ICC news

BCCI's threat of parallel body 'laughable' - Mani

Sharda Ugra

June 9, 2014

Comments: 131 | Text size: A | A
'The BCCI does not own the proprietary rights to the Indian economy'

Former ICC president Ehsan Mani has said an earlier threat by a full member nation to withdraw from ICC events, which occurred during his tenure at the helm of world cricket, had been thwarted by other Full Members standing together. Responding to BCCI secretary Sanjay Patel's statement that the BCCI had threatened to form a parallel body if they were not given a greater share of ICC revenues, Mani told ESPNcricinfo he found Patel's comments "laughable" and he was "astonished that the ICC took this seriously."

"I am talking from personal experience, when I was ICC president, when a country threatened not to take part in ICC events," Mani said, while refusing to divulge the name of the board in question. "And all I did was to speak to other Full Members, and that included countries like England Australia, Pakistan and West Indies at that time, and they made it clear to this country that was making threats that they would only work within the ICC and would not break ranks with the ICC. And once this country got that message, it realised its threat was absolutely hollow."

Mani said had he been the current ICC president, he would have asked the BCCI to explain its position "in writing." The second step would have been to ensure that "the other members stood firm" to send a message to the BCCI. He said that India would have "realised once it calmed down that this was a very hollow threat and their whole bluff could be called and they would be embarrassed if it ever got out publicly." Mani said the ICC leadership as well as the cricket boards of England and Australia had "panicked" in their response to the BCCI threat, instead of calling their bluff.

"They [the ECB and CA] should have just stopped and thought about what is in the best interest of the game, instead of panicking which they clearly did - and started trying to compromise the organisation. What they have done is terrible for the governance of world cricket by their very actions… This should not have been rushed through, this should have been done pragmatically, looking at the pros and cons. In the very least, the BCCI would have been asked to put its proposals in writing and say fine, we'll look at it, we'll have it analysed, and come back to you. But to actually then delegate England and Australia to talk to the BCCI, they started looking after their own interests."

Ehsan Mani delivers his address at the ICC Centenary History Conference, Oxford, July 22, 2009
Ehsan Mani: "I don't think the Indian public opinion backs the BCCI in these things." © Getty Images

When asked if the advent of the Indian Premier League, which began after his stint as ICC president between 2003 and 2006, had changed the equations within world cricket, Mani said: "If you take out the foreign players from the IPL, it wouldn't be that attractive, it would just be a national tournament being played in India. It's the foreign players that make the difference and what the cricket boards don't appreciate is that without their players or their former players, it [the IPL] wouldn't be as attractive for people to come and watch. People tend to sometimes overlook the values that they bring to an event or a party as it were. And I think that is what happened in this case, particularly with England and Australia, since they are ones who call themselves the so-called part of the Big Three."

Mani said the BCCI's threat of setting up a parallel ICC or even a second IPL every year could not have worked because of contractual obligations involving most international cricketers.

"Who produces the players? It is the cricket boards, right? They have contracts with their players, so the current players would have found it difficult to break their contracts," Mani said. "Yes the BCCI might have attracted a few players but, on the other hand, other countries would have had their players on contracts. But there would have been big litigations for breach of contract, they would have got stay orders against all their players who would try to come out of existing contracts. The BCCI would have been liable for huge amount of damages for inducements to break contracts."

The entire exercise, Mani said, "would have shown how irresponsible the BCCI was in threatening to behave in the way it was threatening to behave." Mani stressed: "I don't think the Indian public opinion backs the BCCI in these things. What the India public wants is yes, for India to do well. It is a great nation, it produces a lot of income for world cricket, but it doesn't give the BCCI the ownership of that income of world cricket, which is what they have tried to do now."

Mani also questioned Patel's estimates of the contribution India had made to world cricket revenues. According to Patel, a private agency study had confirmed India's substantial contribution to the ICC, which the BCCI secretary pegged at 72%.

"Mr Patel said somewhere that they came up with the figure of 72% and the ICC came back and said 68%. To my knowledge, this is absolutely not correct," he said.

According to Mani, three other member boards had questioned the Big Three on how the figures had been calculated: "They were told by India, Australia, England that they [the figures] were not up for discussion, you take it or leave it. So these are figures that maybe these three countries have come up with."

Mani said he had written to ICC president Alan Isaac asking for the Big Three proposal to be referred to an independent panel of experts to "see whether the proposal had merit and if so how, it could be progressed but you just don't go through on the say-so of three countries."

He said that while India does generate of lot of money for cricket, it was India's economy that used cricket for its own end: "It is not the other way around. And my big issue with the BCCI is that the BCCI does not own the proprietary rights to the Indian economy."

According to Mani, Indian broadcasters and sponsors bought into the vast reach of Indian cricket to help sell products and services. "What's that got to do with the BCCI? Nothing," he said. "Whereas I absolutely acknowledge that India produces a huge revenue for world cricket, it is not the BCCI's money."

Mani said had the BCCI's bluff been called, its own revenues would have reduced considerably "by 70 to 80% because no one would like to see India playing Zimbabwe, Bangladesh and New Zealand day in and day out. It would be worth nothing, the television channels and broadcasters want high-profile teams, teams that play good cricket to play against India. It's a two-way thing, it's not a one-way thing."

Sharda Ugra is senior editor at ESPNcricinfo

RSS Feeds: Sharda Ugra

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by HallaBolRR on (June 11, 2014, 10:08 GMT)

And yeah, I agree that Pakistanios should be allowed in IPL and called to tour India, but as long as government interference and security issues remain, this is only a hope

Posted by HallaBolRR on (June 11, 2014, 10:03 GMT)

@Michael Anderson, wasn't NZ the only country to hold the WC and champions trophy

Posted by Anami12 on (June 11, 2014, 9:42 GMT)

@Michael Anderson

Would this be before or after NZ wins a series in India?

Posted by Anami12 on (June 11, 2014, 9:40 GMT)

@ shane-oh

The BCCI gets far more revenue from two months of a domestic tournament like the IPL than from 10 months of international cricket. The pay for non-Indian cricketers in the IPL is quite handsome.

The money that non-Indian cricketers get from their boards is less than the IPL money and, in any case, is mainly derived from ICC funding that flows from India's 70% contribution. That would dry up significantly if India were not to participate.

Hence, the threat of withdrawal that was held out was quite valid and the ICC member countries were forced to take it seriously. Mani is spouting rubbish.

Posted by GR8GAUR on (June 11, 2014, 7:53 GMT)

@sid abbas- how sooner or how later??? A century I guess...LOL!

Posted by SuperSharky on (June 11, 2014, 7:04 GMT)

If BCCI wants to bully the rest of the world, because they make the most money out of cricket, then the rest of the world should stand together against this Bully. The way we are use to cricket should not be changed because of a rich Bully who feels greedy to get richer. You my hero are Mani for standing up against a Bully who ignores the rest of the players. If BCCI want to withdraw, it will be a sad day for cricket, cause then India will only be playing IPL and no-more internationals. But considering that, it will still be a better option than give in to BCCI's unfair demands.

Posted by shane-oh on (June 11, 2014, 7:01 GMT)

@TrueFactors - you (and others) should really stop repeating propaganda without engaging your brains worth. India produces 70% of the revenue? Oh really? And I assume, of course, they do this with or without opposition to play?

