January 27, 2014

No revolution at hand for cricket

The BCCI believes that cricket cannot survive without India. The other boards have given it no reason to think otherwise
159

After a week of brinksmanship, shadow battles, spinning and venting, cricket administrators will face cold reality in the ICC board room in Dubai. They will be confronted with the chilly resolve of the BCCI to claim what it deems its rightful share of global cricket revenue. And standing alongside will be the old powers, the cricket boards of England and Australia, eager to re-establish their hold on the game. For the rest, it will be a moment of truth: what are they more willing to sacrifice, cash or control?

The BCCI can be accused of many things, but not, in this case at least, of subterfuge. Either it doesn't care about its public image, or doesn't know how to build one. It employs neither media managers nor spin masters. So stories about how this makeover plan - which casts the BCCI, the ECB and CA as the governors and the top earners in the global game - is really about the game's welfare haven't emerged from the Indian camp. The BCCI's message to the rest of the world is transparent and unequivocal: Indian cricket helps generate the highest percentage of wealth in world cricket, and it's about time we were given a bigger chunk of it.

Last week, the working committee, the decision-making group at least in name, of cricket's mightiest organisation, met in a plush hotel in Chennai, the home town of N Srinivasan, the board's president. A personal tragedy kept Srinivasan away, but the group was given a presentation on the draft proposal by Sundar Raman, the IPL CEO and a member of the working group that drew up the draft. From some accounts, not many understood or bothered to understand the complexities of the draft. But the language of money is the simplest to grasp. The mood was upbeat. More money for the BCCI meant more money to each association. Some wanted to know why they were settling for so little if Indian cricket's contribution, as the draft outlined, was 80% of ICC's revenue. The proposal was heartily endorsed.

Among those present was Jagmohan Dalmiya, a man the present treats with indifference but whom history will remember as the one who not only won the BCCI the big chair at the ICC table but also saved the ICC from bankruptcy. Dalmiya never forgets to remind his fellow troupers at the BCCI about the struggle he and his colleagues had to wage to win the ICC presidency, and of the days when the more powerful boards demanded guarantee money to tour India. The question of whether this new proposal is right or wrong for world cricket doesn't enter the equation for the BCCI. The mood is that this is our time, and if what's due isn't granted to us, we will find a way to get it.

It is a position of such unflinching clarity that it brooks no moral argument. On pure commercial principles, it is difficult to dismiss. The number can be argued against; perhaps more supporting documents will be provided to demonstrate how the 80% figure was arrived at, but if it is simply extrapolated from sponsorship money that comes from Indian corporates for ICC events, it would be disingenuous, because a simple assumption cannot be made that all investment from India will disappear without the Indian team, or that the interests of Indian fans are exclusively rooted in the Indian national team.

Too many boards around the world have become lazy, inefficient and simply reliant on the ICC dole and Indian munificence. Cricket was much stronger in the '90s, when there was much less money

The argument can also be made that ICC events are mutually enhancing: India's participation boosts the commercial value of these events considerably, but the profiles of these events are also boosted by being global events that produce world champions. For that very reason, the value of India in the World Cup is greater than the value of India in the Asia Cup; India v Australia is more valuable than India v Zimbabwe. Context, stage, and quality of contest matter even in purely commercial terms.

Still, the commercial value of global events will be hugely depleted without India, and it is cricket's biggest problem that its finances are so reliant on one country. The football World Cup will lose a bit of magic if Brazil don't figure, but the value of broadcast rights will not be halved if Brazil fail to qualify. And also, since most of the boards balance their budgets on Indian tours, they are hardly in a position to isolate India.

It is galling from the FTP point of view that India have never invited Bangladesh for a tour in 13 years. For the Bangladesh Cricket Board, what really matters is that India toured the country multiple times in the last FTP cycle. A rough calculation will show that India have been generous travellers and are owed matches by most teams. The bottom line is that other boards make money when India travel.

Among all the proposals, proportional distribution of wealth will be the biggest non-negotiable for the BCCI. There will be room for accommodation when it comes to the formula of promotion and relegation and its most abominable clause - immunity for India, England and Australia - and also regarding the formation of the Executive Committee. On the matter of bilateral tours, too, the BCCI is willing to commit to contractual obligations with all nine Full Members, including Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. In return, it has a simple capitalist message to its trading partners: we can spread more wealth by making more ourselves; the more money we make, the better off you are.

Of course there are strong moral and logical arguments against this, and most of those have already been lucidly and forcefully made on this website. It can be argued that the proposal enriches the board that least requires enrichment; that the dangers of the La Liga model, which awards more money to FC Barcelona and Real Madrid, is evident in the fact that it is the most uncompetitive major football league, and even there, every team plays the same number of matches; that even the BCCI follows the equal-distribution model for all its state associations and IPL franchises.

Most crucial of all, despite the use of the word "meritocracy" several times in the document, the model for revenue distribution is merely linked to revenue potential from each market, which is not necessarily dependent on the quality of the team or the efficiency of the administration. It simply does not take into account the merit displayed on the cricket field, which in the language of business would translate to "quality of the product".

Great teams and great players enhance the appeal of the game, and by extension provide better value to broadcasters. West Indies were the most sought after team in the late '70s and the '80s simply because they were the best to watch. A truly meritocratic system would reward excellence, and a team like New Zealand, with a fraction of the player base that India has, should have the opportunity to earn more money by beating higher-ranked teams.

The reverse is true too. Too many boards around the world have become lazy, inefficient and simply reliant on the ICC dole and Indian munificence. Cricket was much stronger in the '90s, when there was much less money. Zimbabwe were competitive, Sri Lanka won the World Cup, Pakistan were sensational, West Indies were still competitive, and Bangladesh held promise. It can be argued that most of these teams have declined despite being financially better off. Any system that makes them more accountable is welcome. But this proposal is about consolidation of power, not accountability.

That cricket needs a shake-up is beyond dispute. In drafting this document in stealth, and in assuming they are the fittest to rule and awarding themselves a major chunk of the projected earnings, the Big Three haven't shown themselves to be model leaders, but they may be owed a round of thanks if this draft paper stirs the entire cricket world into action.

However, I am not holding my breath. The cricket world has always been governed by self-interest and expedience. Compromise is easier than confrontation. South Africa are leading the resistance simply because they have been left out of the main table. It is improbable that they would have refused an invitation had it been extended. The voices that have railed against the proposal have nothing to lose. The boards will weigh their risks and cut their deals. The decision will perhaps be delayed and the draft tweaked in some ways.

But that will be that. A revolution is not at hand.

Sambit Bal is editor-in-chief of ESPNcricinfo. He tweets here

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • kensohatter on January 28, 2014, 4:48 GMT

    Im worried for the game I love that one country holds the key to so much revenue. Even if the figure is nowhere near 80% and more like 50% thats still too high. England, SA or Australia will never have the kind of fanatical support that Indian cricket does simply because all these countries have to compete with other sports for the entertaining dollar. Potential crowds are also diminished by other past times away from sport in a way unlike India where cricket is revered almost without competition. What the other boards must do is realise that they have power in that India cant function without top quality teams to play. So rather than bow down to the BCCI everyone needs to work together and realise that cricket will not work unless all 8 full member cricket countries work together for the good of the game

  • on January 27, 2014, 9:25 GMT

    Good one Mr.Sambit ! .. thanks for bringing out the key points ..1) The BCCI's message to the rest of the world is transparent and unequivocal: Indian cricket helps generate the highest percentage of wealth in world cricket 2) why BCCI have to settle for so little if Indian cricket's contribution, as the draft outlined, was 80% of ICC's revenue. 3) The days when the more powerful boards in the past demanded guarantee money to tour India. 4) A rough calculation will show that India have been generous travellers and are owed matches by most teams. The bottom line is that other boards make money when India travel. 5) South Africa are leading the resistance simply because they have been left out of the main table. It is improbable that they would have refused an invitation had it been extended.

    Finally .. The voices that have railed against the proposal have nothing to lose. Thanks sambit.

  • PranayC on January 27, 2014, 8:27 GMT

    I think what is wrong with this proposal is not entirely the proposal itself but the manner in which it has been prepared, presented and possibly will be approved. So much noise is being made about revenue distribution but Cricket didn't run for more than 100 years because of revenue it could generate. It just gives an opportunity to players and administrators. Zimbabwe is not in shambles because of less revenue. Same is the case with Pakistan, West Indies and Bangladesh. I would guess the money all the countries are making is much higher than during past. India I think does a lot of tours to help other boards (compared to other countries). However, it must be emphasized that Big Three, other boards, as well as ICC need each other and not one way in either direction. The proposal has to be collaborative and not forced. It may have been agreed and approved anyway but the current way of doing things just makes fans lose the trust in the governing bodies and how things are being run.

  • Cpt.Meanster on January 27, 2014, 4:29 GMT

    The major reason for cricket's popularity in India is because the nation is not competitive in any other sport comparatively. Yes, we do have hockey, but we are not as good as we can be in that sport. However, in cricket we do at least win major tournaments and chain victories whenever we can. This is why cricket has such a mass following in India. The BCCI have smartly realized this and continue to take advantage of the common Indian cricket lover. The average Indian supporter doesn't care what the BCCI does as long as India field a cricket team and the sport is played in India. So there is no end to this charade by the BCCI. If anything, it will grow even more if this new proposal goes through. I think the BCCI want to create something bigger out the IPL, Is cricket going to head the same direction like soccer ? More club T20 games versus very little international cricket.

  • theCricketPurist on January 30, 2014, 1:14 GMT

    This article ended right when it was about to hit the bulls eye. The last point of South Africa being unhappy as they were not a part of it points us to a question, which very well may be the very reason behind this whole facade.

    That question is - Why was RSA left out?

    Well most may conclude that they do not make enough money to be given a place in the "top core", but thats not the point here. The general vibes from this proposal are that India wants the money while Aus & Eng want the governance. Well its neither of these.

    This whole revamp is basically intended to kill RSA as a cricket nation. Lets face it. India has more than enough money, to cry over a slightly bigger claim. They created this whole proposal to ensure RSA are finished. Eng & Aus were coaxed into agreement by being given a share of the spoils.

    The truth is that no Indian and RSA boards hate each other at the moment. If we look deep, we will realise that no other team loses as much from this as RSA does.

  • PradeepBellavi on January 29, 2014, 9:16 GMT

    Good one Sabit - succinct yet comprehensive. Though not a fan of hegemony, I must admit making BCCI a villian in the whole episode doesn't do any good either. Why not appreciate the fact that BCCI has been making the most out of Indian cricket fan's unflinching support to the game, irrespective of its own team's performance? The "stiff upper lip" MCC/ICC did nothing worth to promote the game for a good 100+ years, till Kerry Packer happened in Australia and (then) India took over. Hosting WC in India in 1987 before economic liberalisation wasn't a joke. India followed it up with MRF cricket series 1989, Hero cup 1993, took lead in WC 1996, just to name a few revenue-generating events. MCC/ICC raked-in & mis-used/wasted the earnings and the game didn't move an inch. After Sharjah ended abruptly, India-Pak played the Sahara series in Toronto (of all places!) for 5-years. The list is endless. So let's not paint BCCI in one colour. Its just showing the meekness of others in the open !

