ICC revamp February 6, 2014

SLC questions legality of proposals

74

Sri Lanka's board president Jayantha Dharmadasa has followed up SLC's publicly stated objection to resolutions for vast changes to cricket's global revenue sharing and governance by openly questioning the legality of the proposal and the manner of its creation in a letter to the ICC.

The correspondence, obtained by ESPNcricinfo, was sent to the ICC's head of legal affairs Iain Higgins on February 5, after a special meeting of the Sri Lanka board's stakeholders voted unanimously against the revised proposals presented to the ICC directors. It outlines numerous serious queries about the manner in which the resolutions have been brought to the board table. They are due to be voted on at a meeting of all Full Members in Singapore on Saturday.

Sri Lanka, Pakistan and South Africa have each raised formal objections to the proposals, with CSA previously describing them as "fundamentally flawed". Dharmadasa has taken a similar tack in his letter, outlining how the draft proposal and subsequent resolutions had contravened the ICC's own constitution.

Specific targets include the notion of a "contribution cost" running contrary to the provision for equal revenue stipulated by the ICC's constitution. More than once, Dharmadasa asks whether the ICC is comfortable and confident that the process by which the many changes have arisen is in line with the governing body's regulations, while raising the matter of whether board members had been granted sufficient time to review the sweeping changes that will result from the proposal.

"Sri Lanka Cricket has received legal advice from its Legal Advisory Committee to the effect that these purported 'Resolutions' are in fact not valid resolutions in law," Dharmadasa wrote. "Pursuant to your invitation for us to contact you in the event of us having issue with the same, we write to seek clarification from you, as Head of Legal of the ICC.

"In any event, as Head of Legal of the ICC, you are duty bound to ensure that any Purported Resolutions that are placed before the Members are done in accord with the constitutional documents of the ICC, and we would in that context request that you furnish us with the clarifications requested below as a matter of extreme urgency."

A major strand of the letter raises the matter of whether or not the new revenue model, based upon a "contribution" calculation defies the ICC constitution's expectation of equal sharing of revenue from ICC events. This element of the proposal was critical to India's agreement to it, after the BCCI repeatedly refused to sign the existing Members Participation Agreement (MPA) for the next television rights period on the basis that it was entitled to a greater share.

The letter states that the ICC's Memorandum of Association features "entrenched provisions" around the distribution of funds to members. These declare that 75% of surplus revenue must be distributed equally among the Full Members, and "the costs payable by the Council out of its revenues shall be allocated as to 75% thereof equally among the Full Members".

Under the proposal, this distribution model would be replaced by a "contribution costs" model in which each nation is granted a percentage of revenue based upon numerous factors including on-field results, historical contribution to the game and off-field revenue-raising power. This calculation happens to place India, England and Australia, the three countries who devised the proposal, in the top three positions of entitlement.

Dharmadasa's objection is based upon the fact that this model is in contravention of the ICC's own constitution. He also noted that the proposed "Test Cricket Fund" designed to help the other seven nations to stage Test matches in circumstances when they might be expected to lose money was similarly flawed.

Other matters covered by the letter include the implementation of the ExCo board with three permanent members from India, England and Australia, and the matter of a new FTP agreed upon by a series of bilateral arrangements, rather than the overarching ICC blueprint that currently exists. Dharmadasa raised the question of what was to become of existing deals struck between member nations under the terms of the FTP.

"The purported Resolutions seek to impose wide changes to the FTP, essentially by doing away with the current FTP Scheme and permitting the individual Boards to contract with each other," Dharmadasa wrote. "You would be aware that contracts that have already been entered into by individual Members on the basis of the existing ICC Executive Board approved FTP, including Sponsorship Contracts and Broadcasting Contracts for which such Members have committed and already received monies.

"We seek confirmation that you have considered the legality of this, and have advised the ICC of its potential liability to indemnify any Members that may be caused loss and damage in this regard."

N Srinivasan, the president of the BCCI, and Wally Edwards, the chairman of Cricket Australia, have both defended the proposals, stating that they are designed to end an era of considerable dysfunction at ICC level while also providing better incentives for each cricket-playing nation to improve themselves, rather than relying on the ICC's distributions to stay afloat.

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

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Naikan on February 6, 2014, 16:57 GMT

    It is difficult to draw ethical conclusions in this matter. What may seem greed to one point of view will seem a matter of right from another point of view. For example the conjecture that surplus should be equally distributed between all board members is conceptually flawed. If One nation like India has to support hundreds of stadium and resources to support the development of the game across a billion people and another nation has to do for far fewer resource development to support across a population several tens of times smaller, then the equitable distribution system is no longer equitable. Especially if that money is being generated by the indulgence of those billion people. So while there is merit in the what the SL board is questioning, there is merit in the BCCI effort also to change what is clearly not equitable in the current constitution. The boards need to stop confronting each other and try to find a middle path that may be acceptable to both sides.

  • VisBal on February 7, 2014, 16:04 GMT

    @EashwarSai: I had posted the data from Statsguru on another page related to the proposals. India are not one of the highest tourists. In fact, over the past three years they are among the teams with the largest number of home series and home matches. Teams that toured more than hosting include the West indies and Pakistan.

  • on February 7, 2014, 14:28 GMT

    Now let me get this straight. The way to develop and safeguard the future of cricket is to give most of the money earned by all test playing nations to India, Australia and England. Also absolute power in all matters pertaining to international cricket should be vested upon the said nations. However they cannot be held responsible for their actions and their supreme powers cannot be abolished till kingdom come. Also no nation is asured of playing another nation in future unless the encounter is presumed to be a financially lucrative one. Finally, if any nation refuses to endorse these proposals put forward by the 3 nations, economic sanctions and other un official action may be enforced against that nation and they may never play international cricket again. Have I got everything right? Well they sure look very good proposals to me...that is if I am one of the 3 nations proposing these improvements of course!