Posted by subcontinent-expert on (June 11, 2014, 7:00 GMT)

"Money is not everything" is what most of the fans are saying.... But why should BCCI not ask for money it deserves...??? I do agree with the ATTITUDE shown by the BCCI for which they have to PAY in future ... Honestly in India there are thousnds of cricketers playing and also many who have retired.. BCCI pays salary/pension to these players so where you think the money comes from....???? Also currently BCCI is spending a lot for the providing better infrastructure to our young guns... Its good to Bash BCCI and Indian team if they do mistakes.. But that will not change the fact that problem is "You don't want BCCI to lead even if they are 'there' for betterment of Cricket ".... N cmon its not 1980's where BCCI would try to harm other boards(specialy PCB and SLC ) purposely..... No one should be behind if the opportunity is there to progress my friends.... Targetting a particular country is not good....!!!

Posted by Naadhan on (June 11, 2014, 6:58 GMT)

@Nathan Bell - India losing badly to bangladesh or to newzelanders doesnt make any sense in this issue... the issue is Big Daddy asking for Big Share.... as simple as that... after all, ICC or BCCI holds cricket for money... @Zubair Khan - If india starts a parallel ICC and offers better revenue, then its obvious ECB, CA as well as other broads are going to join to support BCCI... there is the threat... hope you got the point....

Posted by fr600 on (June 11, 2014, 5:49 GMT)

Totally agree with Mani, an honest man with guts to speak up. I wish if he was still in charge.

Posted by   on (June 11, 2014, 3:36 GMT)

Some of the people here saying that ICC would be nothing without BCCI or India need to think twice before they speak. I mean seriously, what are the consequences of saying no to BCCI? Standing firm against them? What maximum can the BCCI do? They will step aside? Make another ICC without any other member? Play cricket alone? lol Come on guys, if every board join hands and stand against this BADMASHI of BCCI, the BCCI wont be able to do nothing, what else would they do, they would stop letting India play cricket? lol that will be a bigger loss for BCCI than to ICC..

Posted by TrueFactors on (June 11, 2014, 3:11 GMT)

I am surprised - why India is not asking for 40-50% share when they are generating 70+% revenue..? That is their right to ask..

Posted by Green_Team on (June 11, 2014, 2:00 GMT)

ICC is a cricket council not a stock market where you invest and get the return of investment. So All revenues should be distributed as need based rather than deserved based. What BCCI will do if players would be not allowed by their govt. to join such leagues? If BCCI wants money then they should organise tournaments in India with only Indian players rather than parallel body. By reading indian fans comments it looks like most of them are behaving like Indian rather than cricket fan, its a cricket platform so please talk about cricket, not your economy. If you want money then you have also other options to make money but please don't sploit cricket.

Posted by   on (June 11, 2014, 1:58 GMT)

As a fare share of the comments suggest, Mr. Ehsan Mani may not be 100% accurate in his analysis of BCCI revenue effect on world cricket and so forth, but the fact remains that BCCI used arm twisting and unholy methods in achieving their target. This alone is "not cricket" if this adage is still valid in this commercial world of cricket.

Posted by   on (June 10, 2014, 23:49 GMT)

I have lost faith in everyone. India through Dalmaya and ACC, and now through IPL and its lucrative market is holding the game to ransom.It is not a laughing matter ... this is serious!

Posted by   on (June 10, 2014, 23:19 GMT)

Now we know the Indian mindset.......economic colonialism sooner or later Pakistan will come out of terrorism and with a 200 million population we would do alright.

Posted by   on (June 10, 2014, 23:11 GMT)

Funny how he mentions Zim, Bang and New Zealand as dead beat teams/boring to play. Last time i heard NZ beat India badly... Perhaps his choice of wording was wrong. But this just highlights plans to make more money through the big 3. They only want to play teams where they can make more money, not for the best interest of cricket.

In recent times, NZ has beaten India, Australia, West Indies and Sri Lanka in test series... Mhmmmmm but they are still a dead beat team.

With regards to Zim and Bang... Well if countries like India keep avoiding series with them, of course they will never improve. Common sense lacks with the BCCI... Sorry, money speaks louder than words!!!

The BCCI are apart of three who have been in-trusted to help guide world cricket, not profit from it.

Sad times

Posted by GrandMasterSaxay on (June 10, 2014, 22:46 GMT)

Such an immature statements from Mani, wondering how he got the ICC president position in the past. He is not aware of the power of BCCI, CA and ECB are very much aware of the power and that is the reason why they are not taking this treat so lightly and are indeed "panicking". 70% of the income is generated by BCCI, there is nothing wrong if BCCI is asking more profit (20%), by doing this other boards will try to learn and try to improve in order to get more profit. Completition is everywhere; ICC should set up a percentage wise profit so that the top boards do get little more than the non performing boards. Top players would prefer to play 3 IPLs in a year over playing for their respective board/country. Boards/Individuals taking this treat as a joke is a big joke.

Posted by YAYAVAR on (June 10, 2014, 22:28 GMT)

By leaving ICC, India would have been "self-exiled." I can't imagine any other member nation will play with India in that situation. Mr. Sanjay Patel should have thought twice before uttering those words. The best thing would have been to convince ICC about giving greater share of its income to India and let the figures speak for itself. By boasting about the so called "threat" to ICC, I believe Mr. Patel has brought shame on BCCI in particular and India in general. Being a highly placed official of BCCI, Mr. Patel should have used better judgment in choosing words coming out of his mouth. I hope he does not repeat such "threat" in future.

Posted by   on (June 10, 2014, 22:22 GMT)

Mr Mani it could have been done when there was no IPL. IPL have given the extra muscle to the Indian board to threaten the world body as they can be rich even if they don't play world cricket, all the world's leading player will be here to play the IPL as it makes them 2-4 times the money they make with their respective boards and in some cases it's even 20 times.

Murali would have not made a million dollar in 5 years with SLC where as he made this much by just playing 45 days a year ?

Pakistan is still crying to play in IPL. As all the riches for player other then Australia and England are in India.

Posted by   on (June 10, 2014, 22:18 GMT)

I agree .. You dont handle a Sports World Body like that. See the Professional Example of FIFA .. ICC should start involving Eastern European Countries and Give them more International Games. Europe can bring more money to the Game then India.

Posted by   on (June 10, 2014, 21:31 GMT)

All the other guys (from Pakistan and Bangladesh) don't get jealous but it is true that India rules the ICC.. and in this your board is also is or will be with BCCI...and if BCCI wants they can easily set up a parallel ICC... without India ICC is nothing... going to be INSOLVENT soon.. CA & ECB knows that and they will be with BCCI.. So tell Mr.Mani who is 'laughable'... and foreign players money can buy anything... check it out how many players did leave their country for IPL in past.. what is a cricket board without it's Top players?? eyen 3rd sting sides can beat them then... and Mr.Mani IPL is famous for Indian people not for foreign players... we love to watch sachin,kohli, dhoni, yuvi instead of david warner,KP, or any other International star...lol.. :)

Posted by   on (June 10, 2014, 20:19 GMT)

Grow BCCI Grow!! Cricket will mot grow as developing Cricket nations will get to see Cricket only.. they will stay as developing Teams forever. Grow BCCI Grow

Posted by   on (June 10, 2014, 20:16 GMT)

Well at the moment India can't get close to New Zealand, so maybe we should tour over there again, help Indian cricket develop, give them a bit of help since they're so terrible at the game. We in NZ like to help out fledgling cricketing nations as we realise without a strong global game there would be no interest, so we would be more than happy to work with the Indian cricket team and help them become a useful cricketing nation for the benefit of all.

Posted by   on (June 10, 2014, 20:15 GMT)

I don't understand why many are so worked up when India is contributing 70% and asking for only 20% instead of d current 3% .

