really want) distribution of ICC dividend in proportion to the revenue generation of respective Boards.This is 'posturing'; taking an extreme position to kick-start an inter-business negotiation process, as a competitive tactic, as we teach in "Business Strategy Courses", in Business Schools.

  • 1_234 on December 3, 2013, 13:49 GMT

    BCCI should let other countries also contribute to the ICC revenue. It should not be the point that they contribute more therefore they need more. Instead they should ask for more and more cricket for other nations, which will be good for cricket, perhaps not good for BCCI in terms of money. A time will come when cricket will be played only in India, by India and off-course for India.

  • YorkshirePudding on December 3, 2013, 13:51 GMT

    Surely the revenue generated should be used to spread cricekt like getting China, America and others involved at a higher level, and funding developing countries FC systems like Afghanistan, Ireland, etc. Rather than going back into the BCCI's pockets.