  • hasanjawaid on February 7, 2014, 14:15 GMT

    This is in response to Naikan's comment on finding a middle path instead of following the equitable distribution of the profit among participating cricket boards. I don't agree with him fully. Promoting cricket at the grass root level and improving infrastructure is the responsibility of a country as there are many political and economics dimensions to it and cricket board alone cannot do much even if it did receive bigger pie of the share. Instead, in my view, ICC should re-consider redefining its scope and help out cricket boards in promoting cricket/improving infrastructure by providing loans, technical expertise (coaches), hosting ICC-U15 and other similar events. However, ICC should be aware that quality cricket, owing to the mindless, commercialized cheap T20s is fast declining and will soon disappear if such tournaments are not reigned in-in preserving the quality of cricket that has been cherished and adored globally.

  • kanikandy on February 7, 2014, 10:41 GMT

    The interest for the game is not based on the Population of that Country or the Number of years that country has been playing cricket.BAN population is about 152 M & Pakistan population is about 185 M.SL Population is about 20 M & SA Population is About 53 M.So Witch Match will1200M indian population be watched by if PAK Vs BaN & SL Vs SA matches being played at the same time. similarly WI Vs NZ & SL Vs Pak are being plyaed at same time will indian spectators watch the WI Vs NZ match since they have been playing cricket for a longer time than Sl or Pak? what will happen if IOC powers & revenue is given to China & Greece & Italy as ICC going to give that to IND,AUS,ENG?

  • Neel_123 on February 7, 2014, 10:30 GMT

    "in sports large populations are already an advantage, not a burden"

    Without strong economy and proper funding huge population is NOT an advantage! With equal funding, bigger country has limited infrastructure for development which can cater only to a very small %age of population! You can not just choose random 100 people from each country for training (equal funds) and then expect country with higher population to produce better sportsperson. It is IMPOSSIBLE.

    Lack of funding becomes even more severe problem for India as most Indian school lack even the most basic amenities for sports development.

    Eg. Indian Hockey: once 8 time Olympic champion, India starts falling behind western countries once expansive Astroturf were made mandatory! No school or college in India could afford it even today. Young Indian players still play hockey on grass fields where dribbling is more important aspect than 'passing'. Funding for top 30-50 players is mostly useless until schools get Astros!

  • Wacky_Cric_Lover on February 7, 2014, 10:07 GMT

    Biggest democracy in the world going for the biggest undemocratic set up in ICC.

  • kentjones on February 7, 2014, 8:02 GMT

    @InsideHedge, Well my dear friend, if such 'reality' becomes cricket present, then true cricket followers worst fears would be 'realised':that the game's future is doomed!

  • InsideHedge on February 7, 2014, 7:34 GMT

    @KentJones: Superb comments but I think you'll agree that Jefferson was no fool. The Mahatma's quote is romantic but I fear the reality of life esp in the corporate world is more in tune with Jefferson.

  • InsideHedge on February 7, 2014, 7:32 GMT

    @Albert_Campbell: You can hardly call NZ playing some ODIs in Florida as helping the USA. What you're cleverly not seeing is the sizeable amount of money generated by a fanbase in India that goes towards assisting numerous other boards, incl CSA.

  • Naikan on February 6, 2014, 16:57 GMT

    It is difficult to draw ethical conclusions in this matter. What may seem greed to one point of view will seem a matter of right from another point of view. For example the conjecture that surplus should be equally distributed between all board members is conceptually flawed. If One nation like India has to support hundreds of stadium and resources to support the development of the game across a billion people and another nation has to do for far fewer resource development to support across a population several tens of times smaller, then the equitable distribution system is no longer equitable. Especially if that money is being generated by the indulgence of those billion people. So while there is merit in the what the SL board is questioning, there is merit in the BCCI effort also to change what is clearly not equitable in the current constitution. The boards need to stop confronting each other and try to find a middle path that may be acceptable to both sides.

  • VisBal on February 7, 2014, 16:04 GMT

    @EashwarSai: I had posted the data from Statsguru on another page related to the proposals. India are not one of the highest tourists. In fact, over the past three years they are among the teams with the largest number of home series and home matches. Teams that toured more than hosting include the West indies and Pakistan.

  • on February 7, 2014, 14:28 GMT

    Now let me get this straight. The way to develop and safeguard the future of cricket is to give most of the money earned by all test playing nations to India, Australia and England. Also absolute power in all matters pertaining to international cricket should be vested upon the said nations. However they cannot be held responsible for their actions and their supreme powers cannot be abolished till kingdom come. Also no nation is asured of playing another nation in future unless the encounter is presumed to be a financially lucrative one. Finally, if any nation refuses to endorse these proposals put forward by the 3 nations, economic sanctions and other un official action may be enforced against that nation and they may never play international cricket again. Have I got everything right? Well they sure look very good proposals to me...that is if I am one of the 3 nations proposing these improvements of course!

  • hasanjawaid on February 7, 2014, 14:15 GMT

    This is in response to Naikan's comment on finding a middle path instead of following the equitable distribution of the profit among participating cricket boards. I don't agree with him fully. Promoting cricket at the grass root level and improving infrastructure is the responsibility of a country as there are many political and economics dimensions to it and cricket board alone cannot do much even if it did receive bigger pie of the share. Instead, in my view, ICC should re-consider redefining its scope and help out cricket boards in promoting cricket/improving infrastructure by providing loans, technical expertise (coaches), hosting ICC-U15 and other similar events. However, ICC should be aware that quality cricket, owing to the mindless, commercialized cheap T20s is fast declining and will soon disappear if such tournaments are not reigned in-in preserving the quality of cricket that has been cherished and adored globally.

  • kanikandy on February 7, 2014, 10:41 GMT

    The interest for the game is not based on the Population of that Country or the Number of years that country has been playing cricket.BAN population is about 152 M & Pakistan population is about 185 M.SL Population is about 20 M & SA Population is About 53 M.So Witch Match will1200M indian population be watched by if PAK Vs BaN & SL Vs SA matches being played at the same time. similarly WI Vs NZ & SL Vs Pak are being plyaed at same time will indian spectators watch the WI Vs NZ match since they have been playing cricket for a longer time than Sl or Pak? what will happen if IOC powers & revenue is given to China & Greece & Italy as ICC going to give that to IND,AUS,ENG?