Why there is no details of other countries contribution and their present and future sharing ratios?

If it is Australia/England/ even Pakistan which is contributing this 70% revenues, then they will take 70% share itself for them, if anybody questions them, they would have simply said just cut the crap and go to your maths tutor and economics tutor!!! Is it not??? I guess the Indian board is very magnanimous in asking for only 20% instead of the entire 70% which any other board would have done without a second thought!!!

Posted by Iyer_Brain on (June 10, 2014, 19:54 GMT)

@Darcy Harcot: That being the case, could we please have FIFA use its fund collected in Latin America & Europe to build football stadiums in India or have South African & New Zealand Rugby boards to share the income generated in their country with the Indian Rugby Union to develop the sport here! Let me hear your arguments! Hello! Hello!

Posted by Sudhir65 on (June 10, 2014, 19:43 GMT)

For the life of me, I have never understood why the "Big 2" comprising ECB and CA was never a problem for Pakistan and other complainers of "Big 3" which added BCCI.

I never heard of or read complaints that England and Australia are unjustly controlling or running world cricket by themselves for last 60 years or so. As soon as India joined England and Australia boards, all the complaints and hatred have started. Why is it so?

Posted by GR8GAUR on (June 10, 2014, 19:34 GMT)

ehsan mani is Pakistani... he should ask pcb and Pak players about the potential of BCCI.... they know it better. ;-)

Posted by   on (June 10, 2014, 19:29 GMT)

If Mr. Mani is an experienced man of integrity, he should not be making such ridiculous analysis of the situation as he has done in his comments above. He should be advising Cricket board in his own country and help them improve the caliber of cricket. BCCI should get the fair share of the revenue say 20% like Texmex has suggested so that they can spend the funds in further improving the cricket related infrastructure, players, etc. Cricket is going to get lot of competition from other sports in coming years so ICC should stay united and come up with some innovative ways to improve the fanbase.

Posted by Anami12 on (June 10, 2014, 19:00 GMT)

@kensohatter: "HOWEVER all this is useless unless they have another international team coming to their shores several times a year."

Welcome to this century. The above statement is no longer true. India makes much more money from IPL than it does from International cricket. It's no longer up to the other countries to "send" their players. If the non-Indian boards don't agree, there are quite a few players who would tell them where to stick their contracts and show up to play in India. That has been proven several times (Gayle is just one example) and the threat is quite real.

Bilateral series (especially tests) hardly make any money. The main (and in some case only) source of income for boards other than England, Australia and India is from India playing in ICC tournaments (World Cups, Champion trophy etc.).

Posted by HealthyCric on (June 10, 2014, 18:07 GMT)

@ Rally_Windies World's highest run getters are from India and many in queue. If India produces all the world's best players then what's fun in that- I think that's what is boring. All India needs is a fast bowler like Marshal, Dale Steyn, Wasim Akram. It is difficult the way things are going, but NOT impossible. Can west Indies get the same fast bowling power it had in 70s?

Posted by   on (June 10, 2014, 18:01 GMT)

This whole thing just leave a bitter taste in the mouth. I used to like India. I used to love cricket. Now I will watch the FIFA World Cup, then the IRB Rugby Championship. India can continue messing up cricket.

Posted by Texmex on (June 10, 2014, 17:24 GMT)

If India contributes 70% of cricket revenue what is so wrong in asking for 20% of collection instead of the current 3%?

Posted by VipinGangwar on (June 10, 2014, 14:43 GMT)

For playing an IPL final. Sunil Narine skipped the test match, KP was all over ECB to play in IPL, Gayle was banned due IPL and other leagues. So it is true that India can make other ICC. It would have hiked the foreign players by 2 to 4 folds of current base price and could have attracted the foreign players.

Now When you say, who would ever watch all the t20's, Another league of Knock out 5 days could be setup by including the same foreign players. And it will be again same as India governing the cricket as it is currently.

Now you imagine the loss of all the boards and their cricket when they will not be able to play quality players in thier own country. And if Mr Mani is so much concerned about cricket, he should give his suggestions to own board to improve his own backyard.

Posted by   on (June 10, 2014, 14:11 GMT)

I think Mr. Mani's comments above are laughable. Without the revenue contributed by BBCI, ICC will go bankrupt. BCCI will definitely feel the pinch of reduced revenue initially, but the teams like Zimbabwe, Bangladesh and New Zealand which he calls them as second rate will soon improve their teams and the interest of fans will be back. Just think, what will happen to ICC without this revenue. Yes, the international star players attract lot of fans but the in the recent IPL, Indian players have shown lot of improvement. International players get handsomely rewarded for their participation. India has developed lot of high quality players in the past and can continue to do so. Why should BCCI not get the fair share according to their contribution? Cricket is a game which can generate lot of revenue, why break it up?

Posted by   on (June 10, 2014, 13:47 GMT)

Ahsan Mani is a man of integrity.

Posted by kensohatter on (June 10, 2014, 12:12 GMT)

Agree India do have a wonderful fan base/ population with therefore plenty of revenue to be generated from cricket HOWEVER all this is useless unless they have another international team coming to their shores several times a year. Otherwise they have IPL and thats it (and lets face it if they break free of the ICC all other countries would stop sending players so all the decent players in the league aside from Dhoni and Kholi would disappear. To be frank id welcome this. 20/20 is an absolute joke and one of the worst performed teams we see in australia is India who quite simply cant perform away from home.

Posted by baghels.a on (June 10, 2014, 12:06 GMT)

Mr Ehsan Mani seems confused....at one point he agrees that Indian economy, fans,corporates,sponsors,TV channels contribute massively to the the coffers of ICC but then he makes some kind of weird distinction between Indian economy and BCCI.

Secondly i would like to clear some misconceptions that Indians like to watch cricket matches even when Indian team is not involved, let me tell you that Indian fans are interested only in watching Indian cricket whether it is Indian national team,India A,India u -19,Ranji,IPLteams.Somebody mentioned Indians watch IPL for foreign players but you are wrong we watch it because there are seven Indians in each team and it is matter of great pride when uncapped Indian players outperform the foreign guys.If Indian team is not involved i rather watch some football action between Barcelona vs Madrid,Bayern vs Dortmund.Indians are big lovers of cricket but only when there is an Indian team playing or there is some Indian connection.

Posted by   on (June 10, 2014, 11:38 GMT)

Well done Mr. Mani for your statement!

Posted by   on (June 10, 2014, 11:26 GMT)

Why are people talking about what India "deserves?" India doesn't make that money, cricket does. Funds should always be distributed in whatever way best serves the game, not any particular team. If small boards get small shares, how can they grow? Boards should get the money they need, not the money they feel they "deserve."

Posted by Simple8 on (June 10, 2014, 10:28 GMT)

Bcci deserves the money they want. I mean how can India rsa pak bangladesh aus zimbabwe and eng get the same share of money. thats wrong from my point of view. zimbabwe rarely plays bangladesh also plays fewer matches only.

Posted by Cricketfan11111 on (June 10, 2014, 9:29 GMT)

It is not BCCI's fault that India is a vast country with 1.2+ billion population. It is not BCCI's fault that cricket is the no 1 sport in india. It is not BCCi's fault that india diaspora fill up the cricket stadiums and noisily create a wonderful atmosphere where ever indian teams travels in the cricketing world. It is a dream for any board to have such a fan base.

