January 25, 2014

And then there were three

The only two cricket boards in the world who could together call BCCI's bluff and rally support chose instead to get on board with India's programme
141

The ICC's working group "position paper", a document that has rattled world cricket, was put together by three men. Their assistants, it is assumed, did the typing, spell-checking and formatting but in essence it was three men who were dictating to a fractious sport how it should run itself.

Let us not refer to them as Australia, England and India, for that is an insult to the good folk and cricket fans in those countries. Let us refer to them by name in alphabetical order: Mr Clarke of the England and Wales Cricket Board, Mr Edwards of Cricket Australia, and Mr Srinivasan of the Board of Control for Cricket in India have, between them, produced a document that has sent the rest of the cricket world scrambling.

When the document went public, the first reaction was to dismiss it as a mere draft. Mr Clarke blithely told a newspaper he couldn't say much about drafts, "We get through a lot of those." When FICA criticised what it read of the document, Cricket Australia expressed its "disappointment" through Mr Edwards opting for a non-"traditional" approach by talking about ICC discussions that were technically yet to happen. "We talk to other ICC nations across the table rather than via the media."

Mr Srinivasan said nothing, but his board secretary, a Mr Patel, told a newspaper that this document was a "legitimate right… a question of understanding, not a question of power game". Sort of like understanding physical strength when a seven-foot thug twists your arm.

The BCCI's approach, like much of its public conduct in dealing with other nations, remains reprehensible but predictable. For the past few years, it has been consistent in its distaste of the ICC, whose staff have casually been told by BCCI reps in Dubai that all ICC departments are going to be shut down soonish and it will end up as a six-member operation - not in Dubai.

Nothing that the BCCI says or does should surprise or shock anyone anymore. Like the BCCI working committee's unanimous approval of the proposal, slyly mentioning that India's participation in ICC events was conditional to the proposal being passed by the ICC's board.

When the paper was first outed, the CA and ECB spin doctors produced a web of doom intertwined with hope: this had happened because the BCCI was threatening to leave us; it was the best way to keep India "in the tent"; the document draft was, in fact, a beautifully complex masterplan drafted by Mr Clarke and Mr Edwards to stay true to the spirit of cricket, retain the primacy of Test matches, and prevent the collapse of all cricket known to mankind.

The vast majority of cricket fans and anyone who criticised at the document were advised, with dismissive head-patting, to refrain from "knee-jerk" responses, to seek "balance", understand "nuance", get hold of the facts. (What more mind-altering facts about the triumvirate's plans for governance and revenue distribution are available outside this 21-page document, is a mystery.)

When the BCCI's working committee made its not-so-veiled threat linking participation in ICC events with proposal approval, we birdbrains finally understood. The draft proposal was not a hard-fought solution against a BCCI ultimatum, it was the ultimatum itself. Six months of apparent sweat, negotiation and document-drafting had resulted in the following: the BCCI wouldn't compete in ICC events unless it got more cash, and Cricket Australia and the ECB wanted to make it very clear which side of this argument they were on.

The only two cricket boards in the world who could together call the BCCI's bluff and rally support chose instead to give it credence and even credibility with their spin-doctoring. They jumped onto a runaway train in the hope that, even if they didn't work out a way to control it, at least they could get enough of the loot on board.

For none of the big three are World Cup earnings vital for survival. The seven nations left out of their inner circle are the ones who need to use that word more often

When it came to restructuring the ICC's framework and divvying up its earnings, there were, unlike what Mr Edwards said, only two other ICC nations that Cricket Australia talked to across a table. In doing so, along with the ECB, they hung seven other Full Member nations and (a much larger cast of Associates and Affiliates) out to dry. This is opportunism at its most smelly.

To everyone seeking to disguise inequity as pragmatism on the part of CA and the ECB, here's a question: What if this document had emanated from a different unholy trinity? Say a combination of the BCCI, Cricket Australia and Cricket South Africa, which left out the ECB? Or BCCI-ECB-CSA, which left out Cricket Australia? Or a combination - BCCI-PCB-CSA - that left out both? What odds then of hearing the words "nuance" and "balance" and "crikey, don't be hysterical"?

The fallback reason for the ECB and CA going down this path is predictable - an increase in projected earnings from ICC events is vital to their "survival". But that is untrue. For none of the big three are World Cup earnings vital for survival. The seven Full Member nations left out of their inner circle are the ones who need to use that word more often.

In 2012, the ECB signed a four-year deal with Sky TV worth in the region of £280 million. It is 80% of the board's income, and they have 23 sponsors. Cricket Australia has 18 commercial partners and last year they negotiated a successful five-year deal with the Nine network for US$500m. As much as the BCCI may want us to believe otherwise, many of those deals have nothing to do with the BCCI's money.

Three former heads of the ICC have found the document distasteful. "Giving into blackmail never works," said one, "what will the next demand be? And the next demand?" One has questioned the financials, worked out without any supporting documents to explain the calculations arrived at or the projections made.

After I read blogger Russell Degnan's excellent financial assessment of the proposal paper on Thursday, I asked him if he could provide a figure for what an ICC World Cup, minus a sulking BCCI, would financially look like.

His answer: half of ICC profits would be affected and turn into a 15% to 20% hit on the other seven Full Member nations. His calculations were simple. Bilateral matches involving India normally earn the rights holder "between US$5 million and $10 million per match." It is what ICC World Cup matches earn, he says, on average even though most matches don't involve India. "The crux of the question is whether the Indian public still has an appetite for a World Cup without India. ICC profits could probably be expected to halve, which would shave 15% to 20% off the budgets of the Small Seven."

The numbers and the calculations can be argued over, but they were worked out by a cricket fan in a quick turnaround email. Just like that. Former ICC president Ehsan Mani, and head of its finance and marketing for six years offers a different calculation in his ten-page note on the position paper. If India did not participate in an ICC event, while there would be a "significant reduction in the value of ICC's commercial rights" but "not a reduction of 80% of ICC revenues." He states that, "From discussions with the broadcaster," the estimate for a World Cup without Pakistan, South Africa and the West Indies has in fact, pegged the reduction in ICC revenues to somewhere between,"30% to 40%." Well, knock me dead.

What would be interesting to know is if CA and the ECB discussed and calculated the prospect of ICC events without India among themselves. They have dealt with the current BCCI regime in only one way, acquiescence. The end result has always been the same. This time they gave in but also ensured they made a profit. Or at least a projected estimate of a profit.

Opting for a radically different route would have taken brazenness and courage but cricket in Australia and England would not have imploded. The proposal that the two boards are party to, though, has increased the prospect of that happening elsewhere.

A BCCI official at the working committee meeting called its outcome: "formalising dadagiri." The word dadagiri roughly translates to: bullying or throwing your weight around, the BCCI's calling card these days. The formalised dadagiri is now expected to take place in cahoots with two other heavies. Should this proposal go through - and there appears every chance that it will - the ECB and Cricket Australia will have vetoed their own claims of being cricket's responsible, forward-thinking global leaders.

Which leaves the sport with none.

Sharda Ugra is senior editor at ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Sachinfan8 on January 27, 2014, 14:53 GMT

    @visbal Your argument is totally flawed.your mention of ecb and ca invested in other countries is a flawed one.It was during Jagmohan dalmiya that India earned its respect and money.Remember what happened in 2007 world cup when India got knocked out in group stages.Viewership dropped and losses?

  • on January 27, 2014, 11:11 GMT

    50% of matches after world cup plyed in India.. obviously India is the most powerful income for ICC...

    My question is WHY 50% matches plyed in INDIA.. any reason?

  • on January 27, 2014, 10:16 GMT

    Wally Edwards - you were an awful cricketer and and are an absolute disgrace as a cricket administrator.

  • TheOnlyEmperor on January 27, 2014, 5:41 GMT

    One should never be afraid of flexing one's muscles when one gets the opportunity, especially against those who would do it to you given half a chance!

  • on January 27, 2014, 4:44 GMT

    I'm all for good governance and transparency. But, I wish to understand this: The only place India rules is cricket, courtesy its millions of cricket fans, cricketers and perhaps grudgingly the BCCI. In a real world, I see bullies all over, across different spheres, be it in polity, economy, issues like NPT, socio-cultural, and the familiar bullies are the US, the UK, Japan, Germany and France, not to forget China and Russia, and even at times Australia. This is not a myopic view of the world, i bet nobody will dispute that power politics is part of life. What I dont understand is constantly berating the BCCI for dadagiri! Yes, I wish BCCI has more honest people, is governed by qualified administrators, ex-cricketers blah blah. But, one can force them to get into BCCI. Just like we dont seem to like our parliamentarians but it seems they get not only elected but also reelected by their respective constituency in a free and fair election.

  • csr11 on January 27, 2014, 4:15 GMT

    Its really time for some of the senior voices of the game to speak out- Dada, Dravid we need you (i dont expect much of Sachin). the game of cricket in india, that has given you so much love and affection needs you, to save it from itself!

  • csr11 on January 27, 2014, 4:14 GMT

    Bravo Sharda! ..'Dadagiri' it is. I empathize more and more with some of my socialist leaning friends who revile cricket as an elitist game. And thanks for calling out the willing accomplices. Given the stellar contribution of ECB in developing Irish Cricket, I am not surprised on its stand but really I did not expect this from CA.

  • KingOwl on January 27, 2014, 3:06 GMT

    This proposal is extremely short sighted, written by people who, strangely, do not seem to understand business. In any business, one sells a value proposition. Same in cricket. The value prop here is 'entertaining cricket' and the value is created by the international stars. They come from all over the world. In fact, if we take the best fast bowlers, best spin bowlers, best T20 batsmen, best One day batsmen (which are all part of major ICC events), they mostly come from teams other than England, Indian and Australia. (Granted, India has a couple of great stars, but they need competition to display their prowess) So, if those other countries don't have the money to invest, what does the future hold? Take away the stars and there will be no value. You can't sell a service (sports is a service) that has no value. Cricket will be doomed as a competitive sport.