  • Voice.O.Reason on January 29, 2014, 0:57 GMT

    Some of these reactions make no sense. What has the Indian team's poor performance on the field got to do with any of this? So, if they were winning the majority of their games, this proposal would be okay with them?? I thought so.

    The bottom line is this is about the business side of cricket. On the playing side, sure, may the best team win, and take home the trophy. But when it comes to the sports management, it is only fair that the party paying most of the money have a bigger say in how things are run. Comparisons to US sports leagues are far-fetched. The poorest and riches teams there are less apart in revenue than the BCCI and the next richest board. Revenue share there is just an "adjustment". In cricket, many countries live almost completely on ICC money. It is ridiculous.

  • on January 28, 2014, 16:22 GMT

    All this talk about the self interest of South Africa, when this "Revolution' is the self interest of the big three. It's clear India wants to take complete control of cricket if possible, and if that happens, I fear for the integrity (or at least what's left of it) of cricket.

  • jb633 on January 28, 2014, 15:54 GMT

    The BCCI is the power house here and I am greatly worried by that. It has nothing to do with Indian people at all but I believe the BCCI does not care about the welfare of the game. The common Indian fans are exploited at every turn by their board and the sole purpose of them is to make money. I agree 100 % with Sambit that cricket was stronger in the 90's. It is all well and good that Sl/Pak/SA/ZIM/WI fans complain about how they are being treated but their respective boards have not done anything to buck the trends. The lazy imitations of IPL cricket in SL and BD are a joke and do very little to enhance the game in their country. They must come up with a viable option that makes their national sides attractive. Even SA, the best side in the world play in front of empty stadiums.

  • on January 28, 2014, 15:30 GMT

    It is an excellent write up of Mr. Sambit Paul.Cricket is not a local game, it has become one of the most popular game of the world,specially South Asia.If revenue is calculated, than we will notice that most of the revenue of the world cricket is generated in South Asia.But, that does not make sense that Cricket will need to be limited within this region.This game need to be spread all over the world.

    Most important thing is competition among test playing countries which will make cricket more popular.Another important thing is all the countries need to give equal opportunity to grow ,to play with each other.So, ATP need to be redesigned which will ensure more matches and tour among countries.

  • kensohatter on January 28, 2014, 4:48 GMT

    Im worried for the game I love that one country holds the key to so much revenue. Even if the figure is nowhere near 80% and more like 50% thats still too high. England, SA or Australia will never have the kind of fanatical support that Indian cricket does simply because all these countries have to compete with other sports for the entertaining dollar. Potential crowds are also diminished by other past times away from sport in a way unlike India where cricket is revered almost without competition. What the other boards must do is realise that they have power in that India cant function without top quality teams to play. So rather than bow down to the BCCI everyone needs to work together and realise that cricket will not work unless all 8 full member cricket countries work together for the good of the game

  • on January 27, 2014, 9:25 GMT

    Good one Mr.Sambit ! .. thanks for bringing out the key points ..1) The BCCI's message to the rest of the world is transparent and unequivocal: Indian cricket helps generate the highest percentage of wealth in world cricket 2) why BCCI have to settle for so little if Indian cricket's contribution, as the draft outlined, was 80% of ICC's revenue. 3) The days when the more powerful boards in the past demanded guarantee money to tour India. 4) A rough calculation will show that India have been generous travellers and are owed matches by most teams. The bottom line is that other boards make money when India travel. 5) South Africa are leading the resistance simply because they have been left out of the main table. It is improbable that they would have refused an invitation had it been extended.

    Finally .. The voices that have railed against the proposal have nothing to lose. Thanks sambit.

  • PranayC on January 27, 2014, 8:27 GMT

    I think what is wrong with this proposal is not entirely the proposal itself but the manner in which it has been prepared, presented and possibly will be approved. So much noise is being made about revenue distribution but Cricket didn't run for more than 100 years because of revenue it could generate. It just gives an opportunity to players and administrators. Zimbabwe is not in shambles because of less revenue. Same is the case with Pakistan, West Indies and Bangladesh. I would guess the money all the countries are making is much higher than during past. India I think does a lot of tours to help other boards (compared to other countries). However, it must be emphasized that Big Three, other boards, as well as ICC need each other and not one way in either direction. The proposal has to be collaborative and not forced. It may have been agreed and approved anyway but the current way of doing things just makes fans lose the trust in the governing bodies and how things are being run.

  • Cpt.Meanster on January 27, 2014, 4:29 GMT

    The major reason for cricket's popularity in India is because the nation is not competitive in any other sport comparatively. Yes, we do have hockey, but we are not as good as we can be in that sport. However, in cricket we do at least win major tournaments and chain victories whenever we can. This is why cricket has such a mass following in India. The BCCI have smartly realized this and continue to take advantage of the common Indian cricket lover. The average Indian supporter doesn't care what the BCCI does as long as India field a cricket team and the sport is played in India. So there is no end to this charade by the BCCI. If anything, it will grow even more if this new proposal goes through. I think the BCCI want to create something bigger out the IPL, Is cricket going to head the same direction like soccer ? More club T20 games versus very little international cricket.

  • theCricketPurist on January 30, 2014, 1:14 GMT

    This article ended right when it was about to hit the bulls eye. The last point of South Africa being unhappy as they were not a part of it points us to a question, which very well may be the very reason behind this whole facade.

    That question is - Why was RSA left out?

    Well most may conclude that they do not make enough money to be given a place in the "top core", but thats not the point here. The general vibes from this proposal are that India wants the money while Aus & Eng want the governance. Well its neither of these.

    This whole revamp is basically intended to kill RSA as a cricket nation. Lets face it. India has more than enough money, to cry over a slightly bigger claim. They created this whole proposal to ensure RSA are finished. Eng & Aus were coaxed into agreement by being given a share of the spoils.

    The truth is that no Indian and RSA boards hate each other at the moment. If we look deep, we will realise that no other team loses as much from this as RSA does.

  • PradeepBellavi on January 29, 2014, 9:16 GMT

    Good one Sabit - succinct yet comprehensive. Though not a fan of hegemony, I must admit making BCCI a villian in the whole episode doesn't do any good either. Why not appreciate the fact that BCCI has been making the most out of Indian cricket fan's unflinching support to the game, irrespective of its own team's performance? The "stiff upper lip" MCC/ICC did nothing worth to promote the game for a good 100+ years, till Kerry Packer happened in Australia and (then) India took over. Hosting WC in India in 1987 before economic liberalisation wasn't a joke. India followed it up with MRF cricket series 1989, Hero cup 1993, took lead in WC 1996, just to name a few revenue-generating events. MCC/ICC raked-in & mis-used/wasted the earnings and the game didn't move an inch. After Sharjah ended abruptly, India-Pak played the Sahara series in Toronto (of all places!) for 5-years. The list is endless. So let's not paint BCCI in one colour. Its just showing the meekness of others in the open !

  • Voice.O.Reason on January 29, 2014, 0:57 GMT

    Some of these reactions make no sense. What has the Indian team's poor performance on the field got to do with any of this? So, if they were winning the majority of their games, this proposal would be okay with them?? I thought so.

    The bottom line is this is about the business side of cricket. On the playing side, sure, may the best team win, and take home the trophy. But when it comes to the sports management, it is only fair that the party paying most of the money have a bigger say in how things are run. Comparisons to US sports leagues are far-fetched. The poorest and riches teams there are less apart in revenue than the BCCI and the next richest board. Revenue share there is just an "adjustment". In cricket, many countries live almost completely on ICC money. It is ridiculous.

  • on January 28, 2014, 16:22 GMT

    All this talk about the self interest of South Africa, when this "Revolution' is the self interest of the big three. It's clear India wants to take complete control of cricket if possible, and if that happens, I fear for the integrity (or at least what's left of it) of cricket.

  • jb633 on January 28, 2014, 15:54 GMT

    The BCCI is the power house here and I am greatly worried by that. It has nothing to do with Indian people at all but I believe the BCCI does not care about the welfare of the game. The common Indian fans are exploited at every turn by their board and the sole purpose of them is to make money. I agree 100 % with Sambit that cricket was stronger in the 90's. It is all well and good that Sl/Pak/SA/ZIM/WI fans complain about how they are being treated but their respective boards have not done anything to buck the trends. The lazy imitations of IPL cricket in SL and BD are a joke and do very little to enhance the game in their country. They must come up with a viable option that makes their national sides attractive. Even SA, the best side in the world play in front of empty stadiums.

  • on January 28, 2014, 15:30 GMT

    It is an excellent write up of Mr. Sambit Paul.Cricket is not a local game, it has become one of the most popular game of the world,specially South Asia.If revenue is calculated, than we will notice that most of the revenue of the world cricket is generated in South Asia.But, that does not make sense that Cricket will need to be limited within this region.This game need to be spread all over the world.

    Most important thing is competition among test playing countries which will make cricket more popular.Another important thing is all the countries need to give equal opportunity to grow ,to play with each other.So, ATP need to be redesigned which will ensure more matches and tour among countries.

  • Shakawath-London on January 28, 2014, 13:51 GMT

    Great idea but don't forget about the root and the origin and development of game like cricket. Money is not all about the game like cricket. Sports for mental, physical wellbeing and above all the feelings of community. It shows more nationalism and patriotism but not for business purpose. Yes business can or could be develop by the sports but it's shouldn't be vital or focal point. It will be supplementary. Now India trying like the story of goose which usually give a gold egg everyday but Indian management want to kill the goose for collect to all egg. Alas !!! It's undone!

  • NALINWIJ on January 28, 2014, 13:40 GMT

    Promotion and relegation as long as it does not involve India, England and Australia. I feel an equitable division of funds and an opportunity for each team to play other in Test cricket over a 4 year period should be mandatory. The 2 test series is useless and I feel a 4 test series spread over 2 countries is possible between teams in the subcontinent as well as between AUS, NZ and South Africa. Rather than relegating teams 9 and 10 they should play the top 2 associates annually in a round robin format that could be done in 5 weeks in addition to their schedules with top test nations.

  • Nadiqbal on January 28, 2014, 12:52 GMT

    This is the most boneheaded decision by the big three Cricket boards. Although, I can understand Indian cricket board desire to have the big chunk of the revenue, they need to understand that in their attempt to grab more power and money they might end up killing the game. To understand this dynamics, you only have to look at American National Football League. This is a multibillion dollar industry and the most popular game in America. Smaller markets do not generate enough revenue compared to New York or Texas. However, there is a strict revenue-sharing in National Football League that allows smaller market to develop better players. This in turn results in better competition and more popularity of the game . By keeping all the money with themselves the big three boards will deprive cricket of talent and eventually will be responsible for the demise of cricket. Watch out! They are about to kill the goose that lays golden eggs.