Posted by linguboy on (June 10, 2014, 9:28 GMT)

@Edward Griggs BCCI have invested 1170 crores in banks. Interest it receines from those deposits amounts to 110 crores every year. BCCI currently receives 33 crore from ICC which is peanuts compared to the interest alone they generate on the deposits. In 2011-12 income is 1117 crores and surplus is 250 crores. BCCI's worth is 2500 crores in 2011-12. According to the revamped ICC money distribution BCCI will receive 200 crores from ICC i think. I don't know why they need the money but economically its right to ask for the share it contributes. Secondly you forgot that Indian population is growing and being a huge country you need more money to invest in Infrastructure. Approx. 28 state associations are there and you need to provide them money. After all BCCI knows that once supply stops its market will fall. So they will do their utmost to prevent their product from declining.

Posted by linguboy on (June 10, 2014, 9:03 GMT)

@Venkatesh018 Sorry for long replies... Yes its wrong to form BIG 3 in the ICC but decision taken by them have to be ratified by the member body of the ICC which includes all full members and an associate representative. So its just that the decisions are taken by them but it needs approval from all of them to be implemented. 1st time election of president from the BCCI without voting seems unfair but after that any anybody can contest elections so its a fair one. Regarding BCCI controlling the ICC in the future, don't everybody complain that's the case now too??? So what's the fuss??? I don't understand. By this reformation we can actually hold BCCI /BIG 3 responsible for the decisions made by the Board rather that pointing fingers without knowing who takes the decisions. Am i wrong??? Now its not easy for other boards(ECB, CA) to escape criticism for decision making and hope it brings accountability in decision making.

Posted by   on (June 10, 2014, 9:00 GMT)

I think this arguement is poor, who cares whether India generates 68% or 74% of revenues, or whatever. Undoubtedly India is the global financial powerhouse of world cricket and the BCCI generates vast revenues from its sale of TV rights for itself, none of which go to the ICC, I believe

If the BCCI actually needs more money maybe serious questions should be asked about what it does with it current massive income.

If India was left to play by itself, or even endless series against Australia and England how tedious would that be? Repeat of last years back to back Ashes anyone?

Posted by India_boy on (June 10, 2014, 8:56 GMT)

It is not at all easy and fathomable for people of other countries to get an idea about what it means for other boards to include BCCI. I will give you a few examples - WC 2007 , India exits first round - biggest flop - both commercially and strategically. T20 WC in Eng - people hardly even remember when it took place. A few similar examples about Champions Trophy and various other tournaments. It is not only about the Indian population in India - it is the diaspora which counts a lot in countries like England, SA, WI, Canada and even NZ. SLans also come out in big numbers to support India against other countries (highly appreciable). All this diaspora brings in great amount of money through satellite and gate receipts. Remember how SA calculated a loss of $15 mn (?) when India-SA tour was in jeopardy. Same thing. All of you criticizing BCCI, why don't u ask your own boards to choose principle over money? After all, without their connivance it won't happen.Contd.... cricinfo pl publish

Posted by linguboy on (June 10, 2014, 8:54 GMT)

@ZainE111 Sorry you didn't read my comment it seems. BCCI quoted 72% and in reply ICC said that its 68%. It seems everybody agrees with that amount. Even Mani said that India contributes more but also claimed its due to Indian Economies or whatever. If you want question the % I quoted It should be towards ICC. I actually quoted figures stated in the previous article in Cricinfo.

Posted by ZainE111 on (June 10, 2014, 8:35 GMT)

@linguboy - I question that 68% number you quote. The BCCI has provided no evidence of how this number was calculated.

Posted by linguboy on (June 10, 2014, 8:26 GMT)

@Shazli: What?? IPL was never discussed here. IPL is an Indian tournament and its revenue goes to India and not ICC so that argument goes flop. ICC revenue sharing is based on television rights and so on. ICC's income is based upon International Cricket not IPL so why r u guys bringing up IPL here??? IPL income is irrelevant to outsiders as its our money generated by us. The question is who brings most revenue to the ICC through television rights. If India is a major market and Indian team is a major piece in generating more Income to the ICC then the BCCI has every right to ask for a increased share of revenue. Why should BCCI provide money to build stadiums in SL??? As a full member SL had to improve their market otherwise you cant feel sorry for them. Aus and Eng are other major contributors so they get their share. Get your board to work and earn money and ask for bigger chunk of money.

Posted by Cricketfan11111 on (June 10, 2014, 8:23 GMT)

Foreign players play in English counties. Foreign players play in Aus, SA, NZ Bangladesh.......Why can't foreign players play in IPL in India? Why single out only IPL? Cricketers are professionals, earn their living playing cricket. They can chose to play where ever they want as long as they don't break rules or contractual agreements.

Posted by   on (June 10, 2014, 8:18 GMT)

whatever BCCI do , doing right

Posted by VenkatChetlur on (June 10, 2014, 8:18 GMT)

First of, I hold no brief for the BCCI but in this case, I see no wrong in what they've asked for. The simple point that Mani has missed (possibly intentionally) is that if it was only the players who bring in the money, every board should have been capable of doing what the BCCI has done. Hasn't happened has it - haven't heard either the Big Bash or the English T20 tournament make as much money. The players will go where they make the most - and rightfully so. They have an earning span of 10 years or a bit more and will want to maximize it. All this talk from Mani is simply bravado - no substance.

Posted by venkatesh018 on (June 10, 2014, 8:05 GMT)

@linguboy...I agree India should get more share of revenue than other nations, certainly more than 4%(if that figure is true). But BCCI cannot demand a lion's share of all ICC revenues. Again, these are only ICC tournament related reviews. BCCI gets a huge amount annually for its Home Test matches and ODIs. Apart from this the Financial windfall of the IPL. How much more does the BCCI need? And if revenue sharing is the only problem, why should the Big Three have all the governance powers in the new arrangement !

Posted by linguboy on (June 10, 2014, 8:04 GMT)

@rizwan1981 Yean same deluded... 72% was drawn by a private consultancy firm on behalf of the BCCI. After BCCI quoted the figure to the ICC it came up with a figure of 68% after analysis of the data. So it would be wise to understand before commenting on anything. Nowhere Mani claimed that the BCCI doesn't produce 68% of the revenue but he claims its because of Indian economies and blah blah... Chartered accountant and all Can Mr. Mani quote the amount that India contributes to the ICC???

Posted by Shazli on (June 10, 2014, 7:53 GMT)

if IPL is Indian domestic tournament and this tournament generate lot of revenue then Ranji trophy also domestic tournament then why these player have been giving million $ contract and this tournament produce lot of revenue...... IPL without international players will b flopped.... why not BCCI do it and show world cricket that they r source of income of world of cricket.... very true said Mani i totally agreed.... and rest of world cricket also know this truth...

Posted by GR8GAUR on (June 10, 2014, 7:50 GMT)

@rallywindies- quality players are not india....hold your horses mate. we produced players like Sachin, dravid, dhoni, kohli, sehwag.....2 world cups ,1 CT, !world t20....so think before you comment. secondly , its not about quality players but about revenue sharing... grow up, will you?

Posted by rizwan1981 on (June 10, 2014, 7:34 GMT)


The 72% claimed by BCCI a figure plucked out of thin air Ehsan Mani , a CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT is more adept at number crunching than most of us .

Posted by   on (June 10, 2014, 7:22 GMT)

mani is right in whatever he says. bcci can't take icc for granted.