  • on January 27, 2014, 2:24 GMT

    @Matt.au/Syed..what I was trying to say was IPL with no foreign players wouldn't attract sponsors even if all the top indian international players come together...its the foreign players who provide the x factor..similarly if only India plays cricket BCCI can't generate the revenue it does now...as 8 mentioned in my earlier posts this proposal is more likely to lead to 3-4 IPL style tournaments in these three countries and will prov3 death knell to test cricket...and maybe eventually cricket itself..and the global talent pool for football can never be compared to cricket...I don't think cricket can sustain club stlye setup like football with very few international matches...

  • VisBal on January 27, 2014, 1:31 GMT

    Sachinfan8: If you think revenue should be based on "investment", then all the ICC revenues should go to only ECB and CA. It was the TCCB and ACB (now succeeded by ECB and CA) who invested in cricket in other countries to make it possible for them to get to the level where they could play international cricket. So what was the "seed money"put in by the BCCI? The profits that are generated "by BCCI for ICC" happen just by the BCCI showing up to play. That is as much as what most other countries do. So, tell, me, where is the question of "return on investment"?

  • Sachinfan8 on January 27, 2014, 14:53 GMT

    @visbal Your argument is totally flawed.your mention of ecb and ca invested in other countries is a flawed one.It was during Jagmohan dalmiya that India earned its respect and money.Remember what happened in 2007 world cup when India got knocked out in group stages.Viewership dropped and losses?

  • on January 27, 2014, 11:11 GMT

    50% of matches after world cup plyed in India.. obviously India is the most powerful income for ICC...

    My question is WHY 50% matches plyed in INDIA.. any reason?

  • on January 27, 2014, 10:16 GMT

    Wally Edwards - you were an awful cricketer and and are an absolute disgrace as a cricket administrator.

  • TheOnlyEmperor on January 27, 2014, 5:41 GMT

    One should never be afraid of flexing one's muscles when one gets the opportunity, especially against those who would do it to you given half a chance!

  • on January 27, 2014, 4:44 GMT

    I'm all for good governance and transparency. But, I wish to understand this: The only place India rules is cricket, courtesy its millions of cricket fans, cricketers and perhaps grudgingly the BCCI. In a real world, I see bullies all over, across different spheres, be it in polity, economy, issues like NPT, socio-cultural, and the familiar bullies are the US, the UK, Japan, Germany and France, not to forget China and Russia, and even at times Australia. This is not a myopic view of the world, i bet nobody will dispute that power politics is part of life. What I dont understand is constantly berating the BCCI for dadagiri! Yes, I wish BCCI has more honest people, is governed by qualified administrators, ex-cricketers blah blah. But, one can force them to get into BCCI. Just like we dont seem to like our parliamentarians but it seems they get not only elected but also reelected by their respective constituency in a free and fair election.

  • csr11 on January 27, 2014, 4:15 GMT

    Its really time for some of the senior voices of the game to speak out- Dada, Dravid we need you (i dont expect much of Sachin). the game of cricket in india, that has given you so much love and affection needs you, to save it from itself!

  • csr11 on January 27, 2014, 4:14 GMT

    Bravo Sharda! ..'Dadagiri' it is. I empathize more and more with some of my socialist leaning friends who revile cricket as an elitist game. And thanks for calling out the willing accomplices. Given the stellar contribution of ECB in developing Irish Cricket, I am not surprised on its stand but really I did not expect this from CA.

  • KingOwl on January 27, 2014, 3:06 GMT

    This proposal is extremely short sighted, written by people who, strangely, do not seem to understand business. In any business, one sells a value proposition. Same in cricket. The value prop here is 'entertaining cricket' and the value is created by the international stars. They come from all over the world. In fact, if we take the best fast bowlers, best spin bowlers, best T20 batsmen, best One day batsmen (which are all part of major ICC events), they mostly come from teams other than England, Indian and Australia. (Granted, India has a couple of great stars, but they need competition to display their prowess) So, if those other countries don't have the money to invest, what does the future hold? Take away the stars and there will be no value. You can't sell a service (sports is a service) that has no value. Cricket will be doomed as a competitive sport.

  • on January 27, 2014, 2:24 GMT

    @Matt.au/Syed..what I was trying to say was IPL with no foreign players wouldn't attract sponsors even if all the top indian international players come together...its the foreign players who provide the x factor..similarly if only India plays cricket BCCI can't generate the revenue it does now...as 8 mentioned in my earlier posts this proposal is more likely to lead to 3-4 IPL style tournaments in these three countries and will prov3 death knell to test cricket...and maybe eventually cricket itself..and the global talent pool for football can never be compared to cricket...I don't think cricket can sustain club stlye setup like football with very few international matches...

  • VisBal on January 27, 2014, 1:31 GMT

    Sachinfan8: If you think revenue should be based on "investment", then all the ICC revenues should go to only ECB and CA. It was the TCCB and ACB (now succeeded by ECB and CA) who invested in cricket in other countries to make it possible for them to get to the level where they could play international cricket. So what was the "seed money"put in by the BCCI? The profits that are generated "by BCCI for ICC" happen just by the BCCI showing up to play. That is as much as what most other countries do. So, tell, me, where is the question of "return on investment"?

  • on January 27, 2014, 1:00 GMT

    Why these THREE; and not the other SEVEN? The Answer is simple. If you take the AVERAGE of the income generated by the TEN, the average was lower than the income of these three and much higher than that of the remaining seven. When moving from "Equal" to "Proportional"; these three will get more and the other seen will get less.

    It may not be cricket, but it is simple arithmetic. Simply (as we South Indians say) business.

  • on January 27, 2014, 0:54 GMT

    Reading some of the comments from a few of my countrymen (not most, fortunately), I wonder whether they want to see the current BCCI President to be the next Prime Minister of India? To improve Indian economy, to negotiate with other nations, to expand to other territories, to bully those who had been bullying the whole world in the past ? I wonder!

    Hitler, Mussolini, and after WW II Uncle Sam, Joseph Stalin of the Animal Farm fame, Mao, (the list is rather long, if you go back to Napoleon, the Mongolian Emperors ... et all) and their ardent followers...Aall of them wanted the same thing?

    History repeats itself, they say...... Hhmm!

  • khalidfanni on January 26, 2014, 22:55 GMT

    This proposal will destroy the cricket.

  • AjaySridharan on January 26, 2014, 22:47 GMT

    Truth be told, India needs international cricket more than international cricket needs India. Not many of the fans in India follow domestic cricket...no big profits made there. IPL needs international stars for its survival...bereft of that it will basically be diluted down to a domestic competition that fans are't interested in. I wish other boards stand united and call BCCI's bluff. Shame on ECB and CA for shunning their responsibility. They have now lost the moral high ground on cricket administration matters.

  • MasterClass on January 26, 2014, 20:06 GMT

    Unfortunately Cricket is the only sport where fans and writers (such as this one) have clearly socialistic leanings. Pretty distasteful. I'm not a fan of the BCCI, but for other reasons. Before pointing fingers here why doesn't anyone question why the other boards are run poorly? Why can't they make Cricket popular in their nations? Why can't they generate revenue: NZ and CA are prosperous nations, Pak fans are just as cricket-crazy as Indian fans and they have quite a sizable population, and lastly with WI's glorious legacy why has Cricket withered over there? Aren't these folks responsible for something? Haven't we given them more than enough time to sort things out?

  • Masking_Tape on January 26, 2014, 20:00 GMT

    I just looked at the numbers and I can't believe CA and ECB is signing with this! ECB will get 49% increase and CA will get less than 15% increase. And BCCI will get close 400% increase! Those two will not even get half the money. If that's not enough to break them up IDK what will!

  • PakPassion1 on January 26, 2014, 19:31 GMT

    The game of cricket will tear apart and die if these proposals from the ECB, CA & BCCI are accepted. As a loyal cricket fan of over 40 years, I have seen teams like the West Indies at their height. Would it have been fair if their board decided to do then what is being proposed now by effectively the BCCI? Is this what the ECB's fore fathers who invented cricket would have dreamt their custodians of the future would dare to do? Moreover did the Australians at the time when the Ashes were being burnt mean this to happen as a consequence? Why do "you three" want to ruin the game now and sell your souls to the banks? Remember no nation (or small group of them) is an Island of its own right. We share this planet so it's only fair we share the common aims to improve things. Not cut and run when it suits you. I deplore this move and call upon all for the good of the game to rise above this.

  • haqster499 on January 26, 2014, 16:41 GMT

    I can just see twenty years from now if this horrible plan goes through-- India, England and Australia winning world cups and not feeling the same euphoria.

    Champion cricket teams need rivalry. And there will limited rivalry. As other countries would not have invested in their poorer cricket systems.

    why does BCCI need more money? It has sponsors and it has grown IPL into the 2nd biggest tournament in the world in monetary terms. Dont ruin your own cricket!!

  • on January 26, 2014, 15:48 GMT

    @ Ratnakar - If Gayle, Pollard, Finch, Warner, KP, etc. are paid millions of dollars to play in the IPL, do you think they'd reject it?

    Look at the baseball league in America, or the Australian Football league (AFL) - they have survived despite being played in just one country. And don't forget, India has a population of a billion (and most who're cricket fanatics, thanks to Sachin).

    Whilst this is very sad, it was inevitable for it to eventually happen. I, unfortunately, see cricket going the soccer way - lots of league matches around the world, with only a few International matches besides the World Cup.

  • Matt.au on January 26, 2014, 15:22 GMT

    @ Ratnakar = Imagine IPL does not have any foreign players involved.how many sponsors will be there?