  • Venkatb on January 28, 2014, 12:30 GMT

    Sambit: Having followed the game for over 50 years, and involved in the valuation of professional sports in the US over the past 30, I believe the BCCI needs foreign teams and players as much as it conveys the impression that the world needs the BCCI. The Indian public would never pay to watch Indians playing fellow Indians - the ideal formula is Indian batsmen pitted against overseas bowlers, backed by rules biased in favor of batsmen. That is what optimizes the revenue stream for the BCCI. My more serious concern is around the potential for BCCI to manipulate the outcomes of games - if, as in the 2007 World Cup, India were to potentially end up outside the top 8 teams, can the BCCI bribe its way and force a team to lose so that the moolah is optimized? Can the BCCI manipulate overseas players to go easy on Indian players so that cats look like tigers? Or force that player to accept a low price in the IPL and then make him warm the benches? Anything is possible today!

  • on January 28, 2014, 11:38 GMT

    India has done nothing for development of this beautiful game. Afghanistan has been asking for their lill support in Cricket but they haven't been given them a temporary help to be in Cricket world until today. what have they done for other associat nations in regards of cricket development (Zero). why have they stoped playing against Pakistan simply bcoz they decide sport matters based on politics. And by the way, who cares for your ipl. Cricket has to remain cricket, not a bussiness . Thanks ;)

  • on January 28, 2014, 8:47 GMT

    West Indies, Zimbabwe and NZ Cricket Board should join the four Boards who have openly expressed opposition to the 'New Draft' proposal, to oust BCCI. It is all BCCI Mischief, it is their desire to control and manipulate global Cricket. 7 Boards should join hands to throw out India. ICC run Cricket without BCCI can thrive without BCCI's dirty politics and practices.

  • on January 28, 2014, 7:22 GMT

    My simple Answer to whole situation is " Cricket is for Sale".If India is contributing revenue to the ICC he can claim more funds from ICC but to control Cricket can effect the growth of Cricket badly.Money is never a substitute for the pride.

  • Practical_person on January 28, 2014, 5:17 GMT

    If CA and ECB do not go with BCCI? What stops BCCI from creating a US style league system and increasing the number of franchises. They will earmark the best players from across the globe and pay them well to take part in IPL. Glenn Maxwell is getting USD 1 million and he is not a great player. India has the market right now. Can we expect all cricketers to be idealists? I believe this proposal is required for preservation of cricket in its existing form. However, what is crucial is accountability of the funds generated by India and other boards. How are they using it to nurture the domestic games and identify talent. Transparency is necessary for use of funds since it is ultimately the fans that generate revenue. I believe funds should be also be set aside for development of cricket in other emerging countries. India too were discriminated in the past when CA and ECB had veto power and refused to tour India unless they received a financial guarantee. It always pays off to be generous.

  • Front-Foot-Lunge-Needs-A-Hug on January 28, 2014, 5:13 GMT

    Anyone who doesn't understand that this will destroy international cricket is deluded. If commentors here really believe the BCCI should run the game and take all the cash I'd say the solution for everyone else is very simple, we play international cricket without India. T20 is not cricket. Nobody outside India cares about the IPL and the plummeting ratings tell us less and less people watch it. It's a celebrity circus that nobody cares about except the celebrities and T20 mercenaries. If this deal goes through international cricket will be lost to the shoddy version of the game.

  • WeldonHosten on January 28, 2014, 3:21 GMT

    As a per capital percentage I see India's contribution to world cricket not much more than the least contributor. India has a much larger population than all the cricketing nations combine twice or three times over and as such will generate the lion share in terms of numbers. However, looking at it in comparison to other nations it is not much of a difference. if the intention is to grow cricket and attract more cricketing nations into the fold then this is not the way to do it. Cricket is one of the slowest growing sports outside the Asian continent and when played other places it is usually by expats of the Asian community. How is that? Choking the administration of the game like that is basically picking losers and winners before a ball is bowled.

  • on January 28, 2014, 3:04 GMT

    At the end of the day India can only generate income if other nations exist and the game progresses forward. BCCI top brass must be getting high on the smell of their own farts not to notice that. I say, 'whatever'. Ego always precede the fall and playing with themselves is never a class act.

  • on January 28, 2014, 0:24 GMT

    That somethinh has to be done is obvious. The proposed changes are not the answer. These will see the top three stating "we're all right, bugger nthe rest of you"! One option to look at and it won't happen is that under the ICC there are five existing cricketing regions worldwide: Asia, Oceania/East Asia, Africa, the Americas and Europe. Each region elects a delegate and this five member board becomes the ICC with board chairman rotating annually. As I said this won't happen because the BCCI would lose too much clout.

  • PaksGrt on January 27, 2014, 21:43 GMT

    Anyone doesn't understand this atrocity, let me explain this to them in sports language. Sports are not a business, yes they are run like businesses. And yes you can run a fair business. In sports money is the last thing that matters, only thing that matters is how you perform on the field. You can have all the boardroom power you want as long as the product on the field is fair. But now these 3 boards are trying to change the product one the field. It is not OK to have ICC Tournaments only in three countries. not only it takes away money from other 7 members but also takes away their home field advantage. Lastly its a complete fallacy to say that Indian Cricket is worth 80%. To prove this spin magic wrong, all you have to do is have India keep playing the likes of Zimbabwe and Kenya then see how much Team India is worth. India has lost more Test matches than they have won,now they want to run Cricket. We should spot these 3 countries 100 runs in every Match since they bring so much $

  • Temuzin on January 27, 2014, 21:40 GMT

    All those fans criticizing India are the one who dont support their own cricketers and boards. They don't watch matches and just sit on cric info site to get the free commentary. I saw an empty ground in south africa when Kallis, one of the game's all time greats, was retiring. The so called fans worrying about future of cricket should be worried about that situation in their own countries. If retirement of Kallis coudn't bring fans to the stadium, then what will bring them. Cricket is already dead there. Now why India should support such a board who could not sell this event to its own public? In my opinion India should go ahead with the plan and get their fair share irrespective of pseudo fan' cries. And also BCCI should create a cricket structure just like US NFL.

  • IrtizaRizvi on January 27, 2014, 21:34 GMT

    By this logic if China started playing cricket & has tooooo much interest then they will have the biggest share? Thats very illogical!!!

  • on January 27, 2014, 20:26 GMT

    Let's grant India's wish and have an ICC without Inida...By the way, it took 30 years for India to win their first test match.

  • IPSY on January 27, 2014, 20:09 GMT

    Sambit, even though everybody is most concerned about the financial distribution aspect of the proposal, which is of integral importance to the survival of world cricket, my main complain has to do with the abject arrogance being exhibited by the triumvirate, especially where they are instructing us that their respective teams will not be subjected to any kind of relegation requirements should there be a tiered system. If Brazil or any other country for that matter is ranked number one in world football, but fail to perform to reach the finals of the Foot Ball World Cup, they just have to stay out and grin and bear it! What sort of childish behaviour are these three countries trying to create in international sports? Are they for real? And in fact, if the West Indies support any such foolishness, who is going to watch their matches against all those mediocre teams when they come here to the West Indies?

  • on January 27, 2014, 19:49 GMT

    @prodigy Completely agree with you. It's time Indian cricket frees itself from ICC control and forms makevthe IPL a year long league. These will actually make all the franchises profitable. This will benefit Indian fringe players to share the money from cricket. India is being ridiculed no matter what we do. It's time to go on our own. The Americans are not bothered if the NFL is popular outside the US. Why not India with the IPL?

  • cjscanada on January 27, 2014, 19:25 GMT

    @Capt.Meanster, Whilst I agree with all that you say, one thing though is not true that fan following is a result of success. Where is chess, badminton, billiards, Tennis for that matter? It is a result of success and also a game more to heart and viable to the common masses that has made cricket so popular that it transcends reasons into more of a fanatic following. India, Australia and to a certain extent England, see a lot of interest and even in those countries we see a lot of Asians, especially Indians who will go to watch these games as long as their country is being represented. The Indians idolize their cricketers, helping BCCI evolve into one of the richest association in sports, if not the richest, mainly due to the size and following of the population. I would support BCCI as long as part of the money is used to support the different boards and develop cricket around the globe. Let's not make BCCI a criminal until we see their intent.

  • on January 27, 2014, 18:52 GMT

    india may spend a lot but they sure hell does not have any right nor eng or aus to gain that much power and what is stoping them in future to be injust to other members no board deserve that much power. they want more money find another way.AND u urself said game was good when there was less money involved well who brought more money to the game certainly not aus and eng

  • on January 27, 2014, 18:28 GMT

    Asking for guaranteed money was a common practice during 50s thru 70s and at times the more powerful boards like Eng and Aus tried to the same at that time which India is trying now.If other cricketing nations were not there to balance the power there would be no opportunities and Ind would not be in this position as they are today.Many formulas can be applied for fair distribution of the money generated but this draft goes way beyond that.Total power and total control in the hands of few is formula for death of real cricket but the show can go on.Mr Bal is off here not mentioning anything what it will do to the promotion of cricket in the rest of the world etc.Countries like WI,SA,Aus,Eng all have dominated cricket at different times by performing in the ground and not by some veto political way and we would like to keep it like that.

  • BigINDFan on January 27, 2014, 18:26 GMT

    Mr. Bal has stated the obvious in a nicely written article. Cricket is a business and the top 3 financial powers want to cash in since they feel they have been giving away money for too long. This is the N Srini driven model becoz he is a businessman. Dalmiya may be credited for saving ICC from bankruptcy but he did it to get power and to run the ICC as he is a strong businessman as well. For all those who want to promote cricket and play Robinhood, then ICC should be run by former cricketers not businessmen. The financial part of the proposal was long time coming and cannot be stopped. The tier system is a joke, let the current system be. Instead every board from the top 8 should adopt an associate cricketing nation and sponsor and help them grow. If their associate nation performs well then they get more money and the more nations they help grow they get more credit. That way ICC can reward the powerful boards and actually improve the associate nations game and opportunities.

  • on January 27, 2014, 18:24 GMT

    End of cricket and satrting of international cricket bussiness its not about money its all about game, ppl watch cricket as game and see some neutral decisions but when it will be in hands of BCCI it means they surely going to make one way decisions dont mind nature of all asians

  • on January 27, 2014, 18:21 GMT

    That is properly a mad,non-democratic & greedy proposal,it will ruin cricket from being a global sport.we want to talk about cricket here,not about money!

  • on January 27, 2014, 18:06 GMT

    South Africa and Pakistan both in any case Quality & quantity are not less than England & Australia .. similarly Indians may be more in quantity but past records & history clearly tells us pak&S.A is batter than India... so giving power to India isn't fair in any case.. Pak is specially having difficult times due to its country conditions but in future we gonna rise again (in sha Allah).. Every team play best at its home we havent played even a single match at home still we are the best !! we reached almost every semi final & won final in 2009 hence its a clear injustice that Pak & south Africa are consider less than India,England or Australia

  • DarthKetan on January 27, 2014, 17:59 GMT

    Very balanced article - glad to read an unemotional perspective rooted in logic and rationale. Let's see what the revised draft looks like...

  • LegSpinBowlr on January 27, 2014, 17:56 GMT

    A very interesting debate, A debate between sport and treating sport like business. Not that earlier boards were very generous. I got curious by the statement "In return, it has a simple capitalist message to its trading partners: we can spread more wealth by making more ourselves; the more money we make, the better off you are. " If that is the case the only danger here is the Ruling board can make one board rich and other board poor. I dont see any alternative to this revamping but to accept BCCI terms, but im pretty sure everything that rises high ultimately falls flat.