Posted by   on (June 10, 2014, 7:16 GMT)

ICC minus India would almost like the World cup 2007: no one willing to watch cricket in India, meaning the revenue ICC could generate would get a beating. We have heard the NZ commentators say that when India travels every four years the crowd come to the stadium and the stands are full and how are we going to change the situation for the other series. This shows the interest in the public and the number of people follow cricket when India plays. What is wrong in the one who is generating revenue to get a fair share? However, the way in which BCCI blackmailing to withdraw from ICC is not in the best interest of the game.

Posted by Chennai_Cricket on (June 10, 2014, 7:16 GMT)

How much share australia and englang getting? can anyone confirm

Posted by   on (June 10, 2014, 7:14 GMT)

i think mr mani has got it all wrong here. India is now the new power house of cricket. after England and Australia its time for India to lead the cricketing world along with others. its simple equation if India is generating maximum revenues for the ICC then BCCI is entitled to make more money and that money will again re-invested for the development of creating cricketing infrastructure for Indian domestic circuit and among associates and affiliated countries. mr. mani should be proud that now a team from sub-continent have the power to make decisions on its own.

Posted by linguboy on (June 10, 2014, 7:11 GMT)

@venkatesh018 I am asking this simple question to you. How do you justify giving 4% of revenue which helps in providing 68% of the revenue?? Straight forward answer please!!

Posted by electric_loco_WAP4 on (June 10, 2014, 6:51 GMT)

Fitting reply to BCCI. Way to go Ehsan Mani! Keep it up!

Posted by Vinaymu1986 on (June 10, 2014, 6:44 GMT)

Mani, could you please help me understand how could you people justify giving just 4% to one board which is generatng 72%?

Straight forward question, explain me??????????

Posted by venkatesh018 on (June 10, 2014, 6:37 GMT)

If Australia, England and other major nations have stood firm against the BCCI as Mani says, it would have been a landmark decision which would have eventually benefited the whole cricketing world.

Posted by getsetgopk on (June 10, 2014, 6:28 GMT)

Looking at some of the comments from the Indian fans here, I suppose Ehsan Mani's statments needs further clarification. What Mani wants to say is that if India is out of ICC, it does not mean that people in India will stop watching cricket played between other countries. A world cup in which India does not participate will still be watched in India and will attract substantial revenues. Of course they wont be as much if India were playing the WC but still there will still be demand for that in the Indian market. When Mani says BCCI doesn't own the Indian economy, he's essentially saying that BCCI can not stop Indian TV channels from showing cricket played between other countries. Companies and busieses go to TV channels to use cricket as a means to get their products out. BCCI owns neither TV channels nor companies. BCCI may very well have shot themselves in the foot by breaking away because those TV channels will then have made deals with an ICC (minus BCCI) and would get nothing.

Posted by   on (June 10, 2014, 6:20 GMT)

i think india's threat was not realistic and not workable. it would have not worked. i dont think Aus and Eng joined in because of that. they joined in because they were getting more share and almost all other boards joined in because they were getting more than before share. so it was due to gains they are getting.

i think most will agree about financial aspect. whoever generating more should get more. simple. so no issue with it. its the managment side of it which is questionable because of history of big1. they dont respect majority's word like in case of drs. SA case is another example. so if bcci want to rule then they should make sure to do it fair. by that no body will question this new structure.

Posted by FlatTrakBully on (June 10, 2014, 6:11 GMT)

At the end of the day, board or players will going to earn more profits. Fans will be spending their money and time for them.

Posted by Chennai_Cricket on (June 10, 2014, 5:58 GMT)

Only 4 foreign players need in 1 IPL team, so much of domestic foreign players is not played at international level. So we give chance to that players and watch t20ipl, odi ipl, and test cricket ipl. JAI HIND.

Posted by   on (June 10, 2014, 5:53 GMT)

What Mani says is highly acceptable the money India generates is not owned by BCCI alone compare Ranji trophy with IPL how much difference that 4 international players make just compare the spectators and TRP rating when india plays with pakistan and mumbai plays with tamil nadu?.The opponents and international players are a big difference in revenue.Let the next IPL play without international players and see the difference

Posted by   on (June 10, 2014, 5:49 GMT)

Put a $2 million contract (for 2 months) and a $100,000 contract (for 12 months) in front of a cricketer. And let's see what he choses!

Posted by   on (June 10, 2014, 5:46 GMT)

the other thing to note is, indian public would still watch cricket with or without india and advertising revenue would still be generated by other countries playing cricket.

Posted by 11_Warrior on (June 10, 2014, 5:42 GMT)

Just one suggestion for everyone who agree with Mani's view on the issue. Stop live broadcasting of other series where India is not playing in India. I.e. WI / NZ or ENG / SL. Apply this for one year. After one year if other cricket nations remain unaffected, let there be uniform sharing of the revenue for all cricket playing nation. Make it simple.

Posted by getsetgopk on (June 10, 2014, 5:38 GMT)

Of all the countrie, the one that stood up was a country with the least amount of resources and the least of political and economic clout. PAKISTAN. Sri Lanka too stood till the very last, until their votes did not matter at all. Cricket will go where it will, but as a Pakistani, I have no qualms with my board, none what so ever. End of the day, what you want is do your best and then relax and watch it unfold.

Posted by   on (June 10, 2014, 5:08 GMT)

To all those who are saying let's ban India from ICC either they don't love their country or know nothing about business management.. Because once you ban India the revenue would drop drastically like 68 to 72%..Only 28% revenues would be left with ICC.. They would become bankrupt in one cricket less week and less audience.. Mr.Mani need to realise that at the end of the day, It's a business.. Without money you can't arrange any cricket match let alone an international cricket match.. Do it, ban India from ICC and then suffer the consequences.. You wanna play, let's play! Let's see who wins..money or values? I am totally in agreement with BCCI.. In the recently concluded IPL only Indian players performed the best..The highest run getter and wicket taker both are Indians.. not foreigners mr.mani..We love our players nomatter what, We would watch 3 IPLS in a year if it has indian players in it, Foreign players don't matter much..They would eventually come..JAI HIND!

Posted by   on (June 10, 2014, 5:03 GMT)

FIFA has very strong member bodies, like spain and england, their revenue generating is too much higher than BCCI in ICC. So why they didn't go for different fifa. All this has been started becuase of BIG 3. After IPL, indian r thinking they conquer the whole world. If it will happen cricket will disappear from world soon. Already we only have 9 full member as compare to fifa which have 64 full members.

Posted by paapam on (June 10, 2014, 4:18 GMT)

Though iam an Indian and firmly supprt Indian Cricket(notBCCI), I have to agree with Mani. India deserved a greater share; without question. The quantum of this greater share could have been arrived at by hiring independant agencies. A kind of D/L formula. In a civilized manner. BCCI went about it in a most un-cricketlike way!

Posted by tickcric on (June 10, 2014, 4:17 GMT)

The subsequent developments prove it wasn't just a "laughable" threat. If it was how come all the boards came on board! Its very easy to make brave assertions when you are not in charge.

Posted by   on (June 10, 2014, 4:16 GMT)

money is not every thing ,think about world cricket and strength the world cricket body and make cricket a GENTLEMEN game...what a sensible article, Appreciated

Posted by popcorn on (June 10, 2014, 4:11 GMT)

I admire Eshan Mani's views. Here is one man who would have STOOD UP for Cricket, and told BCCI where to get off.

Posted by ruester on (June 10, 2014, 4:09 GMT)

Without playing in their national teams, players dont get the international exposure they need to get an IPL contract. I believe the argument is flawed that cricketers would become travelling cricket professionals if they did not play for their country. There are many excellent English T20 players that never get an IPL contract because they are not' big name' players. The IPL would not make anywhere near as much money if they had no international stars. People in England used to watch the IPL because of English cricketers, this year only KP played and the UK tv figures went down like they did in every country including India.