  • Neel_123 on February 7, 2014, 10:30 GMT

    "in sports large populations are already an advantage, not a burden"

    Without strong economy and proper funding huge population is NOT an advantage! With equal funding, bigger country has limited infrastructure for development which can cater only to a very small %age of population! You can not just choose random 100 people from each country for training (equal funds) and then expect country with higher population to produce better sportsperson. It is IMPOSSIBLE.

    Lack of funding becomes even more severe problem for India as most Indian school lack even the most basic amenities for sports development.

    Eg. Indian Hockey: once 8 time Olympic champion, India starts falling behind western countries once expansive Astroturf were made mandatory! No school or college in India could afford it even today. Young Indian players still play hockey on grass fields where dribbling is more important aspect than 'passing'. Funding for top 30-50 players is mostly useless until schools get Astros!

  • Wacky_Cric_Lover on February 7, 2014, 10:07 GMT

    Biggest democracy in the world going for the biggest undemocratic set up in ICC.

  • kentjones on February 7, 2014, 8:02 GMT

    @InsideHedge, Well my dear friend, if such 'reality' becomes cricket present, then true cricket followers worst fears would be 'realised':that the game's future is doomed!

  • InsideHedge on February 7, 2014, 7:34 GMT

    @KentJones: Superb comments but I think you'll agree that Jefferson was no fool. The Mahatma's quote is romantic but I fear the reality of life esp in the corporate world is more in tune with Jefferson.

  • InsideHedge on February 7, 2014, 7:32 GMT

    @Albert_Campbell: You can hardly call NZ playing some ODIs in Florida as helping the USA. What you're cleverly not seeing is the sizeable amount of money generated by a fanbase in India that goes towards assisting numerous other boards, incl CSA.

  • InsideHedge on February 7, 2014, 7:26 GMT

    @Biggus & Others: Has it even occurred to you that this proposal may be the best option for the game? It was in draft mode when it began and with the input/suggestions/complaints from the other members, it's been modified.

    It seems many here have simply jumped on the hate bandwagon - note that the BCCI is taking all the flak with the Aussies next. The ECB have cleverly flown under the radar - and assumed that the proposal is all about the three boards making more money.

    It's actually about everyone benefiting. The amount of hypocrisy on here is staggering. We keep reading about affiliates not getting an opportunity to progress, here's their chance with the 2 tier system. However, that looks to have been shot down thanks to Bangla who are fearful of losing their Test status.

    Boards such as PCB and SLC have no ethical and moral ground to be complaining esp the PCB.

  • InsideHedge on February 7, 2014, 7:14 GMT

    @Naikan: Excellent comments.

  • pramudamu on February 7, 2014, 7:03 GMT

    The recent revamped proposed by BCCI & two other cricket boards towards controlling the ICC's affair will only jeopardized the future of global cricket. No matter what the big three says about the recent developments & its possible positive impacts on cricket globally this will only create an anarchic governance at the top three. We are going to see - ' you play me I get you more money' kind of days ahead. The future of cricket is in dark hands today and we need to save cricket first. These new proposals will have be favoring all & there is definitely a better way of doing it involving every cricket board.

  • InsideHedge on February 7, 2014, 7:02 GMT

    @yorkslanka: Keep your bigoted and misguided views coming, it's a pleasure to read.

    The Sri Lankan board has some gall to be complaining about a proposal that not only ensures the primacy of Test Cricket but an increase revenue model for mis managed boards such as the Lankan one. The SLC has rarely had the spotlight shone on them despite their poor track record.

    Greedy 3? That would be CSA, PCB and SLC. Out of the three, CSA are bitter that they haven't been included in the discussions. The other two have political grudges against India. Pity really but that's the reality.

  • ygkd on February 7, 2014, 6:42 GMT

    There are many economic rationalist arguments going on here. Yes, some countries' boards are not doing their job. Yes, looking after yourself is a fundamental principle that should be cherished. Yes, but... let's be realistic. How many top players would make the Test arena if they weren't supported properly at youth level? To put that another way, how many potential Test regulars have been lost over the years because they were left to struggle on their own, without assistance? It's the same with whole sides. How many Test nations would there be if these principles had been applied 100+ years ago. SA? Weren't up to it. NZ? Lost for years. WI? Some good players, but didn't win much at first. India? Ditto. SL? Took a while to transform ODI form to Tests. We'd be stuck with Ashes and nothing else. And that's only because Australia had improved quickly with help from some English professionals. Who else was there to coach Charles Bannerman, for example - the first Test centurion ever?

  • jbentham on February 7, 2014, 6:41 GMT

    @Naikan, So monetary distribution should be based on the size of the population of the Full Member country and their cricketing setup? In that case, Pakistan should be well ahead of England and Australia on that list. Money earned in international matches should stay with the international community - would India A v. India B make as much money as India V. Eng or India V. Pak? Additionally, CSA's time in exile showed that you don't need to be a part of the international community (and therefore sharing international revenue) to have a strong domestic setup - you just need to have the right attitude and conviction. Furthermore, if you want international cricket to be competitive you have to level the international playing field. Look at F1. Ferrari and McLaren dominated the sport for years because they had money that nobody else had - as soon as the playing field was leveled, the results were staggering.

  • V.GOMES on February 7, 2014, 6:03 GMT

    "COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE". This new proposal will ensure that the top 3 countries will remain in as the top 3 for ever. ICC needs to take control and be like FIFA is to football. The current constitution gives every country an EQUAL chance of growth because at the end of the day extra funding means giving a nation a better competitive advantage to develop better training facilities for the growth of players.