  • on January 27, 2014, 17:52 GMT

    It's not about who is generating more money, it's about the power which you are demanding, yes I agree that India should have atleast 50-60% revenue generated by the game, but it dose'nt mean that you will start spoiling the game,and make the game hostage....

  • on January 27, 2014, 17:32 GMT

    The BCCI believes that cricket cannot survive without India. The other boards have given it no reason to think otherwise. what otherwise?

  • Ryan_H on January 27, 2014, 17:23 GMT

    Excellent, well rounded, unbiased and a very well balanced article! At a high level, it captures and summarizes many of the ground realities and justifications.

  • GrindAR on January 27, 2014, 17:17 GMT

    If we back date how ICC started.... it was more of the thing for powerful boards impose theirs using the eye wash common body called ICC, pretty much same as UN, G18 kind of stuff. It is the empowerment for brutal forces to work in the name of democracy. When Aus/Eng were the main brutal force, they were able to do it well in a co-ordinated way... as the officals were from the very same countries. When Asian countries started playing serious cricket, they realized they were dumped by these two brutal forces... BCCI stepped up with the support of revenue potential that India possess... The upped their game and Srilanka's.... if Pak was in good relationship, it would have been a lot better... Being said that... BCCI was the first board took steps in popularizing Cricket beyond handfull of nations.... It also managed to get into one Olympics... You gotto credit BCCI for all its positive contributions... Establishing sustainable financial stream goes to BCCI, not prior ICC or old gundas

  • Juan_Fernando on January 27, 2014, 17:15 GMT

    Its embarrassing enough such a bill has been even considered much less proposed and voted on. If this bill passes it will be a huge loss to the game and the ICC might as well leave out the I for International and revamp itself.

    Shouldn't even be discussing this proposal, it is that outrageous.

    Much respect for the article and its content Mr. Bal.

  • CurrentPresident on January 27, 2014, 17:14 GMT

    It understandably painful to lose the free money that has been flowing in.

    That's why all the boards are all riled up. None of the boards in the other countries have done anything to further cricket - WI, Pak, SL... just look at what your boards have done for popularizing cricket in your country and making it a money earner.

    As for players, no other board has contributed as much to players getting paid well and make a decent living. Compare it to the SL board which despite getting millions in free money, didn't even pay its players for an extended period of time.

    I totally back BCCI, CA and ECB on getting a higher percentage of what they contribute. Dole money is not a right. Other boards should figure out how to make money as well. It's not as difficult as they make it out to be.

    Where I disagree with the proposal is a formalized top-3 tier system for playing. I think there already is a tier system in place with the affiliates and that is working fine.

  • ProdigyA on January 27, 2014, 17:08 GMT

    Why r people such hypocrits. Imagine if the current system was to have all countries play anyone they want and there was no FTP nonsense (sounds like democracy rite). Now imagine if BCCI had proposed FTP where countries are forced to play all teams, irrespective of whether they like it or not. Just imagine the furore it would have created and people blaming the BCCI taking world cricket as hostage as they r forcing others to make unnecessary tours. Just blaming BCCI for everything is not ridiculous.

  • Real_Champs on January 27, 2014, 16:57 GMT

    its unfortunate but true that Pak is not in a condition to oppose this... they will eventually accept it but one thing is sure if something awkward happen Then viewership of cricket will decrease.. FACT is sub-continent has start liking + WATCHING football.. almost every Big league is being broadcasted in sub-continent

  • on January 27, 2014, 16:56 GMT

    20+ nations playing cricket at different levels and stages of evolution, 3 seeking control, how democratic !

    Please apprise if the new proposal deprive weaker or associate nations for evolving in the sport, if yes, I think this is not fair.

  • on January 27, 2014, 16:55 GMT

    India can generate 80% of the revenue ...Still they couldn't produce a world class fast bowler like Johnson or Steyn...

  • on January 27, 2014, 16:54 GMT

    What your article suggests is that Cricket not a sport but some business. If that is how it is then I do not think I will be following it. Indians who want to see IPL sort of cricket will surely follow it but it will die in longer run. If you see some one hitting a ball that will not be cricket (the gentle man game) but something else (a more commercialized and passion less version of it).

  • Real_Champs on January 27, 2014, 16:52 GMT

    I agree if India earns more they have the right to get big chunk but that does not mean that they have the right to dictate others... and if BCCI was upset with finance they were getting, then whats the reason of forming BIG3?? BCCI should talk about itself and right now BCCI has the muscle to talk and take their chunk.. BCCI is making this BIG3 ostensibly to take more money(their right) but indeed they want POWER (which is not right)

  • on January 27, 2014, 16:32 GMT

    Money is not the only issue. Another important point Mr. Bal has intentionally left out is the veto powers India, Australia and England want, which like the UN is not completely democratic. So if I pay more taxes, should I expect more government privileges than someone who pays less or does not have to pay taxes? For example, will I always get to go at the front of the line at a government office?

  • on January 27, 2014, 16:31 GMT

    If a two-tier is the way forward, why not implement English Country Cricket 2-division strategy. It'll mean more manageable fixtures, and it'll promote competition and allow countries to join and prosper. Yes, that means no 'get out of jail free' card for India, England and Australia.

    In terms of sharing revenue, a country's revenue is proportional to its position in ICC ranking. For bilateral tournaments, the boards share the revenue.

    There are better, fairer ways to revolutionise a system if it's unworkable. Rather than going all out with the primitive doctrine that might is right. BCCI, ECB and CA should be ashamed of themselves.

  • scarrule on January 27, 2014, 16:19 GMT

    @abdul basit abbasi if u think indian team is no where near a average team in over-seas condition. Then how do u explain champions trophy triumph in england. Ohh wait. The pitches were doctored nd made especially for indian team so that they were invincible in the event. Isn't it. U people jst swallow indian team present success ryt now. Ohh they were thrashed in SA true. Don't know how much pakistan wait for there next series bt the fact is 5 days before 1st odi in SA they playing against west indies at home. They played 1st odi the 2nd day they reached SA . The fact is there schedule is so pack that they play their 1st 2 odi's as there warm-up matches lol nd funny thng is there were only 2 odi's were played in series. Did u even watched test series in SA or were jst following result. The fact is top 3 highest scorer in series were indians nd out of 10 days of 2 test match sereis. 7 days india were in driving seat. It was jst one bad session thaat cost them the series with virat kholi wrongly given out. Nd still bcci is against DRs god knows why..!

  • WalkingWicket11 on January 27, 2014, 16:15 GMT

    BCCI: If you don't accept our proposal, we won't play in World Cup. Other boards: OK, great. Good riddance. Could you also leave the ICC while you are at it?

    As easy as that. No doubt BCCI is no saint, but if the other boards can't even do such a simple thing, then they deserve a greater share of the blame.

  • Jamevee on January 27, 2014, 16:11 GMT

    Time for the other countries to stand up and decide whether they will compromise their values or be second rate for ever. Leave the 3 to play with themselves. They will soon get bored as will the paying public. I want watch tests year after year of 3 countries playing each other and IPL is limited without test backing. I'm totally disappointed in England and Auusie.

  • Temuzin on January 27, 2014, 16:04 GMT

    @Abdul Basit Abbasi : You did not read the article carefully otherwise would not have asked the question. During 1950-70s, Eng and Australia were asking Guarantee money to tour India. Without the guarantee no tour was possible. I am happy that India is acting like that. Its only asking its fare share.

  • on January 27, 2014, 15:47 GMT

    You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.You cannot help little men by tearing down big men.You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.You cannot build character and courage by destroying men's initiative and independence.And you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.

  • hamza893 on January 27, 2014, 15:41 GMT

    If Pakistan and Southafrica resists and condemn strongly taking their interest on cricket not money then we are seeing this proposal going as trash.These two nations play the most exciting cricket and people love their cricket due to their unpredictability.

  • Ahmedpakistan6 on January 27, 2014, 15:36 GMT

    We must not forget that cricket is a sport not a business. We also must not forget that Cricket is a suppose to be played between Countries not cities. These T20 leagues are a joke. Except for 3-4 great players ,all the other players smashing in all these leagues are trash and can't survive a session or two in Test Cricket.

  • scarrule on January 27, 2014, 15:26 GMT

    Australia's total population is 22 million new zealand's is 4 million nd likewise if u add up the total population of rest of the all test playing countries nd might top 3-4 associate contries it will still be less than india's middle class population nd cricket lovers which is close to 800,000,000 . Now u see the fact why bcci generates 80 % of the revenue coz it have 800 million to support them. Thts why even if ashes is prestigious than india-pak match the revenue generated by ind-pak the viewership is on par with any ashes series ever held. And to all those who think money will come frm india even if india dont participate.. One has to only look 2007 world cup nd why it was financial flop show for icc coz india got exit in the group stage so to think indians will watch despite india's exclusion is naive nd ranji matches are generally empty coz india was busy playing south africa that time make it mandatory for the likes of kholi dhawan dhoni nd co to play ranji for there following team nd u will see the stadiums stuffing with peoples.

  • on January 27, 2014, 15:26 GMT

    Lets rewind ourselves few decades back say 60s; and the same proposal is submitted by ECB and CA and Indian cricket didn't have the piece of cake they had over the years; would indian cricket be here as it is now. Be realistic; unlike ECB and CA; indian team is no where near world class in all types of conditions. A big question is will BCCI stop here; what if in next few years BCCI say that India will only play in India as it generates 80% of its total revenue from india only; what will ECB and CA do then. This whole schema is against the spirit of ICC and its constitution. I hope PCB, South Africa, New Zealand and Westindies (for sake of their previous glory) can stand up and rub the proposal on face of big three: even if they have to create their separate cricket governing body.

  • CricketPissek on January 27, 2014, 15:23 GMT

    1. Let's look at the business side of cricket. We can't deny it has a business component to it. India deserves its fair share of the income as it generates such a high proportion of it. I don't think anyone begrudge this. 2. The outcry of the cricketing world is not about the money. It's about the GUARANTEED placement of the 'big three' in the top tier of a two tier Test system. No matter how much money you generate, it should NOT exempt you from relegation. The word meritocracy is used so many times in this document, but not where it matters. If you want to split the Test world into two, do it by merit - not by income.

  • ProdigyA on January 27, 2014, 15:21 GMT

    @Manishwa - excellent point and I totally agree with you. But this is exactly the problem too.

    Everybody thinks BCCI is this huge cash cow which should be milked at every given opportunity. On one side, we want BCCI to give the best facilities to fans via stadiums and viewership. Then we also want all cricket players, whether they play for clubs or ranji or national them, they all should be played handsomely, also give retirement benefits, take care of ex-players. Then BCCI should also help other sports grow in the country by helping them financially.

    Then the other side, where everybody wants BCCI to feed world cricket, make generous tours and then not even ask for their fair share of revenue.

    Now tell how can BCCI justify all of the above. I think most of the people commenting are motivated with personal reasons and do not really even understand what the draft is.