    What makes you think no foriegn players will be in the IPL? Money talks and players will walk.

    My biggest fear if BCCI don't get their way is they will pull out of ICC events and simply play their own tournaments, IPL and possibly 1 and 5 day games.

    With the worlds best talent opting for the big payday playing in those events rather than earning, in some cases, the paltry fees they do now playing for their country, most ICC events will be sadly second rate.

    There is some great talent coming through NZ and WI cricket. If those top echelon players are employed by the BCCI they have no chance of replacing such talent for many, many years as their talented player pool is so small.

    I'm not sure if the BCCI would employ Pakistan players (looking at the IPL) but Bangladesh could be badly hampered as well.

    Don't get me wrong, CA, ECB and CSA would have their brand destroyed for years too

  • Sachinfan8 on January 26, 2014, 14:51 GMT

    If other boards worry,then generate your own income.The big 3 takes what they deserve..not taking other shares.Its simple business if some people doesnt understand.you invest more money,you expect your profits based on your investment.Simple as it.This article is nothing but a bashing bcci article.Money matters to run cricket.cricinfo needs it.boards need it.Some boards cant even pay their players and asking for a greater pie which is contributed by India.BE REALISTIC.IF u truly want to globalise cricket T20s are the way forward.

  • ramli on January 26, 2014, 14:15 GMT

    ECB and CA struck good deals only with a fervent hope that BCCI would comply with regular visit of India to Eng and Aus and vice-versa ... when players are behaving like mercenaries placing IPL auction in front than anything, what does BCCI care about? Any combination of international players and teams can be organized by BCCI without the support of respective boards ... just because, players will be ready to play for money ... so, accept the fact of the supremacy of BCCI, ECB and CA and move on ... no board is going to starve because of this new plan ... they only stand to gain in the long run

  • on January 26, 2014, 14:09 GMT

    Its really heartening to see this coverage from Cricinfo..for once my faith in you has been restored..it was slighlty disturbed with your totally blanket coverage of Sachin Tendulkar's exit..agreed he has the most records..but you guys did not do any of the stuff for a Ricky Ponting or Rahul Dravid before or a Jacques Kallis after...the coverage was the same frenzy like many fast buck making tabloids in India.You guys insulted many other cricketers by showing this partisan coverage. Anyway thats about one player who made his name because of this game..and I am glad this coverage pertaining to the game is back to the standards expected of you..not a single day goes without browsing cricinfo for me and that's largely for the unbiased stuff you publish.Crisp and professional. Keep the god work guys.

  • stormy16 on January 26, 2014, 14:06 GMT

    I wonder if the 'poor' 7 take on the big 3 with a counter proposal holding that if this proposal goes through all 7 will not play the big 3 and pull out of the IPL & big bash ETC. This would leave the big three to play each other with no Galye, Malinga, Bravo, McCalum ETC in the IPL. Also the small matter of none of the big 3 will play the best team in the world. The Indian batting records will take a tumble as we know how well they bat in Eng and Aus and how many Indian fans will get sick of seing the the big 3 all the time. The sad reality is this is simply not possible as I am sure the BCCI already has a few of the 'poor' 7 in the pocket but it would be a good way to take on the big 3.

  • on January 26, 2014, 14:00 GMT

    Imagine IPL does not have any foreign players involved..how many sponsors will be there?How many people will watch?No Pollards no Haydens no Warnes no Muralis ...only Sachins Dhonis Kohlis and all the players in the domestic circuit..what revenue can BCCI generate? How many watch the Challenger trophy that's held between India A India B and India C types? Now imagine some 8-10 teams from Indian pol with no foreigners..how many of the current IPL sponsors will come forward??

  • on January 26, 2014, 13:46 GMT

    I would have thought that the best way would have been for the ICC to tell the BCCI that if they chose to withdraw from ICC events, that is their perogative. No nation in world Cricket loves World Cups more than India, so would India really withdraw? Call the bullies bluff, seriously. Even if they withdraw from Internation cricket, how long will it last. The BCCI may believe that they are central to the survival of cricket, but any country that withdraws from cricket for what ever reason can't be sustained eternally. South Africa were forced into the cold due to politics, so if India choose to do so themselves because like a spoilt toddler they want to take their toys home with them when they don't get their way. Let them. The game will go on without them, but can they without International cricket?

  • no_point_chasing_the_wide_ones on January 26, 2014, 12:46 GMT

    @anshu.s - so you think Neel_123 knows more about the ICC's finances than someone who has been involved with the ICC since 1989 and was their president for 4 years? And who is now backed up by Speed, Gray, Lloyd etc. Get real! Where is the evidence or argument to support the "actually over 70%" statement Neel made. Similarly the 80% put forward by the BCCI, where is the analysis or evidence to support this figure. I suspect it is a very difficult figure to calculate and there are probably several opinions on how to calc it, but VisBal puts forward a reasonable argument, doesn't just state a guessed at number. Also, the value of the ICC product (THEIR events) is the fact they involve several nations. India couldn't just go off on their own and generate that 80% of revenue. the revenue relies on the international nature of the event. Remove India and I doubt ICC revenues would drop by as much as 80%. And do you honestly trust the big 3 to "honour" their "guarantees" after this. Naive

  • Nutcutlet on January 26, 2014, 12:23 GMT

    Law of business: to the strong, the spoils (It's all mine, or ours). Law of sport: level playing field, please. Unfortunately, cricket is not a sport...Not now.

  • cricketkhan on January 26, 2014, 10:50 GMT

    Sad and so depressing to see that a great game is being turn into a monely making industry, that too on the cost of millions of ardent fans, and 7 test playing nations. this has been on cards though, cuz as soon as u give some space to indians and thety sense that t hey have a chance to hit below the belt, they would do it gleefully. no long ago, this particular country had no glories in cricket, some here and there, few and far between great names, but as a team it stood nowhere, they were so pethetic that when actaul commersalisation of cricket started aka, Kerry Packer era, not a single player was able to make into the world eleven.nobody in this world knows better about the false promises and gauranties they make, other then pakistan. I am so sure that ECB and CA, have been lured into this by the baniya and through them they want to achieve what they simply can not through thier actual abilities in the field.I realy wish that these 3 should be thrown out of ICC .

  • on January 26, 2014, 10:39 GMT

    Lets get this straight. Sport IS in the entertainment BUSINESS. The problem really is that it is governed poorly. It has been for a long time. And you suddenly have financial muscle of one of the members sky rocket over the years and because you have a system in place that has accountability and lacks leadership, it can be easily exploited. This is what the BCCI have been doing over the last 4-5 years. Slowly and slowly increasing the stakes.

    In a way it is a good that the spotlight is on ICC governance related matters. Now the people need to address the issues and this position paper carefully. Get everyone involved and see what is the right way forward to keep the game alive most importantly, make sure we are still developing it and protecting every format of the game. But they should also discuss the financial realities of the game with the BIG 3. Every fan just wants the game to carry on not politcise it.

  • Dravid_Pujara_Gravitas on January 26, 2014, 10:14 GMT

    Part 2: Now, imagine a situation where countries like North Korea and its allies, Iraq and its allies, Somalia and its allies, Botswana and its allies, Zimbabwe and its allies and the rest of the world call for sanctions on USA and China for the 'outrageous' proposal from these two countries. Along with their calls for sanctions, they also expertly 'affirm' that USA and China will suffer due to those sanctions and alienation and that all the righteous allies and the rest of the world will have no ill-effects due to those sanctions. The word self-sufficient inherently means that USA and China will not be at a loss from a catastrophic external event. Don't you agree? Now, applying this hypothetical model to the ongoing imbroglio, there is nothing at all to indicate that Indian Cricket is not self-sufficient. The devil is in the details here. With nearly 150 years of history, JUST one country contributes 80% of the revenues, or let's say 75% or let's say 70%. (TBC)

  • Dravid_Pujara_Gravitas on January 26, 2014, 10:14 GMT

    Part 1: Dear Sharda, with utmost respect to your love of cricket, I'd composed several posts over the past 24 hours to respond to your article. I had to rewrite them again and again. I'm not able to garner proper words to match your eloquence as well as the tone of the contents of your article. I'll try one last time. Let us step back for a moment and ask, why do people fight for Freedom? Freedom is the best way to respect human dignity, I think. Why do people fight for Justice? Justice is the best way to reinforce our commitment for human dignity. Once your country gets Freedom, what next? Every free nation's main motto is self-sufficiency. No? I assume, every nation works towards fulfilling that motto. I'm no expert in economics, but when I think of self-sufficiency, I can think of China and USA and some more countries. (TBC)

  • anshu.s on January 26, 2014, 8:08 GMT

    I do not at all agree with numbers put by Ahsan Mani that is wishful thinking , i am more in agreement with facts n figures put by Neel_123, i simply don't undertand apart from the moral arguement how exactly do these other 7 teams suffer, how it is any different from how things exists today.

    CA and ECB have already guaranteed to honour there future commitments against them, BCCI has recently stated they from now on will regularly engage Pakistan. I am sure with Lorgat gone (quite unfair) CSA will be back in good books with BCCI,i am sure BCCI will continue to play the likes of WI,SL,BAN,NZ in some t20 or 3/5 match ODI series, although one negative fallout is that in future i don't see India playing test series against these 4 nations, normally i am a huge fan of Sharda's writing but this article is just an extension of bash the BCCI narrative which abounds in plenty these days.Some of us Indians are letting self righteous indignation come at the cost of self interest.