  • Remoz on February 7, 2014, 5:48 GMT

    For everyone who talking about money invested by country. I am asking them that If countries don't have much money can't play international cricket?. Then its not a gentlemen game. Where is the spirit of cricket? Cricket is not a game like football or rugby. It has a spirit. Starting from ENG, AUS to 10 Test playing countries present cricket was developed by supporting each other. ENG, AUS Supported early test nations, Then India, Pak ,etc Supported to Sri Lanka, Then Supported ZIM, BAN to get test status, Now they all support to IRE, AFG to get that mark. Cricket is developing by supporting each other. Now they are talking not about helping other poor countries with money they have. I am Sri Lankan. If my country have more money my country should help to other cricketing nations. Not by buying the game of cricket with money I have.

  • on February 7, 2014, 5:44 GMT

    Little_Aussie_Battler..... spot on ... well said.

  • on February 7, 2014, 5:39 GMT

    Every country has the right take care of there interest, only issue here is Srilanka is bit overreacting.They have to oppose the items which is not good for cricket / not good for Srilanka. There is a change required in the current systems but all changes proposed in the draft not good for cricket. So all the cricketing nations need to talk and formulate the changes. Showing back to the changes is not a good sign for cricket , this game need to evolve and also need to promote to multiple countries.

  • Charith99 on February 7, 2014, 5:22 GMT

    Nice to see slc taking a strong stand. To a certain extent India should be allowed a bigger share of income I don't think it should be 80% . Veto power and no relegation is simply a no no, even our indian brothers would agree to it.

  • Practical_person on February 7, 2014, 4:51 GMT

    @JPnana - You are right Australia's population is more than Sri Lanka but the Australian population on average has higher disposable income and therefore, contributes more to ICC revenue through telecast. India also like Sri Lanka on average has low disposable income but the population is much higher and therefore, it contribute the most revenue to ICC.

    @everyone - you are all missing one crucial point - yes IPL needs international cricketers but most international crickets will choose IPL because they pay more to play less as simple as that. Just like we find many find many asian and caribbean diaspora in western developed countries. Cricinfo please publish.

  • Practical_person on February 7, 2014, 4:38 GMT

    @Yorkslanka - I understand your sentiment. Most of the international players will choose IPL over the national team just like Shane Bond did in ICL (its predecessor). Ultimately they earn more playing less and everyone has got mouths to feed. IPL can survive on Indian fans and International players will choose because there is more money coming from it. India will also continue to generate income from bilateral tours. NZ made 35$ million (more than any sporting event hosted by NZ) from the recent tour and thats why they are supporting the big three. Money talks my friend.

    BCCI knows this and thats why they are demanding more revenue and unfortunately majority of the indian viewers will only see matches played by India and IPL teams regardless of how India performs. The question is whether the funds generated will be transparent. Its only the purists from India and fans from other other cricketing nations who will oppose this proposal and sadly, these people constitute a minority.

  • Udendra on February 7, 2014, 4:11 GMT

    In terms of saving the game, the real "Big 3" are CSA, PCB & SLC.

  • EashwarSai on February 7, 2014, 2:59 GMT

    @Neel_123, Spot on dude. India makes more tours than any other country yt all we hear about is the greed of the BCCI. So, it's about time, the BCCI looks after the interests of Indian cricket first. It's mandate is to control the game in India, not world cricket. They need to withdraw from ICC events like the world cup and make the IPL a year long event so that over time ,franchise cricket becomes top dog. The World cup has been diluted over the years, with the real action starting only from the quaters/semis onwards. The Indian fans are not going to miss it if the BCCI boycotts it. We will see how much money the SLC will get from the ICC if there is no India. If the world cup and IPL are scheduled at the same time, all Indian sponsors will flock to the event with the Indian players.

  • EashwarSai on February 7, 2014, 2:48 GMT

    @Nadeem Shaik. You are completely wrong. It's the Indian players who are the main attraction in the IPL. International players add to the spectacle , but are not indispensable. Every team has a marquee Indian player who draws the crowds. If foreign players don't want to play the IPL , we can make do easily with Indian players. It would actually be beneficial to India.

  • getsetgopk on February 7, 2014, 2:42 GMT

    So it will be crickets homeless and the board that has an 8 million dollars loan request in at ICC that will stand up and ask for equity and fair play. Cricket had to see this day! Cricket is a lost cause already.

  • stonk on February 7, 2014, 2:29 GMT

    The ICC have been drawn into this mess because of Isaacs (A Kiwi) Edwards (An Ausie) Giles Clarke (An Englishman) and Srinivasan (An Indian).

  • on February 7, 2014, 1:51 GMT

    Simple question and I would like cric info to do a quick poll . Who are the BIG 3 The one that are saving cricket (SA. Pak,SL) Or The one who is distorting cricket ?

  • VisBal on February 7, 2014, 1:22 GMT

    @ Neel_123: Touring and hosting are not only done from the financial point of view. In fact, hosting a (weak or developing) team gives them a chance to play in unfamiliar conditions and helps them develop skills they may not need at home. Every country has a missing skill set that can only be proven when touring. That is why it is especially important for developing teams to play home and away. The main reason why Ban have not been hosted by India is because it is more profitable to host someone else...

  • BobCo on February 7, 2014, 1:09 GMT

    Just an aside thing, but something I'm not clear on at the moment; can someone tell me if the BCCI are still a tax-exempt entity? I'm pretty sure they were a few years back... or is this all just a bad memory borne from reading too many hallucinatory comments on cricinfo??!!!

  • IndianEagle on February 7, 2014, 1:01 GMT

    india should not play any series any series against SL for next 10 years. If india play two series against pak in neutral venue for pak in next 8 years pak will vote in favour.

  • fijindu on February 7, 2014, 0:34 GMT

    Equal and Equitable - definition in law for these words will determine this outcome

  • web_guru2003 on February 7, 2014, 0:11 GMT

    Again, any comment that is in favor of this proposal has no other argument other than "o BCCI is generating most of the cash so they should" -- this is fair enough but proposal drafted by greedy-3 has much more than just revenue distribution. For example (and I quote)

    "It is proposed that the ICC executive board forms a new committee of the ICC called the executive committee, which under new terms of reference will act as - and I emphasise this word - the SOLE recommendation committee on all constitutional, personnel, integrity, ethics, developments and nomination matters, as well as all matters regarding distributions from the ICC."