  • ProdigyA on January 27, 2014, 15:08 GMT

    I really would love to see IPL played in a similar style as American NFL football, they play for about 5-6 months during winter and ends in a grand finale superbowl, which has the highest ratings in the world. IPL should also plan for something like that, playing the best athletes in the world for a longer duration. The rest of the year can be used to play ICC tournaments. The countries not interested in IPL can go ahead with their bilateral tours.

    But the problem is people will be against this too. They wouldnt even allow India to mind their own business and do what they want. They haters will cry foul even then.

  • The_big_j on January 27, 2014, 15:07 GMT

    Good bye cricket, I hope Indians serve you well...

  • on January 27, 2014, 15:04 GMT

    I actually agree with bcci on the revenue share. India has such a huge structure of domestic cricket. They are generating huge amount of money and they are not getting back as much as they should to bring in the advances in indian cricket. They are dling the right thing. ICC should approve the proposal.

  • manishwa on January 27, 2014, 14:59 GMT

    I have read reports (H.Bhogle) which say that the offending document is high quality stuff. And I doubt this is the handiwork of the three boards alone. Sambit would probably know - but the real brains behind it are the broadcasters. We knew BCCI's previous broadcaster pestered them for a India-Pak series - which given the political scenario, was impossible.

    I am pretty confident that the whole drama of getting rid of the FTP is a game plan of broadcasters. This way, they don't have to make losses with inconsequential tours - meanwhile they can plot and plan tours based on their revenues.

  • on January 27, 2014, 14:50 GMT

    I think this is the beginning of the cricket end

  • manishwa on January 27, 2014, 14:46 GMT

    I don't mind India taking their pie of revenue. Anybody else, with power - would have done exactly that - or even worse. But what I would like is - transparency in BCCI's spendings. With the amount of money it has - I hardly see any improvement for the cricket fan.

    The telecast quality - both IPL and International/domestic cricket is absolutely ridiculous. The stadiums - including the new ones are terrible. Take the Jamtha stadium - it has no proper restrooms, no drinking water, no car parking - and not even an approach road that is legal. Feroz Shah Kotla and Eden gardens are archaeology sites. And the ticket pricing is ridiculous. Daily tickets are simply not available for test matches for the first three days.

    Also the domestic cricket wickets - with so much of money they play on pitches that give you scores like 21 all out.

    By all means, make money - but tell us what you are doing with it.

  • on January 27, 2014, 14:37 GMT

    Who knows, but there may be a WCC instead of ICC in near future.

  • on January 27, 2014, 14:36 GMT

    Without a doubt India is the biggest contributor to ICC in monetary terms. But it should also realize that ICC provide it the platform to be famous and earn more. How much domestic cricket following exist in Ind. I dun think its much so how do u plan to generate money by leaving ICC. All the other boards will still have tours between themselves and will generate the same amount of money as they are doing now and ICC would have to cut down on little of his expenses to make the ends meet. We know there always is a way out in hard times and getting a VETO power is unfair to all other boards.

  • BDKu on January 27, 2014, 14:28 GMT

    If India generates 80% of the ICC revenue and they want to keep all 80% there is no problem. But what we cannot understand is how India Australia and England what ever their performance on the field will remains in the top tier but not others. Look at England do they deserve to be above other countries. In other sports the teams are relegated on performance not on financial strength. If other boards wants more money let them find ways of earning more money and let India keep what India earns. This is just saying that rich people get everything and no punishment however bad they are (the Maha Rajs). India is finding difficult to get away from the Maha Raja culture and be democratic. In democracy you can be rich or poor but every one has one vote and every one is equal infront of law.

  • on January 27, 2014, 13:52 GMT

    wrong decision taken by icc.

  • on January 27, 2014, 13:47 GMT

    i am still searching for what the old cricket stalwarts like Sir Ian Chappell or Sunil Gavaskar or Jeffrey Boycott have to say about this coup. Legendary Clive Loyd expressed his fears the other day but what about the guys joining the upper tier?

  • themaster668 on January 27, 2014, 13:42 GMT

    Its not entirely about the money. if the major three players BCCI, CA and ECB would get full control over how the "wealth" of ICC is controlled then surely they will have all the influences not only to take key decisions such as FTP, Mutual tours and series, Change in ICC rules but also to VETO most of the decisions that would be of huge interest for small boards but not for them.

    If and somehow they can get the balance right in terms of callaboration, harmony and strategic decision taking authority then it will be a no harm game. As money will come out if you'll provide fair opportunities to all members.

  • on January 27, 2014, 13:36 GMT

    Without a doubt India is the biggest contributor to ICC in monetary terms. But it should also realize that ICC provide it the platform to be famous and earn more. How much domestic cricket following exist in Ind. I dun think its much so how do u plan to generate money by leaving ICC. All the other boards will still have tours between themselves and will generate the same amount of money as they are doing now and ICC would have to cut down on little of his expenses to make the ends meet. We know there always is a way out in hard times and getting a VETO power is unfair to all other boards.

  • on January 27, 2014, 13:35 GMT

    I think we r going in this stage where the importance of First-class matches & List A matches will get vanished..All the boards have their own t20 tournaments & thats how they generate revenue..I think if ICC approves this draft,then I fear cricket is going in completely wrong direction and as Sambit said that it would become more of game of money..I think there should be some transparency regarding ICC FTP and this FTP should give equal chances to every1..If no.of tours of India are reduced,then we are heading towards stable cricketing environment..We want quality and competitive cricket where even an minnows team like Bangladesh or Ireland win an ICC tournament

  • RSIndAus on January 27, 2014, 13:33 GMT

    Has everyone forgot this article from 2004?...

    http://www.espncricinfo.com/india/content/story/140893.html

  • bobbo2 on January 27, 2014, 13:31 GMT

    Some valid points. But the proposal still frightens me. I think India probably deserve more money given the wealth generated but the no guarantee of tours will ruin the game. Likewise the threats to not be included in events is a joke and I would prefer a poorer WC than put up with threats. And I'm not so sure an expanded IPL would work as very few people outside India care. I am a cricket nut and follow all international series but I could not name a winner of the last 3 IPLs. Again India probably deserve more money but to take away tour requirements would make the international game a joke.

  • on January 27, 2014, 13:05 GMT

    Vote no on the proposal. it is demeaning to the spirit of the game of cricket

  • on January 27, 2014, 12:53 GMT

    World Cricket without India and still Indian fans will watch Indian Super League is a fallacy - How much the Ranji Trophy or any other local match is being watched by the Indian public or covered by the media. Even if the international players are removed from the IPL - it will lose its charm.

  • A.Ak on January 27, 2014, 12:52 GMT

    SA, Ind (& SL) and Aus (& NL) - together can build a strong cricket future, ECB is selfish (remember Stanford T20?). IPL cannot be moved out of India. But champions league can be moved between these three countries. It was held in SA before. I think it would be wonderful idea to try it in Aus (&ZL). Aussies are cricket lovers too. Also it will give good exposure to all players as well as revenue. WI is an option too. Completely talking about Cricket and revenue.

  • on January 27, 2014, 12:38 GMT

    Aa an India I m totally against this scrap . I would suggest all players around the world to boycott IPL and tours with So called world champions INDIA then will see how BCCI generates it's revenue ........... I think by ranji ?

  • NALINWIJ on January 27, 2014, 12:37 GMT

    India is the fat cat in ICC as they generate the most money. We still need an equitable system where each country gets a fair share of revenues and opportunities to play test matches and this is in the best interest of cricket. Then again each country is responsible for their own administration and that is an area where Sri Lanka lets their players down. India agrees on a 2 tier system as long as they are not in tier 2. I do not believe in a 2 tier system but I believe that teams 9 and 10 should play a round robin series against top 2 non test playing nations each year. Each team playing the other once and could be done in just over a month.

  • Prabhash1985 on January 27, 2014, 12:20 GMT

    Why not a good person like Sunil Gaveskar, Sachin Tendulkar become BCCI head? Then all problems are solved. Internal politics in the biggest country is going to affect world cricket.

  • Spinna on January 27, 2014, 12:20 GMT

    The few cannot rule the many without sanction. If specific protections of some teams regardless of merit is approved I will not watch another game involving any of those nations. No silent approval from this Australian. Go Pakistan!

  • on January 27, 2014, 12:17 GMT

    This issue should be dealt on merit. Decisions made on the the basis of threat, greed or fear are either not longer lasting or they will kill the game. Those who think that spectators including indians can love cricket unconditinally for ever probably do not know much about sports world. In USA baseball leagues made wrong decision and baseball suffered a lot. Best solution for this power grabbing and greedy attitude is not to give in for a single demand and see what happens. If these three boards are just bluffing they will settle down or come up with less demands. If they are not then 3 boards will leave. Let them go and see how world of cricket works. Don't recognize their T20, ODI and Test as official with a clear intention that even they return we are still not going to recognize those matches. If ICC is wrong and they could not run matters successfully then all members can join the big 3 and make a new ICC. If big 3 are wrong and their revenue decline then they will join ICC again

  • rickyvoncanterbury on January 27, 2014, 11:59 GMT

    Thanks, but no thanks, my boys want to play for New South Wales and Australia not the sixers or the Indians We want to watch Australia play, Pakistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka, New Zealand, etc etc ..we want more international cricket not less, If it is an us or them situation please CA go with them, it is a tried and true formula. MONEY is for business people, CRICKET is for working class to enjoy and have fun.

  • Baundele on January 27, 2014, 11:37 GMT

    The reason why cricket's money is so dependent on India is actually an automatic consequence of the anti-globalization policy of cricket. Following your example, Brasil's absence won't affect Football's money that much, only because football is played in so many countries. The ICC failed, or may be did not even want, to spread cricket around the globe.

    The talk should have been how we can produce more test quality teams. Alas! We are now focused on how we can shun teams like Zimbabwe and Bangladesh! That's ICC's failure. Btw, thanks for the excellent article.

  • Neel_123 on January 27, 2014, 11:35 GMT

    @Malepas: "for example, India don't play world cup, Indian viewers would still want to see matches"

    No, they won't. Nobody in India watched when NZ played WI or WI played Pak! Check the TRPs of such matches on Indian TV network.

    And If India don't play world cup, Indian players possibly WOULD be playing a IPL like league, may be franchise based "India Super League- 50-50" at the same time. Broadcasters would be more inclined to win rights for such Super League.

    You don't expect BCCI to roll over and die if they walk out of ICC. Do you? There are literally 50+ stadium in Indian tier-2 towns which never hosted even a single International match and people will flock to see a Dhoni or Kohli. Cricket has NOT yet saturated in India while it seems to declining in many other nations. This is the reason BCCI is keen to demand more earnings because, lets us face it, India is from where majority of money will come!

  • TommytuckerSaffa on January 27, 2014, 11:23 GMT

    Another reason why the BCCI must be stopped:

    The Future Tours Programme (FTP) which gives credibility and credence to the test and ODI rankings. Srinivasan (BCCI) remains determined to scrap the FTP and appears in ICC minutes from 2011 stating that India wants the right to select its own fixtures and to be able to postpone, cancel or change them without penalty - no matter what contracts have been signed.