  • Maverick2 on January 26, 2014, 7:15 GMT

    Seriously, anybody thinks world cricket is an egalitarian society. The Power resides in the top 4 ECB, CA, BCCI and CSA and the others are just pawn in their power games. With this proposal all that BCCI manages is to edge out CSA which is loggerhead with BCCI recently. I personally feel that Instead of CSA for their personal benefits(qualms), BCCI should have edged out ECB. ECB Buoyed by their No 1 test ranking went to the extent of scrapping the Champions trophy to bring the test championship as a major ICC event. Buoyed by their T20 World cup win, Without much success in one day, the converted one days into T20s by changing the rules in favour of their playing conditions. During their success the ECB Went too far. By edging out ECB, BCCI can bring the power balance to the word cricket which is good Subcontinent cricket.

  • IndianInnerEdge on January 26, 2014, 6:24 GMT

    Thanks Atish_man. @ Marcio-Tkx for responding. To clarify - I never called the CA and ECB Evil. My point was that if u read the posts of fellow bloggers on other articles on this topic, there is a massive 'India is to blame for all thatz wrong nowadays-feeling' - My point is please replace India and indians with BCCI - which is an entity and unfortunately in charge of cricket. Not every indian agrees with the bcci-as you can see in the posts. The point about 'dignity, resilience, and respect' was made about the way indian cricketers play - recent examples - Sachin, Rahul, VVS, Anil, Srinath(inspite of being a paceman), Vishwanath, vengsarkar, MAK pataudi, et alll....most of those who wore the india cap rarely sledged & if they did it was to question an opponent's ability on the field-not his parentage, reference to certain body parts, the act of doing it or such other tripe. Look am not saying that our cricketers were holier than thou-but the way they play is what endears us to them!

  • Rahul_78 on January 26, 2014, 5:12 GMT

    Kudos to Sharda for the courage to to come up against the mighty BCCI and thanks to Espncricinfo for providing the fair platform to the different voices who could explain the blatantly wrong, manipulative and bullying tactics of the 3 most powerful boards in the world cricket. It is refreshing to see that there are few people out there who have the courage, conviction and good intentions at the heart for the holy game of Cricket.

  • India_Rules_Everybody on January 26, 2014, 5:05 GMT

    Sharda Ugra please speak for yourself. When you say "Let us not refer to them as Australia, England and India, for that is an insult to the good folk and cricket fans in those countries" you are wrong. True Indians stands very firmly behind any decision that is going to benefit India and it is ok if you disagree with the proposals made by BCCI for the sake of looking good to rest of the world but do not speak for me. I am an Indian and I firmly stand behind BCCIs proposal and you might but I don't care what any non Indian calls me for it.

  • bundybear55 on January 26, 2014, 4:08 GMT

    It's amazing how many people such as EashwarSai and smjr just don't get it. The IPL is currently valued at $2.9b and the TV rights at $1.4b over 10 years. The TV rights are owned Sony Entertainment India and WSG out of Singapore. They in turn have on-sold the rights to a whole host of international TV networks (about 15-20) who broadcast into about 100 different countries. If you take the international component away how much is it then worth..? Indian cricket can't survive on its own. The fact is cricket needs every country, and all going in the same direction, if it is going to survive. You can't even begin to compare the IPL with the NFL which is currently valued at $35b and has an 8 year TV rights deal worth $40b.! You would do well though to look at how they got there. They don't have 3 teams running the sport - they have an INDEPENDANT COMMISSION..! Most sports now follow that model, so why does cricket want to go back to dark ages? We really do need to wake up to ourselves.

  • on January 26, 2014, 3:42 GMT

    eye opening article shrda..... it is very sad to know the big threes are planning this rubbish. surely it is not in the benifit of game. to whom with india will play n earn mony if thy boycot icc evnnts? will india survive with only IPL....? no way. and india should also remember that if thy dont ply wth othr nations, no one will participate in their IPL. i m vry dissappointd by the reaction of PCB, thy should have reject it straight way

  • on January 26, 2014, 2:19 GMT

    So people of India going to support it because they will get more job? But it's certainly bow down their head in-front of the world. BCCI want to make Cricket as a 'Kingfisher' business, what a shame? Let's protect this conspiracy, it can only save the sprite of Cricket.

  • Little_Aussie_Battler on January 26, 2014, 1:19 GMT

    Sharda, so England and Australia should straighten out India's cricket? Steer them onto the true and righteous path if you will. Why not even go further and have say an England come and run the nation of India correctly also? You should be questioning Indian cricket administrators, not just the Aussies and English.

    Why do you honestly think England and Australia are in bed with India? It is all about control and keeping India's cricket administrators from completely going off the rails. We are 'keeping our friends close, but our enemies even closer.'

    Personally, I have wondered over the years if India was an organised country why it never created cricket's equivalent of Major League Baseball many years ago and just took the best players from across the world into it's own competitions. Luckily for the rest of us, organisation is not one of India's strong suits.

  • no_point_chasing_the_wide_ones on January 26, 2014, 0:36 GMT

    Nice article Sharda. You're right to single out the 3 main protagonists, althou their respective boards are also complicit in this whole sham. Even thou they weren't involved in drawing up the proposal (maybe weren't even aware it was happening), they are responsible for putting these 3 in the position to do this. And the boards of the other full members + the ICC also need to take some of the blame for allowing administration of the game to get into this terrible state. Did none of them take any notice of what the Woolf report was saying? For those saying CA+ECB are doing this only for tactical reasons to try control BCCI from within, nice thought but I very much doubt it. They're business men looking after their own interests - "as long as I'm ok" mentality. I don't know about Edwards but I don't trust Clarke after the Stanford affair (money grabbing ...). Anyway, this is going to happen, time will tell if CA+ECB are doing it for the right reasons. if not, damage will be irreversible

  • Nerk on January 26, 2014, 0:14 GMT

    What people don't seem to understand is that cricket is not a business. It is a sport. There is, of course, the business of cricket which involves the financial side of things. The sport itself is not owned by anyone, least of all the BCCI or CA or ECB. It is owned by anyone who loves the game, who plays the game, from Calcutta to Sydney, Cape Town to Kingston, from Lords to the tiny field down the road. This proposal is a big middle finger to all those who love the sport, and couldn't give two hoots about the money.

  • Not_Another_Keybored_Expert on January 26, 2014, 0:05 GMT

    For years I have heard the ICC talk about expanding the game but there actions have never been anything other than money driven. Now the BCCI, CA and the ECB want a bigger slice of the pie with no regard given to the future of the game. We need a organization at the helm who are willing to invest revenue into smaller nations to insure crickets future. These proposals put forward by CA, ECB and BCCI are extremely short sighted and will be yet another nail in the coffin of world cricket.

  • Khans_word on January 25, 2014, 23:31 GMT

    If ever the circus comes to town, it has today. The big three acts will be the main attractions in our top of the bill muppet show. Years from now people will look back to this most embarrassing and humiliating period of cricket when a fair gentleman's game became a rich mans garden game. These selfish greedy unscrupulous individuals will forever destroy world cricket. The associates will fade into obscurity, Pakistan will be perennial wanderers. Game of dust n no hope

  • CricketLifer on January 25, 2014, 23:21 GMT

    Sharda, you seem to have made up your mind about how this proposal is harmful and must be stopped with a few supporting facts to boot. BCCI (and so are CA and ECB) is right to ask what it considers fair revenue sharing - one cannot go on subsidizing other nations endlessly - Cricket is not a communist sport that every participating nation has to be treated the same!

  • on January 25, 2014, 21:48 GMT

    Pathetic, if the ICC bows down to this they're not worthy of being the ruling body of an international sport. Pull the ICC sanctioning of the IPL & label all players who continue in it as "rebels" and ban them accordingly. Cricket survived before the IPL and will adapt with it gone (or have a similar tournament in UK or Australia with all the international superstars). The BCCI need to get over themselves - next Indian batsmen will be able to do a "W G Grace" and have a free second life if they are dismissed cheaply. Mind you, if the ICC DOES bow down to the BCCI petulant threats, then the ICC should lose the right to administer the world cups (FICA could take over perhaps) as it will in effect be just an elitist group of three snobbish groups who think they can buy the results they want. Still, you won't need to worry about match fixing by bookies when the administrators will just make up the rules to suit themselves and their own teams. What a joke!

  • Jamesfranco on January 25, 2014, 21:20 GMT

    the funny thing is that, no Indian fan sees nothing wrong with the proposal but the rest of the world sees. However, we have to see how far it goes. in fact, India is a good team (only at their home grounds) :P

  • EAHMAD73 on January 25, 2014, 20:35 GMT

    Well Well, everyone here is talking about business, money who come first, country's intrest and so on .... but what are we forgeting is 1 thing and that is fans, do i like it what ECB, CA & BCCI are saying NO! is money important for game, look at Stadium's in India compare them to grounds of 80's and you see why BCCI want money, But i bring you all to one basic thing FANS, my dad took my to matches because he loved cricket, i loved it so much that all my life i just followed this sport, now my 6 year old can play shorts like sachin, try to bowl looking like wasim and just enjoy cricket been played, dont care about who controls it, hows getting profit out of it. ICC and all boards should remember 1 thing, the money earned by India playing against any one is helping countries like Afghanistan, Nepal, Ireland, Scotland, Holland, Kenya and list goes on, as a cricket fan i feel sorry for them becasue no one wins BUT THEY LOSE Guys from a Cricket Fan SORRY that Cricket has become a BUSINESS

  • Cpt.Meanster on January 25, 2014, 20:34 GMT

    I have openly voiced my anguish against this proposal by the 'Big 3'. However, there are a lot of immature comments here from fans made purely on the basis of raw emotions rather than intelligent thought and application of common sense on the grounds of business and economics. You see, India brings in the MOST money compared to any other nation into the sport of cricket. It's only right if India are paid a lion's share of the profit for whatever income they generate. I am perfectly OKAY with that. What I do oppose is the scrapping of the FTP, the non-relegation of the Big 3 and the Security Council like permanent membership ideas. India DESERVE to take the bulk of the profits from ICC events and rightfully so. Some people are asking for India to 'get out' of world cricket. Honestly, India don't need the ICC. India makes a lot more money just by holding the IPL for 2 months. That revenue is enough to subsidize their expenses. Remember American pro sport ? Self sufficiency !