    SOLE authority which can overrule ANYTHING with 3 PERMANENT members (greedy-3). This and other clauses like this have NOTHING to do with revenue distribution. This is just to get more power

  • CricketFever11 on February 7, 2014, 0:04 GMT

    SL , Pak and SA should play a try series just after defeating the Big Three Proposal.

  • on February 6, 2014, 23:59 GMT

    @Nadeem Shaikh. You think IPÆ exists because of international players? I think its the other way around. Do you know 895 players submitted their names for IPL 2014? Out of which 514 have been selected for auction. Each club can only have 30 players. Do the math. There will still be enough talent leftover and international uncapped players will give an arm or a leg for a contract foregoing international cricket. Capped players will retire prematurely to play in IPL. In any case Pakistani players will still not be allowed in the IPL. You can have you three ringed circus with SL and SAF.

  • Ghost-117-16 on February 6, 2014, 23:48 GMT

    To all the BCCI supporters citing the 'population of India' argument, I say this: large populations in sports are already an advantage, not a burden. India has a much bigger pool of players from which to have their pick, where the smaller nations don't have such luxuries. So that argument is completely invalid.

  • on February 6, 2014, 23:45 GMT

    How accurate is this notion that India generates more money? International cricket means 2 or more countries playing against each other. So how correct is to say one of these countries is generating more? This notion could only be true if the ICC is earning money from the domestic tournaments in India.

  • Little_Aussie_Battler on February 6, 2014, 23:45 GMT

    It seems the countries that complain about the coming ICC changes the most are the nations that make very little contribution to world cricket in a monetary sense and arguably a playing sense too.

    The other ironic twist about the recalcitrant states is that they are either in civil wars or just completed them and are considered the most corrupt nations in the world with shocking human rights records.

    The question is, why are we even listening to their grievances?

  • Cricinbest on February 6, 2014, 23:19 GMT

    Where is THE GUARDIAN of Cricket, the MCC? Oh... it seems they are busy with their anniversary preparations.

  • SyBorgg71 on February 6, 2014, 22:16 GMT

    The revenue distribution proposal is seriously whacked!!! At ICC events such as the World Cup it takes X amount of teams to partake. The event is watched not because India are playing but because it's nation against nation. The reason for the success of any of these events is not because India takes part but rather that ALL qualified nations are playing. The way the current Indian team is playing it would be lucky to survive the first stage of any tournament. The BCCI are trying to prevent other boards of their participation revenue regardless of their own teams performance. Why not calculate revenue distribution based purely on results in the tournament. There are 49 games in the tournament (based on 2015 WC fixtures). The number of games played = your %age of revenue. with the winner taking the spare 2%. i.e. Exit at RR Stage 6 games (6%), QF Stage 7 games (7%), SF Stage 8 games (8%), Losing Finalist 9 games (9%), Winner (11%). Revenue based on performance sounds FAIR to me.

  • mirandola on February 6, 2014, 22:05 GMT

    I doubt if there are any possible charges of 'illegality', since the ICC is a voluntary association and not a statutory board; but SL do well to raise these doubts, and point the finger squarely at money-hungry 'fat cats' who want to get fatter at the expense of the other cricketing nations. Am I alone in thinking that the whole of this nonsense is against every principle of cricket as at least some of us have always known and loved it?

  • sonofabiatch on February 6, 2014, 21:56 GMT

    I can see why this is bumming out rest of the nations (outside of the "Big 3"). And if I was one of those 4 nations, I would definitely be disappointed with my board for selling out. But from an Indian point of view, I don't think its right to be termed 'greed'. All the country is saying is, if you are using my consumer base for generating your revenue, I will give you access but at a higher rate (or proportionally according to the actual numbers). So is SLC saying India is not generous enough to promote their cricket? This would be a fair statement. Is India taking the money that is supposed to come to SLC? Definitely not. The constitution, while in spirit is admirable, is fundamentally flawed with equal distribution to all members. Now big 3 taking all decisions about cricket, you'll have to be a fool to say that's good. No defense there. I think the solution is continue in existing structure but divide money based on contribution. Make ppl work 4 their money. Its not entitlement.

  • ICKY on February 6, 2014, 21:50 GMT

    Finally the Bannya is out of bag. If they think that because of IPL's success India should be getting more revenue, if the international players are not there, nobody would watch medicore Indian players, who are paper tigers only. Look at their foreign tours, look who is beating India now, NZ, the number 8 ranking country. The rankings India got in Tests/ODI/T20 are only because of their home games. They should be ashamed as a nation for such ridiculous proposals. I know Cricnfo would not publish this because it is also controlled by Indians. Anyhow, the Cricket is here because of FANS, and even true Indian fans would also oppose such shameless propsals.

  • NoBull on February 6, 2014, 21:07 GMT

    Daniel Bretting - Do you mind shedding some light on the objections around the Test Cricket Fund? Is is that SLC are forced to contribute toward it OR that the guilty-3 are precluded from partaking in it? Very curious ....

    QUOTE from article --> He also noted that the proposed "Test Cricket Fund" designed to help the other seven nations to stage Test matches in circumstances when they might be expected to lose money was similarly flawed.

  • TheKeeper on February 6, 2014, 20:41 GMT

    I congratulate Mr. Dharmadasa and the Sri Lankan Cricket Board for having the guts to stand up to this kind of tyranny. People here are talking about India being a big country with big population, but let me tell all those folks that Sri Lanka has the same population as Australia - both countries have 22 million citizens. It has nothing to do with population because it's not about feeding the people. On the contrary, it's about supporting and developing the game. Smaller countries should not have to pay for the sustenance of the game in a rival cricket playing nation. That is a flawed concept and totally absurd. This whole episode just stinks of corporatism and greed.