  • rizwan1981 on January 27, 2014, 11:17 GMT

    Excellent article Sambit - I agree that if South Africa was a part of the troika , there would be a deafening silence from the rainbow nation.I also believe India should be entitled to the lion share of the revenue.But I do not think its democratic for India , Australia and England to gave veto powers.

    It appears that , as in Politics , there are no permanent friends in cricket, only temporary interests-Only a decade ago , India, Pakistan , Bangladesh , Sri Lanka , Zimbabwe and South Africa ganged up against the rest - When Australia refused to travel to Sri Lanka for the 1996 world cup, Tendulkar , Akram and 9 other Indian and Pakistan came to Colombo to play an exhibition game-Earlier , when Tendulkar was suspended for a match in South Africa,India disregarded the ban and played an unofficial test match in defiance of the ICC.

    O Tempora , O mores

  • on January 27, 2014, 11:10 GMT

    Cricket can not be smaller than BCCI and its interests. Game can not be bigger than player, revenue or anything.

  • malepas on January 27, 2014, 11:08 GMT

    First of all, this myth about 80% is totally inaccurate, what BCCI is doing that it calculating the "total revenue" add up to ICC even by a media house which wants to show its viewers an Ashes series or SA v PAK match and paying out to the other media house for broadcasting rights and the money which then gets paid out to ICC as a share of it,,, this is nothing to do with BCCI, people needs to understand,, BCCI is not a "STATE" who controls all the companies and lots of them are multinationals in India and their revenues streams are subject to their interests based on what sells,, if for example, India don't play world cup, Indian viewers would still want to see matches and broadcasters would be buying the rights from ICC to do that,, yes, the money will be less but it wouldn't be the end of the world,, Sambit failed to mention the case of PAK which is not dependent on Indian tours from last 8 years, the only ODI tour they did, they didn't charge,, so boards can survive with less money

  • VisBal on January 27, 2014, 10:55 GMT

    The worst thing in this attempt is that the passing of this "draft proposal" would lead to a severe decline in quantity and quality of Test cricket played by India. The BCCI's war chest is built on ODIs and the IPL, especially when they are high scoring. Obviously they would like this to continue. Moreover, the fewer Tests they play (if any), the lower the chance they will be shown up (as in inability to defend 450-odd). Any and all Tests they play will likely be on home dustbowls, ending in 3 days. This gives them the best chance to maximise their return on investment.

  • reality_check on January 27, 2014, 10:50 GMT

    Sambit. I was following you all the way until you started comparing Cricket to Football. There is no comparison. For one football does not have a BCCI. England have richest league called EPL BUT Eng does not rule the football world so please check the facts before comparing.

    Secondly I ask you this question, if this proposal is soo good for world cricket then why does BCCI need to threaten other boards to pass it?

    Why Sundar Raman (IPL CEO) member of this draft proposal team? Can IPL executive committee make decisions now which affect other boards?

    All in all, this is a pure power grab and nothing else although I do agree with you that revolution is not at hand. BCCI is too rich and powerful to have any weaker boards oppose it but one thing is clear, cricket wont be same as we have all loved it until now. It will become an IPL tamasha within next few years.

  • Front-Foot-Lunge-Needs-A-Hug on January 27, 2014, 10:48 GMT

    As an Aussie, I will start supporting West Indies or SA if they get away with this. It's a disgrace.

  • on January 27, 2014, 10:45 GMT

    If I am not wrong, India played 8 test matches last year didn't they ? They won 6 out of them. So I don't see where exactly India gives people the impression that they are on the decline in tests. Yes sure they don't have bowlers for a particular kind of playing condition, doesn't mean everybody else who fared worse than India in test matches jump up and down in despair claiming superiority

  • natarsx on January 27, 2014, 10:44 GMT

    Guys here dont understand the difference between BCCI, Indian Team and the Indian Spectator. BCCI is riding not on the performance of Indian Team but the passion of Indian spectator. For those who say India is not the best team around - no one is disputing you. In order to reduce BCCI's control on Cricket, the Indian spectator should ignore the game, thats not going to happen. Even if India is relegated out, the Indian spectator would enjoy 2 IPLs a year. TV Broadcasting community around the world will buy the rights because of the Indian population across the world. Like it or not guys as long as there is passion in Indian crowd for Cricket BCCI will rule the revenue generation for the game. I would suspect we would not be in this position had ICC given a window for IPL.

  • on January 27, 2014, 10:43 GMT

    I am upset at How the New cricket board from NZ has just roled over without a fight.

    I am thinking the worldcup has something to do with it. I hope after the world cup is finished that Nz cricket are part of a group that break away from the Icc test status means nothing the public don't care about the history of the game.

    If NZ,SA,and the rest of the world got money from other sources I am sure a comp sould be set up with out India,aussie,England let them play each other.

    Super Rugby Nz,aus,Sa can get millions why not super cricket Nz,Sl,SA,WI and ireland and many other countrys that would be better off and it help the game grow.

    aussie are two scared to play nz anyway we beat them last time

  • mzm149 on January 27, 2014, 10:42 GMT

    BCCI needs other boards as a means to earn money as much as other boards need its help. Its a mutual thing. The fact is that the most profitable encounters in cricket are the ones involving India and Pakistan, even more lucrative than Ashes series. A greedy board like BCCI definitely needs PCB's help to enhance its profits. It is the best opportunity for other cricket boards to arm-twist the bully instead of fearing him.

  • smjr on January 27, 2014, 10:34 GMT

    Lot of people says that test match cricket is dying as no spectators come to the stadium. But to be fair due to TV coverage , internet , Mobile people do not come to ground to watch test match cricket. How ever the T-20 is usually played in night and is of maximum 3 hour duration that is why people come to the ground. I challenge that T-20 should start at 10 am and finished at 1.00 pm during working days all over the world and you will see the difference in crowd. Yes of course the cricket board business will be suffered. I believe T-20 has no match with Test match cricket in terms of passion, fluctuating fortunes, pressures, excitement but T-20 may be view as support role for Test cricket rather the other way round.

  • on January 27, 2014, 10:30 GMT

    No board should control the sport. It turns out to be business if this happens there will be no difference between ICC and IPL if India takes control. First and for most India needs to be campion team like Aussies in 90's or WI in 80's.. They have already proven to be the worst world champions never won a away series after holding a World Cup .. They will not even win in Bangladesh or Zimbabwe and they are confident of running ICC it has to be joke of the year..

  • JustIPL on January 27, 2014, 10:22 GMT

    India want to avoid playing tests which is evident from turmoil created during SA series. India have lost 9 out of ten tests played overseas and also lost in the dust bowls back home as well. One match that was drawn against SA was a bad example for indian bowling strength. Five tests arestaring in the eyes of indians against ECB and it is the right time to show some money to ECB and CA who are marching towards toppling india from top rankings. Infact, india are already declining and aussies recently risen. That is why india have drawn ECB/CA into this money things so that they dont get beating in tests. Also, they don't want to be dropped to lower rankings which they surely will with this bowling lineup. Drop in ranking will see them out of test championship. CSA has already developed rivalry against india also ECB who always want to come hard against india. I dont think ECB/CA need any protection like BCCI does. A drop in ranking will definitely affect indian revenue and mood.

  • smjr on January 27, 2014, 10:17 GMT

    I fail to understand where are BCCI, CA and ECB are heading, are they nonsense. We have a cherished history of Test match cricket, and ODI. In 70s , 80s 90s and even upto year 2005 cricket is played with lot of dignity and respect and there is lot of passion and the cricketers are happy at what ever amount they are getting from their board. Cricket is nothing without lot of countries playing with each other especially Test cricket which is the mother of all cricket. 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.

  • Hummed_Baig on January 27, 2014, 10:11 GMT

    Ok Agreed to the point that india Generates most of the revenue.. Now lets consider this little case. England Football association should take over and rule FIFA since: 1) They invented football. 2) they run the biggest sports league on earth called EPL 3) their league and their national team is followed by more than others on this planet.

    I think they along with spain, brazil and france should take over FIFA and make it's new rules... Wats the concept of "WORLD FOOTBALL" then.

    ICC is a global organisation and no matter what, no matter how much money a board generates Every Association has and should have a fair share. If India has the money they should organise more IPL and local cricket tournaments within their borders. They dont have the right to take over a sport many others cherish too no matter what.

  • on January 27, 2014, 10:07 GMT

    in the 90s why other teams were strong and now not is the ZIM have politics to blame WI more youngsters are turning to basketball PAK some selectors have ruind the team and then PAK not playing home is another factor as we all know who was behind the attack on SL team SL are still good all the above teams are still competative even not having much money PAk have beaten SA away SL won against NZ even ZIM won against PAK a test match BANG won against NZ and now NZ is winning against the so called big three india seriously india can do us all a favour and levave the international arena we wont miss you india and by the way you cant compare football with cricket

  • on January 27, 2014, 10:04 GMT

    So apparently money matters more then cricket

  • on January 27, 2014, 10:01 GMT

    @NixNixon : If that's the case why do players from your country come over to play IPL ? Don't bother kidding yourself.

  • Marktc on January 27, 2014, 9:57 GMT

    It is unfair to speculate about SA's reaction, if it were included, they were not, thus why speculate and sully SA, without it happening?? Just as they say no player is bigger than cricket, thus no board should be either. The larger boards should be assisting those in need. The only way to see cricket really profit, is to extent it's popularity across the globe. It is played in so many countries, but for example, in the USA, it is mostly unknown. In countries where tests attendance is low, reduce ticket prices and create an excitement around the series. People are drawn to drama. As pointed out below, in India, cricket it THE sport, thus everybody is interested. In many other countries (eg SA) there are a number of top sports to compete with. Cricket needs a revamp and I am not convinced that 3 untouchable ruling boards is the way to go in upping the integrity and popularity of the game,

  • Marktc on January 27, 2014, 9:57 GMT

    It is unfair to speculate about SA's reaction, if it were included, they were not, thus why speculate and sully SA, without it happening?? Just as they say no player is bigger than cricket, thus no board should be either. The larger boards should be assisting those in need. The only way to see cricket really profit, is to extent it's popularity across the globe. It is played in so many countries, but for example, in the USA, it is mostly unknown. In countries where tests attendance is low, reduce ticket prices and create an excitement around the series. People are drawn to drama. As pointed out below, in India, cricket it THE sport, thus everybody is interested. In many other countries (eg SA) there are a number of top sports to compete with. Cricket needs a revamp and I am not convinced that 3 untouchable ruling boards is the way to go in upping the integrity and popularity of the game,

  • on January 27, 2014, 9:56 GMT

    I remember the Indian team opening the bowling with Gavaskar and Sardesai (the two opening batsmen). Such was the quality of their team. They were regularly thrashed by every team everywhere. Now they talk big. It is all rubbish thinking by these BCCI guys whose feet are not on the ground. Come on guys wake up and be humane and dont forget your glorious(!!!) past

  • NixNixon on January 27, 2014, 9:42 GMT

    Cricket can survive without India, India is not even the best team going around in the world at the moment.