  • karan1609 on January 25, 2014, 20:18 GMT

    I don't see anything wrong with the proposal.. BCCI is well within its rights to ask more than the 21% its asking now...

  • EashwarSai on January 25, 2014, 19:26 GMT

    @Dashgar. What backlash you are talking about? Why would the Indian public be against a proposal which is likely to bring more jobs to the Indian economy? Do you know how much impact the NFL has on the American economy? And yet nobody outside the US care about America football. India can bring the IPL the main sporting event in India. And we don't need the ICC's help at all.

  • smjr on January 25, 2014, 18:24 GMT

    The money for which BCCI is proud comes from IPL and T-20. Then why are BCCI want to take control of ICC, test match cricket, FTP which is simply not justified. In fact BCCI should be given permanent position of Chairman of cricket T-20 in the ICC and the money obtained from IPL, T-20 should be india right and it should not be given to ICC and other countries. India should not be worried of finances of other countries as they will take care of themselves.

  • CricIndia208 on January 25, 2014, 18:18 GMT

    This is a great proposal and will go through. Everyone will fall in line.

  • on January 25, 2014, 18:08 GMT

    At least one good thing would come of this - India would stop getting embarrassed by teams like New Zealand and South Africa, and wouldn't have to play on fast bouncy wickets against pace bowlers so often.

    However, without India playing Bangladesh and Sri Lanka all the time in the sub-continent, their batting averages are going to be pretty poor.

  • on January 25, 2014, 17:45 GMT

    Another proposal should be added to the revamp. it is changing the name of ICC. After this revamp it is not representing whole international. so that changing name is the best solution.

  • anshu.s on January 25, 2014, 17:39 GMT

    I do not at all agree with numbers put by Ahsan Mani that is wishful thinking , i am more in agreement with facts n figures put by Neel_123, i simply don't undertand apart from the moral arguement how exactly do these other 7 teams suffer, how it is any different from how things exists today.

    CA and ECB have already guaranteed to honour there future commitments against them, BCCI has recently stated they from now on will regularly engage Pakistan. I am sure with Lorgat gone (quite unfair) CSA will be back in good books with BCCI,i am sure BCCI will continue to play the likes of WI,SL,BAN,NZ in some t20 or 3/5 match ODI series, although in near future i don't see India playing test series against these 4 nations.Some Indians have this innate urge for self-flagellation and self righteous fire which tends to come at the cost of self interest, normally i am a huge fan of Sharda but this article is just an extension of hate the BCCI narrative which abounds in plenty these days.

  • Equanimous on January 25, 2014, 17:05 GMT

    Great article shadra.. awesome. I think A percentage of bilateral series should also go to ICC for development of the game . After all TWO ( not one ) teams are playing in a game that they do not own. Money made from cricket should be reinvested into development of the game by an independent body. No one country owns the game. Why should one country benefit from it.

  • hnlns on January 25, 2014, 16:38 GMT

    India can always fight for and demand for a fair share due to its huge influence on the ICC income, but the threat of boycotting ICC events sounds very hollow and outright stupid. If they refuse to play any test matches or ODIs in line with the ICC calendar, then do they expect to earn all the advertising revenue by televising Ranji trophy or such local events ? Which sponsor would be willing to put huge money in such a situation ? Which cricketer would play when there is no serious money involved ? Whoever planned such a threat better think sensibly. Isolation would only ruin Indian cricket and would be akin to killing the golden egg laying goose. Hope sanity and wisdom prevails.

  • on January 25, 2014, 16:31 GMT

    I do think BCCI and India deserve even more than they are asking so they can improve Cricket in India. It is asinine to fund the corruption in the neighboring countries' cricket with BCCI's money.

    If ICC was my company, I would extract efficiencies wherever possible, fire unproductive employees, modernize everything fund it with private equity first and then maybe go public if needed. In fact, close down the Dubai office and bring it closer to Cricket playing countries. We don't need to pay the people living in these ivory towers.

    Cricket comes next.

  • on January 25, 2014, 16:06 GMT

    What ICC should do to make sure ICC tournaments are financially viable and profitable? Well very simple make sure the finalists in all the tournments is India, this will make Indian public happy and one other side will get a chance to play them in the finals. So in every tournament another cricket board will make some money.

  • nilaksh on January 25, 2014, 15:58 GMT

    Much like BCCI, ECB and ACB are no saints. Before BCCI started to dominate, ECB and ACB always had there way. In fact they often went to the extent of bending and changing the rules of the game to benefit there position.However, all of that is fair play in the eyes of haters in this forum. ECB and ACB true to there colors have done it again, this time they can't blame BCCI for there abashed shamelessness. BCCI ofcourse doesn't give a damn about the sport all they want to do is to fill up there coffers. Shameful week in the history of the game.

  • Dashgar on January 25, 2014, 15:55 GMT

    Horrible situation but India won't get their way here. I'm very worried but desperately hoping enough boards (CSA, NZ and PCB come to mind) oppose this. If India boycott it will lose this war. The WC will still be a success, especially as it's in Australia (if there's one thing Australia can do its throw together an awesome sporting event). The Indian public backlash at not being a part of that will be too much even for Srinivasan to survive.

  • Homer2007 on January 25, 2014, 15:06 GMT

    My two cents - Ms Ugra, among others, seem to have forgotten all about the 2007 World Cup. India's early exit ensured that the rest of the tournament was poorly attended, and more importantly, had low viewership numbers. It would be instructive to note that since that time, the ICC has taken great pains to ensure that the Indians atleast make it to the second round, if not further. People have griped about this, but it is the ICC that had set itself for a fall. We can dispute the percentage dollar amounts till the cows come home, but the reality is that an Indian presence makes or mars an ICC tournament.Case in point being the 2013 Champions Trophy - the event being deemed a "success"was in large part because India and the home team made it into the finals.

  • Neel_123 on January 25, 2014, 13:55 GMT

    @ rhecra:

    Your argument of 'Family & community' is ludicrous. Because, one family (BCCI) has to take care of 1200 people; to feed them and provide them with necessary tools. Other families (WI board or NZ board) have ONLY 4 and 5 people to take care of. Now the community in total earn 1000 $ and currently you are giving each family 100$ to survive. So, family WI gets 25 $ per person for its expenses, family BCCI gets less than 0.09 $ per person to survive. In which sense is it fair?

    And now consider the fact that a) family BCCI actually work hard and earn 900 $ for community. b) It is, on average, much much poorer than family NZ.

    You can't say that family BCCI should use its other resources to help itself. Other families (NZ) which are fully DEVELOPED families COULD also use their 'resources'. Should they not?

    I don't even want to go into corruption/inefficiency & lack of drive to earn among some families because they know family BCCI is working hard for them.

  • naeemhussain on January 25, 2014, 13:46 GMT

    Shame on India, England and Australia they are going to destroy the sport of cricket.

  • on January 25, 2014, 13:45 GMT

    In any commercial venture profits are shared based on Investment or Capital by the Owners. What is wrong in India expecting the same in a venture whose profits as well as sustenance depends on India. I am delighted to see the ECB and CA lick the boots of India when in the 50s and 60s They treated India with contempt by refusing to tour or by sending second class team! Jai Ho BCCI !!

  • bobbo2 on January 25, 2014, 13:37 GMT

    As India reportedly earn the game the most money I have no issue with India getting a fair share of the pie but this rubbish about boycotting events has to stop. Without the rest of the world Indian cricket would suffer greatly. Let them boycott the WC and enjoy playing Cuba and see how well it is received by sponsors and fans. And I agree the CA and ECB are to blame for giving credibility to this lunacy.

  • Neel_123 on January 25, 2014, 13:20 GMT

    @VisBal: Your arguments are faulty. The contribution of India to the ICC revenue (yes, ICC tournaments world cup etc. ) is actually over 70%. There could be small error in the estimates. Some points:

    1. It is the Indian market (600 million middle class with disposable income) which companies aim for their products. It is irrelevant if they are Indian or MNC or foreign. As a matter of fact, most companies are MNCs.

    2. ICC tournaments (world cups, etc) do not have equal TRPs ratings for all matches. Matches involving India generate majority of TRPs. So, when a company bids for TV rights (and/or advertisement slots), these are the games it looks at. In a hypothetical world cup w/o India, revenue generation would fall drastically. For instance if India is playing S/F, Indian public might have some interests even in other Q/F and S/F!

  • on January 25, 2014, 13:18 GMT

    India's proposal is a proof that cricket is going from a PASSION GAME to a PROFIT ONLY GAME... its total dadagiri.

  • half_blood-prince on January 25, 2014, 13:10 GMT

    no 1 traitor vomiting out the venom against bcci.just wanted to ask a question. why every board keeps bootlicking bcci if they are sure they can survive without their support?

  • Dravid_Pujara_Gravitas on January 25, 2014, 12:41 GMT

    +1 to Sharda for taking pains to give her opinion. There's no hurry. Let's wait. It's getting very interesting, like Ram Gopal Varma's movies.

  • VisBal on January 25, 2014, 12:15 GMT

    Cpt. Meanster: As Ehsan Mani points out, the apportioning of 80% is facetious. the argument is simple. It is said that 80% of the revenues for the ICC events have come from Indian companies. It is disingenuous to argue that BCCI is responsible from bringing in that revenue, simply because the companies are based in India; that may well be a factor, but so is the perceived boost to business due to enhanced visibility. We must remember that TV rights and sponsorships are bid on for ICC events. Hence, the marginal increase in revenue due to Indian companies to the ICC is the difference between the (winning) bid of the Indian company that won the rights and the highest bid from a non-Indian company. This will most definitely be loss than 80%. The other way to compute the "contribution of BCCI/India" . What would the revenue have been if India did not participate? That is IMHO, the true contribution of BCCI/India to ICC revenues.