  • on February 6, 2014, 20:10 GMT

    I hope BCCI does not plan any SL Tours or host SL for a long long time. Denying BCCI their rightful claim to higher revenue has no grounds whatsover. I do not say this in spite but as a matter of principle. If SL does not want to be fair then they cannot expect to profit either. I remember a time when India was playing SL every month!

  • on February 6, 2014, 20:05 GMT

    All the people who are talking about I PL should understand one thing if international players will not be participating in ipl no one will be interested in watching it even the Indians will not watch it. Because of the international players ipl is there.

  • on February 6, 2014, 18:06 GMT

    Perhaps India should be concentrating on trying to win at least one game on their SA NZ tours.

  • ilyas_US on February 6, 2014, 18:05 GMT

    So the actual BIG 3 are PCB CSA and SLC who are taking stand to save the great game of CRICKET and not chasing money

  • Neel_123 on February 6, 2014, 17:56 GMT

    @Bighus and Arif29: Indian teams travel MORE than any other team. Almost every team owes tour to India in recent years. Check cricinfo at least.

    Regarding BD tour: I thought it is good for BD that India is touring rather than inviting BD to play in India because:

    a) It helps BD cricket board to earn huge revenue (TV rights) as the host which they won't earn (will get only tour fee) if India is hosting them. b) Let us face it BD cricket is still NOT a top tier team; for them challenging India in India is way tougher than playing India on their home ground and this is better for BD improving their game.

    Had India invited BD to tour India, comments would have been how Indian team is bullying lower ranked BD team at home! SO, it does not matter what India does, some people are blinded by pathological hatred.

    On a side note: International cricket is heavily skewed (over 70% revenue from one country) and is not tenable in not long run. Int cricket will collapse sooner or later!

  • yorkslanka on February 6, 2014, 17:03 GMT

    @shubham goyal- yes players get money from IPL but the bcci get also gets income BECAUSE of these players participating. Don't be fooled to think anyone outside india would be even slightly interested in an IPL without international players...

  • on February 6, 2014, 17:02 GMT

    The bone of contention is IPL. If ipl is not endorsed by Icc and should be treated as indian premier league then india will earn more. Just to give a window to ipl icc has created a mess in world cricket by endorsing it and making it an international event. World cricket should carry on normal when Ipl is played. After all if is meant to be a domestic league with foreign players but cricket has been made a business by BCCI and icc ... Plain pathetic

  • arif29 on February 6, 2014, 17:01 GMT

    @Shubham Goyal - please check your information before posting on cricinfo. Eng, Aus and SA all have toured Ban. Not only that, these countries have hosted Ban in the past. Infact, Eng has hosted Ban twice. But India, Ban's neighbour, Ban's so called friend, have failed to host Ban in 14 years (being the only country not to host Ban after they received their test status).

  • yorkslanka on February 6, 2014, 17:00 GMT

    @ JPNana - well said mate absolutely spot on @ merl- you prove that ignorance is bliss... @cricketisking- if so, have fun watching india a v b how interesting!!

  • niazbhi on February 6, 2014, 16:47 GMT

    Am I the only one seeing inconsistencies of the statements. 1) BCCI gets as much as other teams are getting from ICC tours 2) Once new proposal is accepted india's share will go up (like at 70%). 3) Everyone else will also receive more money. If I have to guess the first statement is not true, then Zim, CSA would not suffer for money. There is no realistic data to point how much money india is bringing (I do not doubt they get the most). I do not doubt that revising plans may generate more revenues.

  • King_Ravanaa on February 6, 2014, 16:44 GMT

    @Neel 123... if your argument is revenue should distribute according to population, then enlighten me Aus population is around 23 Million Sri Lanka population now at 21 Million.. then how ACU getting share than SLC?....

  • on February 6, 2014, 16:28 GMT

    @Neel_123 ... I agree with u

    @albert cambell Yes, India ... srry BCCI!!!! is doing wrong by bring back veto. Most indian fans are upset with it. But revenue proposal is surely right

    India is a billion people country how can u give chances to other country players when you can't even have teams for all states as it would be too many. NZ, WI, SL they all have less stadiums and population. If u ask for equality then instead of 20% India should get 90% populationwise.

    Has ENG, AUS, SA toured BAN or even ZIM? No! India has. Which helps these boards earn money to play cricket! And if u look around no neighbour of ENG, WI is Full member. AUS hasn't helped NZ. Don't remember SA playing ZIM! India's helped BAN and also SA after Apartheid, SL board is financial unstable but bcoz of money from IPL their players don't feel any problems. Even WI players had problems with payments few years ago if u remember. IPL provides money to these boards for their players. WI, SA, SL all earn through IPL!!!

  • King_Ravanaa on February 6, 2014, 16:22 GMT

    @Neel 123... i just fell from chair when im reading your comment. for your information, Sri Lanka's population is 20.3 Million, simmilar to Australia's population. go and learn geography mate lol.. accept the faults of BCCI, without baseless facts

  • siqbal00 on February 6, 2014, 16:18 GMT

    @Albert_cambell spot on dude. Didn't realize this aspect until read it. Shame on BCCI

  • kentjones on February 6, 2014, 16:16 GMT

    While some may be distressed or even unduly alarmed by the ongoing developments arising out of the 'proposal" , and the opposition of CSA, PCP and SLC, I wish to view things differently. The true strength of the democratic process in the ICC is being severely tested here. After all the conflicts and battles and the subsequent dust from these encounters have settled, the edifice that is true democracy should be standing tall and strong and shining brightly. We should be either quoting Mahatma Gandhi who said " My notion of democracy is that under it the weakest should have the same opportunity as the strongest." Or Thomas Jefferson, "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." For the benefit and survival of the beautiful game and its continued growth, expansion and globalization, I earnestly hope that some time in the near future I would be embracing and rejoicing in the former quote of the Mahatma

  • CricketisKing on February 6, 2014, 16:08 GMT

    In my two-cent opinion, the BCCI should leave the ICC and go on its own. Now that feathers have been ruffled, a lot of trust has been lost between the boards. They will all be watching their backs from now on and wondering what BCCI is up to. This will lead to chaos and unnecessary tension. Even if BCCI comes up with a good idea, boards will be wary to support the idea wondering if there is a catch to it. Once they are independent they can keep their money and organize bilateral series with the countries they want to play against. They can also punish the "rebels" by not allowing players from those boards to play in the IPL or have a bilateral series against them. The face of cricket administration has changed with all this nonsense. Whether it is for the good or bad, we can only wait and see. I still feel that BCCI should leave and go on their own because it is not going to get any better.