  • on January 27, 2014, 9:15 GMT

    A nice and deliberate attempt to cool down the hatred against the draft but still doesn't make sense. Nobody is making moral accusation against BCCI and their allies. The draft is absolutely against the constitution of ICC and if BCCI wants money then make an appeal for more money but on what basis you are asking for more powers?

    If BCCI does not want to take part in ICC events then they should be more than welcomed to do that. Cricket would still be same without them. Indian broadcasters will still be paying money (maybe a little less) for the event even if India does not participate.

  • Samdanh on January 27, 2014, 9:11 GMT

    Make it Rest Vs BCCI. Ignore and relegate BCCI. Rest of the Boards and Countries, play among yourselves as you are doing now alternating with Home and Away series, and Cricket will be ideal without a bully. Can understand money but not Control.

  • natarsx on January 27, 2014, 9:03 GMT

    Test Cricket is a dying art. We should all accept it. Gone are the days that the crowd is ready to appreciate a fast bowler who uses all his energy and bowls outside the offstump & the batsman leaves the ball with an outstanding judgement. The last time I saw the test match between Srilanka and Pakistan in Dubai - the entire stadium was empty. Bottomline is Test cricket is for purists and there are not many cricket purists among spectators these days. Having two tier is good for the test cricket - atleast it will be played where the stands are not empty. It might end up the first tier might have 5 not 3 teams at the end of this drama. RSA and the top ranked team from the 2nd tier be the other 2 teams. 10 years from now I see the tours be 1 test; 5 ODIs and 7 T20s. T20s are the crowd puller not the Tests. The other teams should concentrate on T20 local tournaments to pull the crowd / earn revenue rather than looking upto ICC. Spread cricket to other countries through T20s.

  • buddhikapm on January 27, 2014, 9:03 GMT

    I agree the point that should the SA was invited for this dirty circle, they would have definitely gone with them. However it is not true to tell that there is nothing to loose for other countries. loose or gain is a different story. what is importance is the principal. ICC is a union of 3 countries or union of several other countries?

  • on January 27, 2014, 9:02 GMT

    One aspect of this awful proposal that hasn't received much publicity yet is the idea that a touring team can pull out of a tour if it objects to the host broadcaster. I really do NOT want Ravi Shastri foisted on English cricket as a price for India touring. Ravi is fine for IPL but not for serious cricket, because he toes the official line, which a broadcaster shouldn't do.

  • moonlight555 on January 27, 2014, 9:00 GMT

    I think the manner in which this proposal is advertised is creating more trouble! I am totally against the big 3 running the ICC; let it be a collaborative effort. However, I don't see anthing wrong in BCCI asking fair share of the profit. If you invest 50% in a business, you would expect 50% share of the profit (and not 10%). All the boards (including ICC) are not not-for-profit organizations and they need to plan their functioning as any other organization.

    One proposal which can be looking into - Since Big 3 are so-called leaders of the game, they can adopt atleast 2 upcoming nations for next 3 years and ensure they invest some part of the gains to popularize cricket in those countries. That would be a nice way to give something back to the cricketing world!

  • Hala_Madrid on January 27, 2014, 8:56 GMT

    Clearly, India does not have big enough minds and visionaries to foresee that this might cause a national unrest for them. I will try to summarize in as simple words as possible:

    Current Bangladesh Government is in power only because of Indias strong support though they have very scantly public support now. India support them because opposition party who are now heavily popular, wants to create massive unrest in India`s eastern wing (7 sister states). They take advantage of the General public`s anti-India sentiment. Both India & the ruling party already worried about that growing sentiment. Now this proposal has triggered this hatred in Bangladesh exponentially. If the proposal gets passed and current Govt. falls, India should be ready to put their eastern wing as the biggest national problem and may eventually have to say GOOD BYE.

    Anybody with doubt is welcome to research.

  • yuvi_gladiator on January 27, 2014, 8:43 GMT

    right thing to do IMO, this will force other boards to promote the game in there country and generate more cash. the whole moral grounds argument in this matter is plain stupid and we all know if its only bcci which keeps generating the money the game is going to die regardless, just look at the crowds for the last ind-SA test series in SA and you can see my point. no crowd means less people playing and supporting the game, which means the game is already dying.. their own system is to blame not bcci

  • on January 27, 2014, 8:39 GMT

    To monopolize world cricket for own benefit is dangerous for cricketing world. Like in every sport the revenue generated are distributed to the new and developing teams for good of sport. This new scheme will leave the big three isolated and soon their charm and money will fade, see the Ashes now its fading, too much cricket between same teams takes the sting out of sereis. Effort should be to support the poor boards and encourage new teams.

  • sixnout on January 27, 2014, 8:27 GMT

    Lets see another likely scenario. The Indian team continues to lose abroad in the one dayers. It becomes the team that is least likely to win. Do you think expat Indians would still come forward to watch the team? I think the reason the BCCI are able to bargain so much is the present team is not the worst team in the world. They can fight some games. Get it close and is not losing all the matches by a big margin.

  • Jonocricketnz on January 27, 2014, 8:25 GMT

    If there's no revolution now then it will come later. Fans will get bored and the money will dry up. Then equality between countries will resume, as long as their cricket hasn't totally disappeared (I worry for West Indies in particular)

  • on January 27, 2014, 8:21 GMT

    Some thinks BIG three not doing any good to cricket ..........who decides what is good for cricket. Majority that is Indian fans thinks Limited over cricket is the way to go for cricket and business want to tap into huge interest and investing billions then this is probably the way to go. Any thing which drives a mini economy and generates job can't be bad .........Majority may not be right but they do have the rights to decides and business world agrees. If any other country would have been in BCCI shoes would have done exactle the same as BCCI........

  • on January 27, 2014, 8:15 GMT

    India is contributing big money just because South Africa, Pakistan,West Indies,Sri Lanka, England and Australia is playing cricket. If India has to play with England,Australia and New zealand only again and again then see which multinational or big indian company sponsor it! Very soon indian board will require donations from other countries. Rest of ICC members should refuse the proposal strongly and they should not be blackmailed by money threats. Rest of world should allow big 3 to leave ICC and run their own WWE or kerry packer circus. They can't continue it too long. This type of authority in England-Australia era already damaged this game and not allow to spread all over world. Rest of ICC member should give bigg3 a shut up call and try to spread cricket in more countries especially in Europe to save this game to become toy of few nations.

  • Jimmyrob83 on January 27, 2014, 7:56 GMT

    India is the cash cow. The other boards will do whatever the BCCI want.

  • soumyas on January 27, 2014, 7:54 GMT

    If everything continues BCCI's way, since BCCI is only behind money and don't care anything else, slowly CA and ECB will realize it and stop coordinating with it, whole cricketing world will start playing without BCCI... then what might happen is.... 1) Mr. Lalit Modi may start rival cricket board in India and through which Indian players will continue participating in global event parallelly. It will be completely new indian team with no IPL team favoritism. OR......2) Future indian generation players start migrating to other cricket playing countries and play from their respective countries....Any case it will be the demise of BCCI...and the rise of CRICKET.

  • DRS_Flawed_NeedsImprovement on January 27, 2014, 7:53 GMT

    but AUS AND ENG CAN PLAY meaningles ashes series twice a year.

  • on January 27, 2014, 7:52 GMT

    India, England and Australia are looking to have VETO Power like United Nation. Which is SAD for Cricket and Cricket Lovers ... There is no doubt that they make good money for the international cricket, but why to be greedy? SHAME and a BIG SHAME on them .. What will they promise to Sri-Lanka, Bangladesh - few home series with few money. Just a reminder that INDIA still has to play with PAKISTAN as per early commitments and contracts, which they are delaying. SHAME that politics is involved in Cricket and only for making more money than fan followers ..

  • RajeshNaik on January 27, 2014, 7:34 GMT

    Very well written article.

  • BatBowlCatch on January 27, 2014, 7:20 GMT

    If the BCCI already make so much profit why do they need more? What or whom will the money go to? My main concern is that we will not see the top 8 to ten nations compete regularly. Due to lack of funds for the less populated or weaker nations the top players will play internationals less to play smash and bash (T/20) for a million bucks in India. Cricket needs an even playing schedule and fair funding or the richer and stronger will prevail and the weaker nations will fade away. Soon there will only be four of five test playing nations who will hardly ever play tests and true cricket will join the dinosaurs. I realise the BCCI generate more money but what do you expect with 1/7 of the worlds population. That is just the way it is and we all need to help out a bit sometimes, that's what being human is about... isn't it?

  • soumyas on January 27, 2014, 7:14 GMT

    If they monopolise cricket, if it is made just a business, like every other business if it is in loss cricket is at stake. We fans want exciting,quality cricket and brave cricketers. not profitable business for BCCI. Even if they BCCI make lot of money what will they give to Indian fans ? nothing, it becomes pocket money for few administrators, but we fans have to go through, IPL tickets costing minimum Rs. 1000, no proper rest rooms at stadiums, ticket sales are not transparent, fans waiting for tickets in queue for hours get beaten by police, too many advertisements between overs in TV, first ball and the last ball of the over is telecasted half, replay will be shown after commercial break, every series is broadcasted by different channel and every time we have to subscribe again, remaining subscribed channels become nearly waste, also some IPL team players get selected to Indian team despite their fialure.

  • NickHere on January 27, 2014, 7:12 GMT

    Let me ask 1 thing. Why can't all the boards just refuse to play against india. So india will be left with playing with itself? It's revenues will drop like a rock. This sort of indian bullying is nonsense. It is going to destroy cricket unless the other boards don't take a stand. When will they realize that india needs ICC more than ICC needs india.

  • Testcricfan on January 27, 2014, 7:12 GMT

    BCCI, the bully boy that it is, has taken a stand and it is now upto others to state their positions...small countries like WI, NZ have been greatly disadvantaged due to the time zone differences with the subcontinent, resulting in much lesser rights money from TV companies. Nobody will stay up to watch,say a NZ Vs WI test in India, that's the reality, so its no good planning more than 1 such uneconomic test...If members keep playing per current FTP & keep loosing money, is it fair to expect ICC to foot the loss, like they had to do few years ago with Zim? Its better to be pragmatic and play tours with 1 Test, 3 ODIs & 3 T20s to be financially viable. In order to provide more cricket for the smaller teams, they should be subject to an alternate 3-yr FTP window, instead of the current 4 yr cycle - meaning they get to host 3 tours per year - with atleast one tour every yr from the big 3 having min 2 test matches. This way, a smaller team like NZ can host 4 tests, 9 ODIs & 9 T20s per yr.

  • BabaSahgal on January 27, 2014, 7:06 GMT

    A truly meritocratic system is a myth. Cricket is a privileged sport at the best of times and a class sport at the worst. The twain only meet incidentally sometimes. If Statsguru can come up with a stat of all people who play and 've played cricket for India and its states, u 'll get my point.

  • Naresh28 on January 27, 2014, 7:04 GMT

    ARROGANCE - we Indian fans dont like all this talk. Cricket is played by lots of member teams and affiliates. Why change the status quo.

  • CherryWood_Champion on January 27, 2014, 7:02 GMT

    @Tuanee Asifuu Rassool: If Australia plays all its matches Overseas in India / SL / Pakistan ... it would also probably in 12`th position based on the drubbing they got.