  • keptalittlelow on January 25, 2014, 11:51 GMT

    ECB and CA have been at Loggerhead with India for the past 15 years, now for the sake of money and power they are happy to join in, a true opportunist attitude, May God save our sport.

  • IAJAVED on January 25, 2014, 11:48 GMT

    We must not forget that India is generating a lot of Revenue for ICC. As a Pakistani I believe that we must in all honesty accept that. I am also advocating more revenue share to India then other...Yes I am...I am also advocating more cricket matches to India against full members in India and away.... Yes I am...I am also advocating Indian say in training and development of Associate members because of the experience India have and the job opportunities so filled by the Indians...Yes I am. Now having said all this How can India or the three teams mentioned in the proposal may not be relegated if it performs poorly?? No I cannot understand??? Why should the media income generated not be distributed equally amongst playing countries ?? No I cannot understand??? Why more matches to the 3 big?? No I cannot understand??? DO THE 3 BIGS WANT DEATH OF CRICKET IN OTHER COUNTRIES??No I cannot understand??? Cricket Culture is not about Revenue its called a Gentlemen's Game.

  • on January 25, 2014, 11:38 GMT

    Good analysis. i agree its not bcci but its both CA and ECB as well. If its only finances and revenues which is bothering them then just change that. why ask for all the powers?

  • unbeleaveable on January 25, 2014, 11:37 GMT

    yes, everybody is blaming India but they should get more money because they make most of it. What worrys me is the other 2. It use be this way in the past and Australia wouldn't play NZ because they were to good. However once they did they found NZ competitive and I remember a test match at Eden park where a young Hadlee had the Chappel brothers backing away and he was bowling faster than Lilee and Thompson but you won't here that in Australia folklore. You can see whats happening, Australia will make NZ a state side and England will make Ireland etc part of their team. Its these 2 who are showing no leadership and are the ones who want to play each other in the most boring series of ashes like this year. Cricket Australia thanks for nothing.

  • iceman on January 25, 2014, 11:37 GMT

    Why are we trying to mix up the sporting and commercial aspects of cricket ? Where day in day out operations, tournaments and playing of the game are intertwined in money, why is it wrong to look at the game from the perspective of making profits ? If BCCI, despite India losing or winning, realizes that it's participation in ICC Tournaments or for that matter bilateral series, leads to more revenue being generated, why is it wrong to demand a larger share of the revenue ? That is basic business common sense right ?

  • KarachiKid on January 25, 2014, 11:36 GMT

    I am not surprised at what CA and ECB are doing. Not so long ago they were the vetoing powers. What else you expect ?

  • rhecra on January 25, 2014, 11:26 GMT

    @Ashwin1983, your communist country analogy is completely wrong as it assumes that the other countries are not trying to maximise their incomes as well which is foolish.

    Another way to view it is to see each Board as a 'family' that is a part of a community (international cricket). Each 'family' tries their hardest to grow the most food that they can to provide to the community as a whole. One family has by far the most land meaning it can grow enough food to provide for almost the entire community by itself while several other families can barely make enough or don't make enough to survive on their own.

    Until now the biggest family has helped the smaller families survive by allowing them to have some of the food in order to help the community as a whole survive and prosper. However now the biggest family has had a change of heart and tells the rest that they will now be keeping the food they produce for themselves knowing full well this will kill off many of the other families.

  • on January 25, 2014, 11:19 GMT

    Conflict of interest -- how can Zimbabwe or Bangladesh tours produce money if they remain idle for most of the year; while India is playing every other week.

  • on January 25, 2014, 11:16 GMT

    I thought the whole idea of the ICC was to benefit the game of cricket and help developing countries to better themselves. Guess that was a bit naive!

  • reality_check on January 25, 2014, 11:05 GMT

    BCCI and ECB have suddenly found new love for PCB (This according to Pakistani TV channels). It's yet to be seen if PCB will take the bait for short term gain or stand their ground. Going by past PCB blunders, my money is on PCB taking the bait now only to be kicked back after they cast their vote (and they will deserve every bit of it).

  • UndertheGrill on January 25, 2014, 10:49 GMT

    We knew the BCCI were bad, but the ECB and CA's supine and venal complicity in this proposal is beneath contempt - it's all so needless; it's not as though any of these boards were in any trouble had the status quo persisted, as they are all in robust health. In removing the last bulwark between total BCCI dominance, in favour of a free ride on the gravy train, they've ensured that this is very much the thin end of the wedge.

  • Ashwin1983 on January 25, 2014, 10:45 GMT

    Wow. I didn't realize all cricket fans (at least all fans on cricinfo) are poorly educated on business and economics. If you lived in a communist country where you busted your gut but made the same money as your lazy neighbor, you would be upset right? That is what the BCCI is saying, and its pure business. I fail to understand why its so reprehensible???? And for people saying "cricket is not business" please wake up and welcome to the 21st century. Cricinfo is a business, EVERYTHING in international sport is a business and Srinivasan, as much as I do not like him, is a good business man.

  • MianNasir on January 25, 2014, 10:35 GMT

    "this document was a "legitimate right… a question of understanding, not a question of power game". Sort of like understanding physical strength when a seven-foot thug twists your arm." I think these are the best words to describe the situation prevailing for rest of the 7 countries. Its heartening to see some one from India x-raying the draft.

  • on January 25, 2014, 10:30 GMT

    I don't support the proposal but not agreeing with the numbers forwarded by Ehsan Mani. Pakistan had a deal with Ten Sports of 140 million USD out of which India matches were worth 80 million. I think if India doesn't play in World Cup, the revenue hit would be around 50% from media rights and may be more in tickets. The other thing you may consider is that if India doesn't play, then Australia and England might also quit to increase the pressure and form a separate Champions League type tournament. A few other teams may also play with them. The other part is that BCCI is not asking for even 50% of revenue share. The maths from the blog shows that they will get around 20% ($2bn ICC revenue results in ~$400mn for BCCI).

  • MianNasir on January 25, 2014, 10:18 GMT

    "Money Talks" this is the order of today's world. If you do not have money, you do not have any right to stand upright, you will have to bow. SA is the only cricket board who can stop this unjust proposal, which will lead the cricket to grow more in the big three countries but rest of the world will not be able to compete them. Pakistan Cricket board should approach SA board and make a strategy to let the cricket live in other parts of world.

  • PrasPunter on January 25, 2014, 10:16 GMT

    @Try Trial, I am an Aussie fan and for sure I was deeply disappointed when I found CA as a party to this. No way am I going to defend my board irrespective of what justification they put on table to support this one. If at all CA and ECB could have done something, this is the hour - a big No to the bcci and let them do what ever they want.

  • Cpt.Meanster on January 25, 2014, 10:13 GMT

    While I am against the Big 3's proposal, what are we supposed to do about India's revenue generation ? Because ONLY India generates over 80% of the income in the sport, the rest are peanuts. When will the other countries take some responsibility and try to sustain the game in equal terms and NOT depend on Indian money for everything ? Australia, England and to some extent SA do it but the rest are ineffective. This is why we have such proposals because the BCCI rightfully want a lion's share of the profits generated from their own revenue. I think the BCCI won't let this go easy. This will be war in terms of vigorous debates and arguments in the next board meeting.

  • on January 25, 2014, 10:12 GMT

    When I first saw the proposal or the position paper, I thought there's a mix of proposals coming from different parties. While BCCI wants to grab more revenue, ECB and CA basically want their "veto" power back. And if there's a condition to quit, they'll quit together and create some Champions' League where these three countries play each other. Given the market, I am quite sure Indians (and majority Australians and Englishmen) would probably watch that over rest-seven-world-cup. So, a instead of world-cup-without-India, you can try to look up a scenario of world-cup-without-trio. Also, to make confusions clear, is BCCI asking for 80% of the share? I saw numbers and as my math goes, they are asking between 10-30% (around). The most likely scenario would be that they will take home 20% of the revenue. There's no reason to support this proposal. But eventually some of these will probably get accepted ... I don't see anyone opposing two-tier Test cricket. What else?

  • swat1999 on January 25, 2014, 9:56 GMT

    Big Three should concentrate welfare for world cricket rathar than creating trouble

  • PrasPunter on January 25, 2014, 9:51 GMT

    Shame on CA. It has let the world of cricket down . CA and ECB would effectively declined this bullying and the bcci wouldnt have had an option.

  • shaantanu on January 25, 2014, 9:48 GMT

    As a genuine lover of the sport called cricket and as an Indian i am really ashamed of the BCCI antics..... i m sure most Indians feel the same as me.BCCI doesnt represent the sentiments of the Indian fans......cricinfo pls publish.

  • on January 25, 2014, 9:42 GMT

    Save Cricket, pretty please?

  • on January 25, 2014, 8:44 GMT

    Continued - Make no mistake I would love India to win all major competitions, but by their skill, talent and dedication. Not by money. And we kill other cricket boards then cricket will be poorer and I will cease to watch it - even if India plays. I am not only against this proposal for its against global cricket but also because its against Indian cricket.

    @NormalServiceResumed - Please read the article carefully and understand it. Sharada clearly means that it was expected out of BCCI and they have been doing bullying for past few years, but CA and ECB could have stood against them rather than with them. Accomplishes of murderer are as much to blame as the murderer, if not more.

    And all people defending CA and ECB - wake up. I thought BCCI was being bullied earlier and will do better when they start to have power and I see I am wrong. Still blindly supporting your cricket boards while faulting BCCI is hypocrisy. And why do you think you two have more right to vote than other 7.