  • Herath-UK on February 6, 2014, 16:01 GMT

    I can understand India's greed in the new proposals but what is more surprising is the absolute silence from the other two nations specially ECB who is not shy to point out that they are the guardians of cricket or the spirit of cricket. What bunkum is that now. Their continued silence behind the back of India is beggars belief! These gentlemen of cricket have a lot to answer themselves or are they more cunning given the bait to India to get all the flak they will resurface triumphantly later.

  • Biggus on February 6, 2014, 15:56 GMT

    @PrasPunter:- Yep, the complicity of our board is disgusting. I thought I'd seen the back of Wally Edwards in 1974, but his second coming as an 'International' is even worse than the first. The whole thing about the 'Big 3' is so contrary to our national ethos of a 'fair go' that I am at present ashamed to be an Australian. I still have yet to meet a member of the Australian public that supports this undemocratic lunacy. Over the last few years I've had a growing feeling of a disconnect between CA and the Australian public but have tended to chastise myself and dismiss it as paranoia, or creeping grumpy old man syndrome if you wish another nomenclature. I was signed up on the CA site for news, ticket offers etc but have cancelled that and made my reasons clear. Pointless perhaps, just one person, but imagine if we all did it. Sadly I feel our high quality of life here in OZ is inclined to induce apathy among many of us. Our public should really be fighting this tooth and nail.

  • Neel_123 on February 6, 2014, 15:53 GMT

    It is so funny to see people talking about democracy and EQUALITY and uniform distribution of revenues to all members. Could any one please answer these simple questions ?

    1. WI, NZ, SL have population like 4-5 millions each. They have very few cricket stadium and professional cricketers to care of. India (or BCCI) has over 25+ cricket associations whose members (and geographical areas) are much greater than these countries combined. How is it fair that a young kid in India get 300 times LESS fund than a kid in NZ or WI from ICC? Never mind that India actually generate 70-80% of ICC revenue and demanding ONLY 20% (India alone has over 60% of the total population which follow cricket).

    2. You say, "But India earns from IPL", True. But then so are other nations by their other domestic sports.

    3. Assuming BCCI is forced to accept equal revenue and manage its BIGGER needs from domestic revenues, does it not make sense for INDIA to skip ICC altogether and focus on IPL, etc.??

  • stormy16 on February 6, 2014, 15:25 GMT

    The SLC admiistrators are on the opposite side when it comes to sound administration but in the last couple of days they have stood up for cricket. I think some of the issues raised here are fundemental in nature. The constitutional issues issues are really not up for discussion so the greedy 3 need to first change the constituion before putting forward the greedy methods. I still cannot beleive the ECB and CA, the so called guardians of the game, have abandone their values, history and traditions of sports. Some of the other baord like NZ and WICB who are merely worshiing the money master can make a difference and stand up for the game. Surely the game deserves this and in the case of WI and NZ who are in different time zones, do you really think a billion Indians are going to make it economically viable to watch your teams play? Please wake up and stand up for the game and support SLC.

  • VisBal on February 6, 2014, 15:20 GMT

    Wow! It is a revelation that equal share is written into the ICC Constitution (Memorandum of Association). One question to our helpful scribes at Cricinfo and elsewhere. How come no one actually told us earlier that the unequal sharing proposal was actually illegal?

  • yorkslanka on February 6, 2014, 15:19 GMT

    We'll done to SLC for making the right decision. It may not make much difference but at least we Sri Lankans can be proud of our board for once!!

  • PrasPunter on February 6, 2014, 15:14 GMT

    @Biggus, when was the last time the bcci cared about anything other than minting money ? Having said this, we can't take a morale high-ground - CA is a partner-in-crime. Blushes !!

  • David_Boon on February 6, 2014, 14:43 GMT

    How are the countries supposed to 'improve themselves'? How is West Indies supposed to improve while being pushed aside? And are they talking financial improvement, or performance improvement? Because neither India or Aus are in any position to be judging another team's performance. Financial performance, why does it matter? Cricket isn't a vehicle for them to make money, it's international sport.

  • on February 6, 2014, 14:41 GMT

    Big 3 so blatantly tryin to pull wool over the eyes of the remaining members.. hope this staunch resistance frm the respective boards has a shelf life and is met with due respect.. Back off BCCI..

  • Albert_cambell on February 6, 2014, 14:38 GMT

    SO BCCI is saying that they are taking administrative charge to improve world cricket. But, here is my question. How much help they provided to associated nations in the past 10 years, despite of making the highest profit in world cricket? Take a look at the help given by other cricketing nations.ECB- Offers contracts to IRish, Dutch and Scotish players and every year they play an ODI game with these teams. WICB- Despite of having financial problems, they have included IReland in their domestic cricket. CSA- We have allowed some of the Namibia players to take part in our domestic matches. PCB- Helping out Afghan team and arranges a game for them with their visiting teams. NZC- Helping for the development of cricket in USA. Teams Like AUS and SL also agreed to play matches with Ireland whenever they tour England. Its seems only BCCI is the one who hasnt helped them at all and they will never do it.

  • fair_paly_1 on February 6, 2014, 14:36 GMT

    Bravo Sri Lanka...as well as Pakistan and South Africa. Stick together against the "big three" heads.

    It's disappointing the other four jumped on the three's bandwagon so quickly out of either greed or for being their lackey.