Posted by   on (June 10, 2014, 4:04 GMT)

BCCI makes 72% money for cricket? Based on what? Are they adding up revenues from India's home matches? Is it matches that India plays - home and away? In both cases, does the revenue also show up as "money generated by" the opponent? What does "revenue" mean? Ticket sales? Television rights? Something else? The only money which BCCI makes, in a corporate sense, is what shows up in its quarterly results, which it gets to keep anyway. Anything other than that is a not-so-clever marketing stunt concocted by BCCI.

Posted by   on (June 10, 2014, 4:04 GMT)

(1) BCCI has a better business & marketing outlook than ICC. THis is very important for cricket to survive & thrive. The money thus earned is giving parents of aspiring cricketers more sense of security to let their children embrace cricket as a profession. IPL has given more exposure to domestic cricket & India will see the benefits of this in the long term.

(2) However, growth of cricket depend on an eco-system. WHere everybody benefits. If "mutual good / mutual profitability" are not core to the revenues created by India, the eco-system will collapse and India too shall suffer in the long term. BCCI should be aware of this and be as long-term visioned about the softer/equity revenues earned, as it is about the financial revenue earned. Eco-system based approach has been core to Indian culture & foreign policy for centuries, an important representative of India like the BCCI should not function without these values.

Posted by Sandeep.M.J.D on (June 10, 2014, 4:01 GMT)

Why so much tinkering when the claim is laughable, just ignore and let them have their parallel body. Why would someone of a high profile in generating revenues will settle for a low revenue while sharing them. Isnt it true that ICC will have no funds effectively if BCCI withdraw their share for generating revenue. Which pockets these funds are going into, why BCCI has to financially support Zimbabwe, why not ICC, why not some other boards taking larger share of revenue. Unfortunately these are two Private bodies talking about the best interest of the game, none of them have a responsibility for the game but to CONTROL the already evolved game of Cricket. Can ICC explain how a 4% share is justified for a board generating 68-72% of it's revenue. When the board urges for fairness, they call it unfair. What kind of game we have grown watching throughout our life, is it just Corporate Management, sigh.

Posted by EashwarSai on (June 10, 2014, 3:41 GMT)

Foreign players are so over rated in the IPL. We saw this with the champions KKR where Narine was the only decent foreigner and may be to a small extent Shakib. The IPL is already doing fine without Pakistan players, it can do alright without other foreigners too. Anyway money talks , atleast some foreign players would rather take the money on offer too(see narine). So no Ehsan, without India, revenue for the ICC would drop significantly, doesn't matter if it is 68% or 72% or 30%. CA and ECB are wise, in not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Posted by getsetgopk on (June 10, 2014, 3:35 GMT)

Wow, how's that for an explanation. Right there, any BCCI, ECB or CA supporter should read this article. It explains every thing in thorough details and contains everything anyone wants to know about this issue. The mess created by BCCI with the help of ECB and CA will take deades to clear or it will drain the entire game down the gutters. My personal view is that these three boards will make money probably for the next ten years or so but it will be a nose dive from there on wards. In this day and age, when one turns on TV, there are hundreds of channels and sports, if cricket is going to survive, it needed to grow, not being pegged back to dark days. How is cricket going to pull itself out of this one, that is the question.

Posted by   on (June 10, 2014, 3:31 GMT)

If you set aside your emotions look at it purely as business, then what you will see is that bcci simply filled a gap left by the ICC. there was this market which was contributing 70-80% of ICC's business, but ICC was content to treat them like any other market. through IPL, bcci gave a special offering to this market. they gave them 10 teams instead of one, 60 matches in 6 weeks instead of 40 in a year. obviously, they are rasping benefits from that. note that ICC to could have done this, if only they had stopped to think about what they can do for a country that is generating so much money for them rather than simply being content with making money from India.

Posted by sgma on (June 10, 2014, 3:16 GMT)

Totally agree. India does not realize its revenues are not because of India, rather because of worthy, strong opponents. At least I won't watch IPL without foreign players. Indian cricket would die. -An Indian

Posted by   on (June 10, 2014, 1:52 GMT)

Whatever the pros for the Indian hegemony in cricket, the bottom line is that now the Indian Board is loathed by other countries other than the two other countries which make up the "Big Three". In consequence spectators in the aggrieved countries like to see ANY team beating India, day in day out. What Ehsan Mani so forthrightly pronounces is the absolute truth. Other countries shouldn't have buckled under Indian pressure and money. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Posted by   on (June 10, 2014, 1:46 GMT)

I object to Mani putting New Zealand at the same level as Zimbabwe and Bangladesh - I would like to think that the ratings for India v New Zealand are higher than India v Bangladesh/Zimbabwe...

Posted by IndianInnerEdge on (June 10, 2014, 1:40 GMT)

Before the usual 'lets bag india' fetishers have a field day, the simple act of replacing India and Indians with BCCI would go some way in our collective evolution as a species.I request Cricinfo to publish this....:) That said E M makes some good points about not allowing a single board / nation to control the ICC - very vald and pertinent.....End of the day as in real life - Money talks....:)

Posted by fazald on (June 10, 2014, 1:29 GMT)

Nowadays when we talk about cricket it's all to do with money and not about promoting or looking after the interest of the game. As a result the quality, the standard and integrity of the sport has deteriorated to a great extent within the last decade or so and is beginning to slide down even further. The gentlemans' game has taken a severe beating and the governing body the ICC seems to have lost all control. As a result the BCCI is trying to capitalise on this and is threatening to form a separate organisation of it's own which in the long run could have serious consequences for the sport. I am sure all those countries in the subcontinent Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh whether they like it or not will be under obligation to support this move by BCCI just to survive. I wonder where the other big two cricketing nations Australia and England who recently backed India stand on this important issue?

Posted by   on (June 10, 2014, 1:17 GMT)

Mr. Mani is a ticked off Pakistani. Independent commissions appointed by Australia, England, and India found that India generates 68-72% of ICC revenue. The BCCI and India received 4% of that revenue. That is patently unfair and had the BCCI not protested this arrangement, the BCCI would not have represented Indian interests.

Say what you will about the BCCI, and you can say a lot, but in this instance the BCCI was looking out for its country and itself, which is absolutely what it should have done.

Posted by   on (June 10, 2014, 0:55 GMT)

I certainly don't appreciate BCCI's bullying tactics, however valid their arguments are. But Eshan Mani is also out of touch with the ground realities, when he says...

..." the current players would have found it difficult to break their contracts,"...

If there are two attractive IPLs (or IPL equivalents), many international players would have ditched their national contracts and become "travelling cricket professionals", amassing their personal wealth, far beyond their dreams. Money talks, Dear Mr Mani! Of course, the"good old" form of leisurely cricket played by crickets for just the pleasure of playing is fast becoming a vanishing species!

Posted by IndCricFan2013 on (June 10, 2014, 0:51 GMT)

Mr.Mani, Indian public would not support a parallel ICC, but would support India getting more money back, since Indian public is responsible for large chunk of the money that comes in to cricket. Indian Public would also expects BCCI to spend at least some of that money for development of other sports in India.