  • AltafPatel on January 25, 2014, 8:35 GMT

    It's not more than 1 sided drama from ICC. Are they desperate to mourn against whatever judged by BCCI ? Is cricket losing against others sports like Soccer, F1, Tennis, Golf leading to this situation for ICC ?

  • on January 25, 2014, 8:33 GMT

    @ Gaurav - Understand first what the proposal is about and what it says. BCCI is trying to take the revenue out of the ICC events - like world cup, Champion trophy etc - where every nation has equal matches till the knock outs. And it includes the revenue generated out of matches that India does not play. And BCCI proposal has no proof provided that India i.e: BCCI generates 80% of revenue. Being a fellow Indian I do watch a match between SA & Aus or Pak & SA or SL and NZ in an ICC event, irrespective of whether India is still in the tournament. BCCI does not get any right over the money generated by me watching other teams just because I am an Indian as BCCI is not Indian government. No body is stealing BCCIs money and BCCI definitely is not funding the rest of the nations.

    If this proposal is passed through will we get another proposal that India should be made the finalist of all ICC events because that will generate maximum revenue - Continued in next post.

  • on January 25, 2014, 8:32 GMT

    Gaurav - cricket is a sport, the highest pinnacle of which is internationals. By ceasing funding to other countries they will no longer afford to run their cricket and won't be able to have international cricket. Therefore the value of cricket will fall in countries with all the money. People will quickly get bored of series between India - Australia - England only.

  • SanjivAwesome on January 25, 2014, 8:26 GMT

    Ms Ugra needs to get a business education if she is to understand the mindset of the BCCI administration of businessmen. I am against the spirit in which BCCI is operating. But it is a masterful business strategy to know your strengths and unfurl strategy for your business success. Again, I am against the spirit of BCCI;s approach.

  • on January 25, 2014, 8:26 GMT

    Good article by Sharda. You guys are doing a great job by publishing these critiques on this issue..nice to see you raise to the occasion when really needed..Can somebody tell me why the BcCI can't be brought under proper tax regime and accountability?There should be reforms in that direction..the much needed transparency..how is the money spent..are they even audit3d?How much goes as salaries for the officials..is there any disproportionate wealth associated with any ofthose?These should be investigated and brought to public notice.

  • dillyk on January 25, 2014, 8:17 GMT

    Good article Sharda. This situation is very sad and these 3 boards are going pillage world cricket for mostly their own personal gain if this goes through. If this happens then cricket will be a dying game in 20yrs but at-least all those board members will be rolling in the cash

  • on January 25, 2014, 8:14 GMT

    Good to see these articles in cricinfo from Shsrda and Sambit and others..hope this disaster could be averted..I like when you say lets not refer to by countries but by individuals..what I would like to know is why BCCI can't be taxed appropriatelly and the transparency brought in ??What's hampering that??Every MP talks about cricket it is accepted as a religion so why not bring in reforms that are transparent and accountable??Where does all the money go...into whose pockets??What are the official salaries of the administrative officials?Is their wealth disproportionate??Can somebody at cricinfo publish on this angle???Great job guys you are doing every true cricket fan proud by this unbiased and transparent coverage....

  • rajithwijepura on January 25, 2014, 8:07 GMT

    I still believe ECB and CA is like Adam and Eve of cricket world. I still believe they dont want to destroy the game that they invented and perfected. I still believe they will take one step back and protect this wonderful game from BCCI.

  • on January 25, 2014, 8:05 GMT

    Wouldn't having the world cup every 2 years without India balance out the money? Let india play domestic cricket for a couple of years and realize that it takes more than one country to make an international sport work.

  • on January 25, 2014, 8:02 GMT

    Big Three are the main calfleet of Cricket world.

  • geos on January 25, 2014, 8:02 GMT

    Let those three go play with themselves.

  • AidanFX on January 25, 2014, 7:56 GMT

    BCCI should be liquidated and give way to a new organisation to fill its place. They have been holding the cricket public to ransom for long enough now.

  • Winsome on January 25, 2014, 7:51 GMT

    I'm a fan of Aus cricket but all I can say is please don't go around expecting CA to stand up to BCCI, it ain't happening.

  • on January 25, 2014, 7:51 GMT

    Very well said Sharda. I was thinking the same thing. We can't expect anything better from BCCI as Srinivasan is drunk with power. But ECB and CA really should have stood up to BCCI. Then we'll see if BCCI leaves cricket. I bet they wouldn't, as they would suffer more in the long run.

  • AjitRaje on January 25, 2014, 7:50 GMT

    It is painfully obvious that higher future revenues can be earned by having more countries playing the game at highest levels rather than having a league of 3 in the world of 190+ countries. The fable of killing the goose which laid golden eggs was taught to all students by 4th grade. Maybe the people running the 3 boards have forgotten this tale. Or maybe they dropped out before reaching 4th grade :)

  • on January 25, 2014, 7:49 GMT

    Why should one nation fund cricket in the rest of the world? It's infuriating to see articles by holier than thou psuedo intellectuals who seem to be incredibly eager to throw away their nation's wealth. Everybody seems to think its their right to exploit the Indian populace. It's astonishing that given our long painful history people like Ugra still don't get it...may be it's a need to be accepted outside the country.

  • runout49 on January 25, 2014, 7:48 GMT

    Excellent analysis. If this statement is true ...." its (BCCI) distaste of the ICC, whose staff have casually been told by BCCI reps in Dubai that all ICC departments are going to be shut down soonish and it will end up as a six-member operation - not in Dubai." it is a despicable attitude, Can you imagine the IOC or FIFA putting up with one of its members saying this ? It seems the BCCI's arrogance knows no boundaries.

  • xtrafalgarx on January 25, 2014, 7:43 GMT

    I have a feeling that CA and ENG will try to do their best to curb India when it comes to decision making. However, the two tier system must be tossed out of the window and the rankings brought back into place!

  • on January 25, 2014, 7:42 GMT

    Stop watching matches involving india, australia and england. lets see how long they survive. Start from Big Bash, IPL!

  • NormalServiceResumed on January 25, 2014, 7:41 GMT

    Yes Sharda, it's all the ECB and CA's fault. Nothing whatsoever to do with the BCCI which has bullied it's way to whatever it wants for the past decade or so......

  • on January 25, 2014, 7:40 GMT

    Who are the ECB, CA & BCCI to get up to mischief behind other cricket playing nations to gang up for a "coup" to take over. There are no empires anymore nor tin Gods. Let them play with each other and leave the other countries alone to get on with our much loved game. BCCI is led by "greed" and personal gain, CA is up side down and ECB is a lost hope who cannot organise a drink up in a brewery. Just look at our boys getting thrashed in Australia. Most of our team is made up of players we have pinched from other countries. We cannot organise cricket in UK. Who are we to coup for a take over. Joke !!!!

  • Alexk400 on January 25, 2014, 7:33 GMT

    No amount of crying gona fix this. Cricket is over. All games will be fixed. Only fools will watch cricket.

  • Potatis on January 25, 2014, 7:15 GMT

    I have faith that CA and ECB will always look to do what's best for cricket, there's a long tradition between these two countries which is sacred. BCCI is another matter, and I'd like to know how much influence CA and ECB could ever have over BCCI if they wanted to stop BCCI from ruining the game through greed. Probably not much.

  • Little_Aussie_Battler on January 25, 2014, 7:11 GMT

    Wally Edwards and Australia should be up front. If we do not go along with the Indians they will simply do a 'World Series Cricket' on Australian cricket. They will stringbark our talent pool and create the Indian equivalent of Major League Baseball. Why couldn't India create 30 odd franchises to play 6, 7 or 8 months of the year? The people are there, the money is there.

    This 'deal' by the troika is to head off a complete Indian takeover of cricket. A classic example of 'keep your friends close, but make sure you keep your enemies even closer.'

    Don't criticise Australia, get down on your knees and thank them for averting the iceberg.

  • UnlimitedLFB on January 25, 2014, 7:00 GMT

    Pehaps the ECB & CA were tired of being out voten by 10 members and figure if its only 3 votes thats going to count then they will just win the vote 2 to 1 against any decision or plan that the BCCI comes with

  • AH_USA on January 25, 2014, 6:46 GMT

    It seems that the BCCI has just thrown a bone to PCB by offering a short series towards the end of the year BUT in return, BCCI wants support for its "Position Paper". Let's hope that PCB does not take the bait. I do understand that PCB is in financial crisis primarily because it is not able to host matches at home. However, it should resist any attempt from the BCCI to exploit this situation and but it out.

  • on January 25, 2014, 6:39 GMT

    Anyone who is against this proposal going through should stop following Live Cricket on TV because that is where the arrogance and power of these 3 boards come from. I also request the members of Barmy Army and the Fanatics to stop following their teams around the world if they really care about the semblance of equality and well being in their beloved sport.....

  • on January 25, 2014, 6:30 GMT

    To be quite frank, the BCCI should have been confronted years ago about their utter disregard for anyone else in the world of international cricket; confronted, checked and - if push came to shove - ultimately excluded (what revenue would they have if no other cricketing nation would agree to play them?). I know for a fact that many, many India fans are shamed by their board's blatant misuse of financial clout; England and Australia fans should be equally, if not more, shamed by their own boards' craven kowtowing to the dictates of this profit-hungry oligarchy. Cricket needs money to run in this day and age, of course - what it does not need is for the fat cats to get richer while the alley-moggies starve - which will be the outcome of this diktat. It is probably too late to do anything - the deals are already done - but anyone who loves international cricket can only despair.