    So many world cricketers are so quiet about it all is such a shame though. In England, only Boycott and Atherton have been outspoken about it - two of my favourite and impartial commentators.

  • Biggus on February 6, 2014, 14:31 GMT

    Glad that some boards are fighting this. It doesn't stop the embarrassment of my own board, CA, being in on the deal, but it does offer some solace. In the end I suspect it won't make any difference but at least the history books will show that SLC, PCB and CSA made an effort to stem the tide. As for the rest, especially the three that are leading this abomination, well history will judge them harshly, and rightly so. What an irony that the BCCI, which lead the fight against the veto system, presumably on the grounds that it was undemocratic, has suddenly found that they don't actually care about democratic principles or equal representation now that they don't need their puppets to achieve their goals. If I were Bangladesh I'd be pretty annoyed given that India plainly sponsored their elevation so as to strengthen their position in the ICC and has not yet seen fit to invite them to tour. Forget the Windies and their 'Fire in Babylon', we're all in Babylon now, the WHOLE cricket world.

  • Biggus on February 6, 2014, 14:31 GMT

    Glad that some boards are fighting this. It doesn't stop the embarrassment of my own board, CA, being in on the deal, but it does offer some solace. In the end I suspect it won't make any difference but at least the history books will show that SLC, PCB and CSA made an effort to stem the tide. As for the rest, especially the three that are leading this abomination, well history will judge them harshly, and rightly so. What an irony that the BCCI, which lead the fight against the veto system, presumably on the grounds that it was undemocratic, has suddenly found that they don't actually care about democratic principles or equal representation now that they don't need their puppets to achieve their goals. If I were Bangladesh I'd be pretty annoyed given that India plainly sponsored their elevation so as to strengthen their position in the ICC and has not yet seen fit to invite them to tour. Forget the Windies and their 'Fire in Babylon', we're all in Babylon now, the WHOLE cricket world.

  • fair_paly_1 on February 6, 2014, 14:36 GMT

    Bravo Sri Lanka...as well as Pakistan and South Africa. Stick together against the "big three" heads.

    It's disappointing the other four jumped on the three's bandwagon so quickly out of either greed or for being their lackey.

    So many world cricketers are so quiet about it all is such a shame though. In England, only Boycott and Atherton have been outspoken about it - two of my favourite and impartial commentators.

  • Albert_cambell on February 6, 2014, 14:38 GMT

    SO BCCI is saying that they are taking administrative charge to improve world cricket. But, here is my question. How much help they provided to associated nations in the past 10 years, despite of making the highest profit in world cricket? Take a look at the help given by other cricketing nations.ECB- Offers contracts to IRish, Dutch and Scotish players and every year they play an ODI game with these teams. WICB- Despite of having financial problems, they have included IReland in their domestic cricket. CSA- We have allowed some of the Namibia players to take part in our domestic matches. PCB- Helping out Afghan team and arranges a game for them with their visiting teams. NZC- Helping for the development of cricket in USA. Teams Like AUS and SL also agreed to play matches with Ireland whenever they tour England. Its seems only BCCI is the one who hasnt helped them at all and they will never do it.

  • on February 6, 2014, 14:41 GMT

    Big 3 so blatantly tryin to pull wool over the eyes of the remaining members.. hope this staunch resistance frm the respective boards has a shelf life and is met with due respect.. Back off BCCI..

  • David_Boon on February 6, 2014, 14:43 GMT

    How are the countries supposed to 'improve themselves'? How is West Indies supposed to improve while being pushed aside? And are they talking financial improvement, or performance improvement? Because neither India or Aus are in any position to be judging another team's performance. Financial performance, why does it matter? Cricket isn't a vehicle for them to make money, it's international sport.

  • PrasPunter on February 6, 2014, 15:14 GMT

    @Biggus, when was the last time the bcci cared about anything other than minting money ? Having said this, we can't take a morale high-ground - CA is a partner-in-crime. Blushes !!

  • yorkslanka on February 6, 2014, 15:19 GMT

    We'll done to SLC for making the right decision. It may not make much difference but at least we Sri Lankans can be proud of our board for once!!

  • VisBal on February 6, 2014, 15:20 GMT

    Wow! It is a revelation that equal share is written into the ICC Constitution (Memorandum of Association). One question to our helpful scribes at Cricinfo and elsewhere. How come no one actually told us earlier that the unequal sharing proposal was actually illegal?

  • stormy16 on February 6, 2014, 15:25 GMT

    The SLC admiistrators are on the opposite side when it comes to sound administration but in the last couple of days they have stood up for cricket. I think some of the issues raised here are fundemental in nature. The constitutional issues issues are really not up for discussion so the greedy 3 need to first change the constituion before putting forward the greedy methods. I still cannot beleive the ECB and CA, the so called guardians of the game, have abandone their values, history and traditions of sports. Some of the other baord like NZ and WICB who are merely worshiing the money master can make a difference and stand up for the game. Surely the game deserves this and in the case of WI and NZ who are in different time zones, do you really think a billion Indians are going to make it economically viable to watch your teams play? Please wake up and stand up for the game and support SLC.

  • Neel_123 on February 6, 2014, 15:53 GMT

    It is so funny to see people talking about democracy and EQUALITY and uniform distribution of revenues to all members. Could any one please answer these simple questions ?

    1. WI, NZ, SL have population like 4-5 millions each. They have very few cricket stadium and professional cricketers to care of. India (or BCCI) has over 25+ cricket associations whose members (and geographical areas) are much greater than these countries combined. How is it fair that a young kid in India get 300 times LESS fund than a kid in NZ or WI from ICC? Never mind that India actually generate 70-80% of ICC revenue and demanding ONLY 20% (India alone has over 60% of the total population which follow cricket).

    2. You say, "But India earns from IPL", True. But then so are other nations by their other domestic sports.

    3. Assuming BCCI is forced to accept equal revenue and manage its BIGGER needs from domestic revenues, does it not make sense for INDIA to skip ICC altogether and focus on IPL, etc.??