Posted by   on (June 10, 2014, 0:43 GMT)

Hahaha best performers were Indians in the IPL???? Indians always get exposed in foreign soil and that is what happened to them even in UAE. It was foreign players who performed

Posted by   on (June 10, 2014, 0:19 GMT)

Only "former" officials has the guts to speak against BCCI. This is not a laughable situation Mr Mani - it is a fact that nobody wants to confront BCCI. The BCCI has done the right thing in demanding a fair share out of what it generates from India. What is laughable is when he said. "Whereas I absolutely acknowledge that India produces a huge revenue for world cricket, it is not the BCCI's money." Then Mr. Mani, I would like to ask - Is it the ICC's money? Also, it is generating revenues for a lot of International cricketers through IPL as well. Can anyon etell me as to why India should continue with 4-6% of revenues when it is generating 60-70% of the total revenues? Srini is shrewd and his management finally won. Else, prove it wrong rather than criticizing!

Posted by   on (June 10, 2014, 0:05 GMT)

All ifs and buts...Mr. Mani...not all boards are run by kds...they all know what's best for them and if it was any worse than how it is now then they wouldn't have agreed to it. Please everyone has moved on and it's time for you to do so too!!!!

Posted by HealthyCric on (June 10, 2014, 0:04 GMT)

Interesting a Pakistani talking some thing against Indian dominance, every one knows how credible the info is. We are talking about England South africa, Australia etc who dominated the world in many ways, it seems he knows better than they do how to control power- Laughable. BCCI would have given in writing if they already didn't.

You know what, why all other playing nations agreed to sign? Because they have same or more benefits if they do so. When BCCI said they start parallel ICC, wouldn't all the countries who signed/agreed now, have joined with BCCI?

Posted by VISH.R on (June 9, 2014, 23:46 GMT)

Cricket depends on TV revenue to survive. And TV revenue & ad rates are a function of reach & viewership. Perhaps Ehsan Mani will be the only one watching NZ play Zimbabwe. For that matter games involving Pakistan in UAE do not attract large crowds like the IPL does. He is living in a world a decade ago, not the post IPL era.

Posted by   on (June 9, 2014, 23:27 GMT)

Mani's line "would have shown how irresponsible the BCCI was in threatening to behave in the way it was threatening to behave."says it all. What on earth is he saying without saying anything clear lol!& he wants the current regime to speak clearly!& as if bcci was diff when he was at the helm!.Come on, if it is only indians playing indians, bcci would still make money albeit not at the current rate! even if it is just ipl 3 times a year! ofcourse we lose out on good international matches but please mani,dont even think on money terms. BCCI would still go strong,we indians r crazy for any cricket! & that would mean more money. That being said, my blood boils at the way BCCI is embarassing us fans and the whole country if the threat issued was for real &various similar incidents recently.Just cant understand why they dont realise how damaging this is to all of us indians & our image for many years now. Jeez. but i hope that once the management changes,maybe there might be an improvemen

Posted by arnie66 on (June 9, 2014, 23:27 GMT)

Empty tin drums make the most noise ! It's easy for Mani to grandstand when he did not have to be at the receiving end of BCCI pulling out and losing 70% of TV revenues.

Posted by   on (June 9, 2014, 23:02 GMT)

Ehsan Mani is right here to refer this to independent board on how the money distributution should happen. Secondly, i dont agree with BCCI on one thing which is forming 3 country board and give rights to them. This is not correct and I am sure many indians and indians cricketers will agree on this. On the other hand I do not agree on the part that says, what is it got to do with BCCI on the income. Well, selling TV rights, is also selling your brand and BCCI brand is their players whom they have produced through the training etc. ALso, players get their moneys worth so the money gets percolated to where it is due. BCCI earned it and they should get the deserving money and not merely 4%, thats ridiculous. How much let the independent panel decide.

Posted by Hrolf on (June 9, 2014, 22:43 GMT)

Things have moved on from when Mani was president. The IPL has now come into existence and the BCCI has a lot more experience in the financial and commercial management of cricket. In the 1970's Kerry Packer split the cricket world with a lot less money, power and experience. It is clear that only the good will of the BCCI and the genuine desire to have an international game is what stops it from what would amount to a commercial takeover of the ICC.

Posted by   on (June 9, 2014, 22:37 GMT)

Mani has said with a logic of international players which is very true. if not, how many come to watch India's domestic cricket i.e ranjhi trophy etc?

Posted by ilyas_US on (June 9, 2014, 21:15 GMT)

He is right India can't generate revenue on its own if they boycott ICC the other countries would have raised the revenue by playing each other. No blackmailing should be accepted for the sake of CRICKET

Posted by Alexk400 on (June 9, 2014, 21:10 GMT)

Why not other countries create their own ICC and boycott india? And recreate ICL in india. I doubt anyone will do it. Its pure greed by other board members. Why work when you can eat up other member hard work. Vampires are everywhere.

Posted by   on (June 9, 2014, 21:05 GMT)

@glen........... Mani said true IPL is attractive just because of the foreign players otherwise it could have been a national tournament.... its all about the approach they way you want to control this game with your wishes...for example india play in india will be great and generates more money which will wont help the game.. i remember those days when idia was just a average team and still not able to beat any australia england and south africa on their soil. but want to play in india and be the no one team... wake up... money is not everything let prevail this game in other part of the world

Posted by ReeceLebanOz on (June 9, 2014, 21:03 GMT)

How many people come and watch the local Indian domestic league? Ranji tournaments etc? Very few. It is the international players who make dubious leagues like IPL attractive. India can attract few former or discarded players but most of them would shy away from IPL, if it came to choosing their country or IPL. I don't trust the Indian board and with so many allegations, rightly so. No credibility. India pls go and don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Posted by Rahul17_1983 on (June 9, 2014, 21:02 GMT)

Lets ban pakistan from ICC and see how the revenue drops and then ban India nad see how the revenue drops.U will itself realise ur mistake in ur statement

Posted by Ozcricketwriter on (June 9, 2014, 20:43 GMT)

Sadly, this has been followed through with, for the worse for cricket for a long time to come.

Posted by   on (June 9, 2014, 20:15 GMT)

So stop all foreign players and try with Indian players for IPL 2015.

Posted by amuni12 on (June 9, 2014, 20:10 GMT)

Please don't let BCCI bully the world cricket. I hope other full members will stand against this bullying attitude. As Mr. Ehsan Mani said one country by itself means nothing. I believe that is because they don't have anyone to play against. I cannot believe this attitude by BCCI. If there is a revenue issue this approach is not certainly to the way to around.

Posted by   on (June 9, 2014, 20:03 GMT)

Well said Mani, I wish he was the ICC President when this circus took place!

Posted by   on (June 9, 2014, 20:03 GMT)

Mr. Mani - this threat is not laughable. BCCI is just not a board, it is one of the best managed company. If USA can play Basketball, Baseball and American Football within itself and still make it mostly watched. India has both audience and money. One cannot ignore it. Big 3 will only lead to more exciting matched with vociferous, jam-packed crowd. If ICC-2 will been made, then just like NBA, MLB, EPL, NFL - IPL can be played throughout the year on weekend days. You can expect full house. BCCI is a company, and they are doing justice with Indian fans.

Advent of BCCI is greatly credited to one man - Also known as GOD of cricket.yes, GOD. now you know why !

Posted by Charlie101 on (June 9, 2014, 19:45 GMT)

I would wonder if a second IPL would be possible to stage . The problems being as Mani said 1. having the international players available 2. India would end up with a test team who could not play test cricket as they would be concentrating on T20 and then your enduring stars like Sachin would not be produced . 3. Rather like the English football premier League every team requires a rich sponser and there may not be enough rich owners for 2 IPLs . 4. If India went alone and set up a T20 Packer style operation and they were not attracting the International stars then eventually lesser players would fill those positions with standards dropping and a gulf developing which would damage Indian cricket.