  • haq33 on January 25, 2014, 6:19 GMT

    It is fair to blame Indian fans as they will STILL watch the games, they will STILL pay the tv subs and they will STILL line the bcci's coffers. Where are the effigy burners now when the cricketing world needs them? Indian fans are so fickle they would boycott a match if sachin was dropped but over something that threatens global cricket?? No chance. Fact is, CA and ECB have assured commitment (albeit a bare bones schedule) to playing all the nations. India ALREADY pick and choose who to play and when, they ALREADY ignore the FTP...now they will be even worse. Look at how Pak and SA have been left out to dry just because of political issues or someone at bcci doesn't like some guy at CSA! India's board are like spoilt brats, ZERO sense of the responsibility that comes with great power. ECB and CA are cowards and hypocrites yes, but they would not be so corrupt if they held absolute power. I never thought I would favour them over the Indian board but that day has truly come.

  • roshanpaul on January 25, 2014, 5:52 GMT

    Well done, Sharda. Takes courage to write a piece like this, being an Indian journalist. Let's hope the other cricket Boards can also show some courage and stand up to the BCCI's bullying.

  • on January 25, 2014, 5:34 GMT

    If this has taken cricket from a situation where India can buy votes from Pak, Ban, SL, NZ, WI and SA to a position where Aus and Eng can overrule then then this is a great thing for cricket. India is the single biggest threat to the game and other countries have proven themselves to not have the backbone to stand up to them. Bring this on and we can restore the soul of cricket.

  • on January 25, 2014, 5:32 GMT

    It is clear to world cricket that India is single handedly destroying the game we have loved for over a century. Their greed and arrogance surprises no nation. Other countries do not need India to be successful. They have been since the game started. SO it will not be long before either India has completely ruined the game of cricket or other nations simply stop playing India and continue on their way playing the game as it should be.

  • PakRage on January 25, 2014, 5:18 GMT

    If this is how cricket will be run, better to boycott the game. RIP CRICKET !!!

  • sudiptaasi on January 25, 2014, 5:11 GMT

    Great article Sharda. I think with your question about the other combinations of unholy trinity, you have called the bluff of those who are somehow trying to project ECB and CA as either a victim of BCCI bullying or messiah to save Test Cricket (which includes almost the entire English media)!!! David Hopps is at least honest in what he thinks, that Giles Clarke has played a masterstroke in diplomacy (at the cost of cricket, but who cares!). The fact is it is an unholy trinity of Equal parters (BCCI-ECB-CA) and they are all equally culpable. I wouldn't be surprised if it later comes out that this daft draft was proposed by ECB or CA and BCCI readily accepted it, the sucker for power and money that they are. I would actually prefer BCCI's open bullying than CA's complete silence or ECB's playing the victim/messiah of test cricket approach. The later kind of attitudes are always more dangerous in an enem ... and thats what these three boards have become ... enemy of cricket.

  • on January 25, 2014, 5:08 GMT

    the way I think anger can be best shown is by bycotting their tv sponsers, who are quiet on this dilemma. I am bycotting Sky TV who have not reported even a single story about this.

  • dinosaurus on January 25, 2014, 4:48 GMT

    And just what should ECB and CA have done? CA has first hand experience of what happens to those who oppose (think Malcolm Speed, John Howard, Darryl Hare, Andrew Symonds!) Having said this, professional sport the world over is a MONEY GAME. Those dependent on largesse rarely get to make decisions. If CA and the ECB stick to their pledge to play a certain number of games on a four year cycle it is simply up to the partners in those matches and tours to make the most of the potential for financial success. I'm disappointed that the BCCI is not reported as making a similar commitment. But then, given the failings of modern news media, the whole thing might be badly mis-reported. Maybe it is best to wait and see.

  • Marcio on January 25, 2014, 4:43 GMT

    IndianInnerEdge, your post is bizarrely illogical.

    You say that the ECB and CA are evil. Is that that because they kowtow to India, which is full of "dignity, respect, resilience and love of the game..."? Can you tell me why following such an upstanding role model makes them evil? If India is oh-so-wise and noble, aren't CA and the ECB being wise to follow them? LOL

    BTW. The Indian team doesn't need to bully on the field. Their cricket board does all their bullying for them.

  • DRS_Flawed_NeedsImprovement on January 25, 2014, 4:41 GMT

    i dont care about world cricket, if not world cricket we ll look ipl teams as world teams and enjoy it. That's all.

  • on January 25, 2014, 4:39 GMT

    As an avid cricket fan and having played club cricket in SA for more than 20 years, it is my feeling that it may be time for fans to boycott the big three and for the fans to let their distaste be made know!

  • Atish_Man on January 25, 2014, 4:27 GMT

    @IndianInnerEdge perfect mate. Other two boards are also part of it. Also i request all fans not to involve india or indian people. Its really insulting as its bcci and not indian cricket fans.

  • on January 25, 2014, 4:00 GMT

    At last someone's blaming it on the cricket boards and not countries!

  • on January 25, 2014, 3:57 GMT

    what a disaster, They acts like Pharaohs that reminds me HUNGER GAMES (catching Fire). I would call this truly imperialistic and materialistic mentality where they can take advantage of their power and money. That's why world loves soccer and the passion is on and on.

  • AH_USA on January 25, 2014, 3:51 GMT

    Bravo Sharda for an excellent piece of writing. I had also predicted that this proposal was the brainchild of BCCI and ECB and CA simply colluded with the chief conspirator. Shame on these three boards for conspiring against the game that millions and millions of people watch and love around the world.

  • S.Alis on January 25, 2014, 3:46 GMT

    Hats off to you Ugra. A true fan and a great journalist. World need more of this.

  • IndianInnerEdge on January 25, 2014, 3:30 GMT

    Thanks Sharda for this article, after reading much of other fellow blogger comments and mainly of the 'Lets Bag India' brigade, please pour some scorn on the bigger, older, more established cricket boards - read the ECB and CA. To be honest, BCCI in the past read the first 40 years of indian cricket or so, did get a lot of step motherly treatment and the cold shoulder from the big wigs....but when India's financial might started to accumulate, this treatment started to change. That said, surely India is now in a position to make good use of its power and perf and not use it to rub the other countries noses in the dirt - as in the spiderman movie -with gr8 power comes gr8 responsibility -the bcci would do well to recognise this. But Yeah to the other fellow bloggers - its time u transferred your mirth to the others......indian cricket stand for dignity, respect, resilience and love of the game and its skills not for back alley sledging, abuse, and other machismo shown by the others...!

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • IndianInnerEdge on January 25, 2014, 3:30 GMT

    Thanks Sharda for this article, after reading much of other fellow blogger comments and mainly of the 'Lets Bag India' brigade, please pour some scorn on the bigger, older, more established cricket boards - read the ECB and CA. To be honest, BCCI in the past read the first 40 years of indian cricket or so, did get a lot of step motherly treatment and the cold shoulder from the big wigs....but when India's financial might started to accumulate, this treatment started to change. That said, surely India is now in a position to make good use of its power and perf and not use it to rub the other countries noses in the dirt - as in the spiderman movie -with gr8 power comes gr8 responsibility -the bcci would do well to recognise this. But Yeah to the other fellow bloggers - its time u transferred your mirth to the others......indian cricket stand for dignity, respect, resilience and love of the game and its skills not for back alley sledging, abuse, and other machismo shown by the others...!

  • S.Alis on January 25, 2014, 3:46 GMT

    Hats off to you Ugra. A true fan and a great journalist. World need more of this.

  • AH_USA on January 25, 2014, 3:51 GMT

    Bravo Sharda for an excellent piece of writing. I had also predicted that this proposal was the brainchild of BCCI and ECB and CA simply colluded with the chief conspirator. Shame on these three boards for conspiring against the game that millions and millions of people watch and love around the world.

  • on January 25, 2014, 3:57 GMT

    what a disaster, They acts like Pharaohs that reminds me HUNGER GAMES (catching Fire). I would call this truly imperialistic and materialistic mentality where they can take advantage of their power and money. That's why world loves soccer and the passion is on and on.

  • on January 25, 2014, 4:00 GMT

    At last someone's blaming it on the cricket boards and not countries!

  • Atish_Man on January 25, 2014, 4:27 GMT

    @IndianInnerEdge perfect mate. Other two boards are also part of it. Also i request all fans not to involve india or indian people. Its really insulting as its bcci and not indian cricket fans.

  • on January 25, 2014, 4:39 GMT

    As an avid cricket fan and having played club cricket in SA for more than 20 years, it is my feeling that it may be time for fans to boycott the big three and for the fans to let their distaste be made know!

  • DRS_Flawed_NeedsImprovement on January 25, 2014, 4:41 GMT

    i dont care about world cricket, if not world cricket we ll look ipl teams as world teams and enjoy it. That's all.

  • Marcio on January 25, 2014, 4:43 GMT

    IndianInnerEdge, your post is bizarrely illogical.

    You say that the ECB and CA are evil. Is that that because they kowtow to India, which is full of "dignity, respect, resilience and love of the game..."? Can you tell me why following such an upstanding role model makes them evil? If India is oh-so-wise and noble, aren't CA and the ECB being wise to follow them? LOL

    BTW. The Indian team doesn't need to bully on the field. Their cricket board does all their bullying for them.

  • dinosaurus on January 25, 2014, 4:48 GMT

    And just what should ECB and CA have done? CA has first hand experience of what happens to those who oppose (think Malcolm Speed, John Howard, Darryl Hare, Andrew Symonds!) Having said this, professional sport the world over is a MONEY GAME. Those dependent on largesse rarely get to make decisions. If CA and the ECB stick to their pledge to play a certain number of games on a four year cycle it is simply up to the partners in those matches and tours to make the most of the potential for financial success. I'm disappointed that the BCCI is not reported as making a similar commitment. But then, given the failings of modern news media, the whole thing might be badly mis-reported. Maybe it is best to wait and see.