I can only think that the ECB and CA were terrified of losing ICC income and hence they gave way so easily

Posted by Iyer_Brain on (June 9, 2014, 19:42 GMT)

Although I don't appreciate BCCI acting like a class bully... Mr. Mani views here sounds nothing more than a loser's rant. If he claims that the figure 68-72% is a cooked up one, he should also stick his neck out and put what he thinks is the right number. Besides, he does not answer the critical question on, why any board shall not be entitled to a proportionate share of revenue, commensurate with its contribution and why should the revenue be distributed evenly irrespective of your contribution? If it were so, why doesn't South African or New Zealand Rugby boards share the revenue generated by them 'equally' with other boards such as the Indian Rugby Union or why couldn't India demand FIFA to sponsor building up Football stadiums in Hubli or Baroda!!!

Cricinfo! Please Publish!

Posted by   on (June 9, 2014, 19:17 GMT)

I am not sure what Mani is talking about. India could easily have survived a parallel board thanks to IPL. No countries have contractual obligation with their players that ban them from joining a league outside - i.e. IPL. As long as IPL is popular in India and Indians have a huge bias towards matches involving India, the money generated from Indian economy is de facto BCCI's money.

Posted by WeeBee on (June 9, 2014, 19:14 GMT)

well! .. Its extremely laughable. But I have a very valuable suggestion, Let India Make their own ICC only on one condition that no other nation will play with them anymore. India is a huge country , they can make so many teams within their country as they did in IPL. It will atleast encourage other nations to play freely without interference of BCCI. We will have DRS in every match. Indian people can enjoy their own so many Indian teams ( cause India like to play in india). lol, Let them do it. hehe

Posted by   on (June 9, 2014, 18:26 GMT)

This is wake up call to all cricketing NATIONS. Do nor hear to spent force in administration. Look at the facts about Cricketing Nations which generate wealth not only monetary but also interest in the game by youths. The BCCI has a valid reason which has to be addressed by ICC.

Posted by BiSymonds on (June 9, 2014, 18:20 GMT)

He wants CA & ECB to speak against BCCI and includes Pakistan and West Indies in the mix. If the rest of the boards were as united as he suggests, then the Big Three would've never come to be.

Posted by rizwan1981 on (June 9, 2014, 18:12 GMT)

Ehsan Mani is a CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT - what he says should be taken seriously with regard to the proportion of India's contribution to the ICC .

As to India's claims of inequitable distribution of income , its worth to note that in the NFL , ALL the teams receive an EQUAL share of the income .

Posted by eggyroe on (June 9, 2014, 18:07 GMT)

If the BCCI want to take total control of cricket,the sooner they abdicate all of their power in the ICC the better,then the rest of the real cricket world can carry on with what is best for the majority.This means the end of Mickey Mouse 20 Over thrashes and the return of Test Match Cricket at it's best.India can then retreat into isolation and play Mickey Mouse Cricket until their hearts content and not upset the real cricket world.Television and live crowds will follow throughout the rest of the cricket world without doubt,large populations will not guarantee huge television viewers if all they have to watch is 20 Over cricket and Test Match Cricket is blanked out from their television screens.

Posted by ZCFOutkast on (June 9, 2014, 17:49 GMT)

In Mani's eys Zimbabwe on par with BAngladesh & New Zealand. brilliant!

Posted by Rally_Windies on (June 9, 2014, 17:43 GMT)

money talks...

it is in BBCI's best interest to give money to WI, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, SA and NZ ...

India may be the largest market for cricket... but Indian cricket is boring and they are incapable for producing palyers like Shoib Aktar, Imran Khan, Malcolm Marshal, Malinga, Mulitharan ...

If BBCI pulls out of the ICC that would be great of the remaining countries ...

becasue Indian fans will be paying for pay per view to watch ICC cricket, and the ICC won't have to give India a cent ..

it will mean less money for India and more for the other test nations!

And the IPL will crash,,, Foreign players will be banned for playing in a rival league.. so no more Malinga, Narine, Bailey, Gayle, Miller, Hussey, Mitchel Johnson, Al Hasan, Kallis, De Villures, ,,

the Champions league will also be impossible ....

BBCI's income will be slashed by 50% if the pull out !of ICC ....

The world can survive just fine without India ...

Posted by UglyIndian on (June 9, 2014, 17:23 GMT)

The IPL without foreign players would be like the Ranji Trophy, which exactly NOBODY watches. If push came the shove, the other boards would have simply banned their players from playing in the IPL, and India would have been left to play with itself (literally). And BCCI's revenues from all cricket would have died a horrible death and the BCCI would go back to being how it once was. Whats more, the Indian public would have paid to watch overseas cricket matches like Australia-England, South Africa-England etc on the telly (because the BCCI cannot ban the transmission of cricket in India). The same Indian public would have ended up making money for other cricket boards.

Posted by   on (June 9, 2014, 17:20 GMT)

the way bcci regulates cricket i doubt they ever think of promoting the game they just want to earn money if they really wanted to promote the game why would they ban indian players from playing in leagues other than ipl and why would they not organize t20 matches for indian national team because they fear the popularity of ipl may decrease. and seriously which cricket board close the academy which is providing it with fast bowling talent the country has never seen before(mrf pace foundation) and replace it with something else

Posted by chucking_thug800_wickets on (June 9, 2014, 17:16 GMT)

In business, u get return from the profit in propotion to the investment u make n to wat extent u influence profit margin.. if bcci causes 30,40,50,60,70% (watevr dt is) revenue to be generated. .it shld get return in dt propotion only. why shld pcb n bcci get almost equal share in revenue whn thr contribution are so diff.

Posted by Cricketfan11111 on (June 9, 2014, 17:07 GMT)

Mani says that the boards which produce the cricketers. That means it is the BCCI which produce the Indian team. Then he contradict himself by saying it is not BCCI's money. Isn't it the indian team which generates money, for the BCCI and a major chunk of ICC's income.

Foreign players are paid handsomely for playing in the IPL and their respective boards are paid 10% of the players salary. What more can BCCI do?

If he says BCCI should be happy with the 4% it received from ICC he is not being realistic.

Posted by   on (June 9, 2014, 17:01 GMT)

There's a reason he's the former president. Sri Lanka wouldn't bend on its principled stand. So Sri Lanka was broken instead. I don't know why "calling India's bluff" seems like a good idea. India isn't bluffing. India has the best hand--at least economically--among the players at the proverbial poker table. India has four aces. The only question is whether the rest of the cricketing nations can combine to make a stronger hand or whether India has enough power to unilaterally make rules for the cricketing world. That Australia was a mess last year and has barely started its recovery, and that England is a mess now, doesn't help matters for those who want someone other than India to have any power. The two countries who could challenge India are correctly focused on fixing internal problems. Even Mani knows the other seven Test nations and any other cricketing country don't matter. That's why he thinks convincing England and Australia to boycott a renegade India would work.

Posted by glen1 on (June 9, 2014, 16:29 GMT)

The ground realities are never clear to some nations and their cricket organizations and they will play spoil sport-----this is what Mani is saying; but this refers to him and not to BCCI. Cricket is fighting for TV and audience space in an ever-changing World, with cricketeers looking for audience and remuneration and the only way forward is what BCCI is suggesting. Even the stadia in the Gulf were full for IPL. The best performers in the current IPL were mostly Indians.

Comments have now been closed for this article

Email Feedback Print
Sharda UgraClose
News | Features Last 3 days
News | Features Last 3 days