  • heathrf1974 on January 27, 2014, 7:01 GMT

    It seems to me (with the exception of Australia and England), that test cricket is more of a expense than revenue for the test nations, whereas limited overs cricket is the revenue. So if this goes through, which is far from ideal, the other five nations will need to increase their limited overs matches in order to increase their revenue. I feel 2 test series will become common place. Again, although that is not ideal, it may be the only way for some of the cricketing nations to be financially viable.

  • HMTAHIR on January 27, 2014, 6:59 GMT

    When money talks truth remains silent.This adage has been true all the time.I agree with Mr Bal that had South Africa also been added to the troika,it is improbable if they would have refused.Same can be said about all other countries which have been left no choice than falling in place.India does seem to have a case as for as financial cosiderations.It is true that it takes two to tango,but all countries want to play India and almost beg for the honour.The best that the other boards can bargain for now is democratic elections for top positions,scrapping of relegation clause and gurantee of FTP's.Let the troka control the finances till such time when other boards start feeling that they can sustain their cricket without doles and begging for a favour of a match /series.No veto powers or immunity to any country.Let us preseve the democratic sham of being equals and not cause total humiliation of financially weak countries.

  • Ozzz.z on January 27, 2014, 6:56 GMT

    OMG cricket as we know it will be over if the BCCI have any control. Oh well hope the Aussie CA wake up to this

  • muzika_tchaikovskogo on January 27, 2014, 6:33 GMT

    I fear Sambit is right. The mostly likely course of action is that the proposals will go through and India will announce tours to countries that support the motion- most likely meaningless ODIs. It'll leave all boards financially better off and the game worse off, unless the others invest those funds in improving their infrastructure (I wouldn't count on that).

  • on January 27, 2014, 6:25 GMT

    Who is asking BCCI to give away its money? Is BCCI doling its money to other countries? If they have huge following in India and billions of Dollars, why should they dominate ICC?

    Let ICC function for its cause and BCCI for its cause, i.e. to earn more and more money.

    I think ECB and CA would ditch India at some time and it would be India which would be left alone in the world. BCCI would be full of money, but no takers.

  • jbentham on January 27, 2014, 6:16 GMT

    @anilkp: You would also do well to read the article again. Mr. Sambit Bal stated that it yet remains to be determined where BCCI arrived at the magical figure of 80%. As he states, it probably reflects total advertising revenue and tv rights. Not TICKET SALES, as you would suggest. Indeed, if this is the case, it would not be fair to suggest that this money would disappear if india were to not play cricket anymore because cricket is about competition and quality. And it would be worse off without the competition that India gives to the game. However, there are some quality teams out there which deserve to be paid their fair due as well, for enhancing all competitions with Ind, Aus or Eng. If you think that India can continue generating this alleged "80%" without international teams and players, it would be imprudent.

  • GlobalCricketLover on January 27, 2014, 6:13 GMT

    Matches involving India might be generating 80% of revenue for ICC, but keep in mind that if India is not playing other nations where will the revenue come from? Ranji matches are played in empty stadiums with only stray dogs watching them. If cricket alone is important to fans wont these matches be sold out??? they wont, because it's only the international oppositions that make it interesting. While there is no reason to dispute 80%, it is definitely the presence of India and another international team that makes the revenue....not India alone.

  • NP_NY on January 27, 2014, 6:07 GMT

    BCCI wanting a bigger share in the revenue is not so outrageous. Indian cricket generates 75% of the cricket revenue, so BCCI thinks they want a larger percentage of the pie. What makes me angry is that they make these decisions (such as putting ICC events on the line) without taking the main source of revenue into consideration - the Indian cricket fans! The only way the BCCI can be controlled is if the Indian cricket fans act as a unified organization. Otherwise there will be no cricket revolution!

  • on January 27, 2014, 5:59 GMT

    i do not want to watch cricket anymore because it is not a sport but a financial circus.Tennis and football are far more real, unbiased and competitive. bye bye to cricket

  • TheOnlyEmperor on January 27, 2014, 5:45 GMT

    "The BCCI can be accused of many things, but not, in this case at least, of subterfuge. Either it doesn't care about its public image, or doesn't know how to build one. It employs neither media managers nor spin masters."

    The media in England and Australia stand behind the actions of their boards, especially when it concerns international matters. The Indian media has a long way to go and is yet to learn to stand by its people.

  • on January 27, 2014, 5:44 GMT

    @Cpt.Meanster: i would like to oppose your thought to an extent. In the recent years the nos are increasing who are focussing on other sports as well in India. We had world no.2 badminton player, which is a popular sport too. we have been performing quite well in Boxing, Wrestling and Shooting too. Its all about how these sports are promoted by the respective agencies managing them. IHL and IBL have been a hit too. You maybe right but only to an extent as you buy usually whats promoted

  • getsetgopk on January 27, 2014, 5:42 GMT

    Cricket will be strangeled and confined to just a handful of countries. With no relegation for the three, rankings would be useless and thus test cricket will be useless and soon enough, test cricket will be reduced to only England and Australia. Every other ICC event will be played in India, on dead boring run fest of wickets and thus limited overs cricket will become a waste of time. Seeing it time and again and people will lose sense of competition, all matches will have a familiar pattern of how they start and end, like the IPL. Once cricket is left at the mercy of market dynamics, there will be no going back. Once at the mercy of money, these business men will look for more and more and like many business, once it stops producing enough profit, they'll just shut shop and invest in something else. Democracy and meritocracy will be shreded to pieces. My prediction is that within less than a decade, cricket will loose its shine, stagnate and eventually start to stink.

  • Yousuf.hatim on January 27, 2014, 5:39 GMT

    Let the money be with BCCI and let the competition be open for all . BCCI needs money and we want cricket of 90's as said by the editor . 1990's cricket was really something to watch !!

  • on January 27, 2014, 5:37 GMT

    anilkp: Will you just stop already? That India brings in more than 80% of the money is despite the BCCI! It is just because of the fanatic fan following in India; nothing really that BCCI has done. Despite all the big earnings, has BCCI done enough to improve the experience of watching a Cricket match at a stadium? The BCCI has just stumbled on this gold mine and is just milking the hell out of it. Is this the way to show leadership by threatening to boycott ICC tournaments? What is next? That India will not tour anywhere?

  • on January 27, 2014, 5:22 GMT

    The international Olympic committee,FIFA,World rugby Federation and the world hockey federation must be happy that Indians are not good on these sports,if not these boards too will be messed up like ICC,its the typical indian attitude as said by Sri Lanka ex-captain Arjuna Ranatunge.bangladesh cricket will be in receiving end since they are in 10th position.Imagine if Indians had played all their test matches overseas,they would probably in 12th position based on drubbing they got in Autralia 4-0 and in England 4-0 in test matches.

  • anilkp on January 27, 2014, 4:55 GMT

    Raj Sundaram, did you read this article completely? Give me one reason why Indian fans should boycott cricket. Give me one reason why India (BCCI), which generates a huge sum of money, should give away its earnings. Do you (or any other BCCI-basher in the world) donate >80% of your income? Why must not the other boards try to generate and manage their funds? Why must they all crave for a chunk of pie that India bakes--with help of its hard-working fans who spend their dear money? Make no mistake, India is the bread-earner of global cricket. India/BCCI deserves to dominate--no problem if it takes ECB and CA along.

  • on January 27, 2014, 4:29 GMT

    Sports will survive India is scared that no new can be explored that's the soul reason they want this proposal Crown Prince of Dubai has given his indication that he wants to the city world sporting hub his cricket as well which is played and loved by 50% of expats population. Cricket will survive with out it will find new market. India cant be trusted since they betrayed Srilanka,Bangladesh in the recent past

  • on January 27, 2014, 4:29 GMT

    It's not just the cricket world which is governed by expedience and self-interest. In other walks of life such as politics and business those with financial clout abuse power and get away all the time. That's the nature of the world that we live in. The BCCI is merely acting the way anyone would if they had that much money.

  • Neel_123 on January 27, 2014, 4:22 GMT

    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 800 $ for community and (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.

    Good on you BCCI, get your FAIR share from ICC!

  • on January 27, 2014, 4:18 GMT

    The Kerry Packer saga rocked world cricket in the 1970s & exposed the faults of the England/Australia control of world cricket. World cricket missed a chance way back then, to come together and break away from English central control and former a strong ICC. This is what FIFA did when Joe Havelange became the 1st non European president. They became independent from England and today the FIFA is proper, functioning, sports governing body.

    But India's financial rise since the 1983 world cup has exposed the incompetence of the ICC in last 10-15 years. This is another chance for cricket to finally make the ICC a independent governing body. England & Australia need to have a change of mind, organize the rest of the boards & rise up against India. Then see if India will really break way from World Cricket.

  • DRS_Flawed_NeedsImprovement on January 27, 2014, 3:55 GMT

    i want to say one thing to the people who are fearing that india could not play against low ranked team if the proposal is approved is COMPLETELY BASELESS. India helped srilanka more than any other nation, india helped zimbabwe by playing against them in zim which generates 9m US dollars. India helped WI by accepting triseries odi proposal. And also encourging Bangladesh to host world cup t20 and now afghanistan is included in asia cup. WHICH COUNTRY PLAYED AGAINST ZIMBABWE RECENTLY OTHER THAN INDIA IN TOP 5? But eng and oz has played 10 meaningless test match between them. Why, not against zim or bang, atleast one?

  • on January 27, 2014, 3:45 GMT

    BCCI can only be brought under control if the Indian public stop supporting Cricket en-masse. But the Indian public just thirsts for entertainment and any type of passive entertainment will suffice - most of the Indian public interested in Cricket is not sophisticated enough to understand the nuances of the games or call BCCI's bluff. So their support for Cricket is not going to tail off and hence the BCCI will use this to their advantage to the fullest.

  • on January 27, 2014, 3:45 GMT

    BCCI can only be brought under control if the Indian public stop supporting Cricket en-masse. But the Indian public just thirsts for entertainment and any type of passive entertainment will suffice - most of the Indian public interested in Cricket is not sophisticated enough to understand the nuances of the games or call BCCI's bluff. So their support for Cricket is not going to tail off and hence the BCCI will use this to their advantage to the fullest.

  • DRS_Flawed_NeedsImprovement on January 27, 2014, 3:55 GMT

    i want to say one thing to the people who are fearing that india could not play against low ranked team if the proposal is approved is COMPLETELY BASELESS. India helped srilanka more than any other nation, india helped zimbabwe by playing against them in zim which generates 9m US dollars. India helped WI by accepting triseries odi proposal. And also encourging Bangladesh to host world cup t20 and now afghanistan is included in asia cup. WHICH COUNTRY PLAYED AGAINST ZIMBABWE RECENTLY OTHER THAN INDIA IN TOP 5? But eng and oz has played 10 meaningless test match between them. Why, not against zim or bang, atleast one?

  • on January 27, 2014, 4:18 GMT

    The Kerry Packer saga rocked world cricket in the 1970s & exposed the faults of the England/Australia control of world cricket. World cricket missed a chance way back then, to come together and break away from English central control and former a strong ICC. This is what FIFA did when Joe Havelange became the 1st non European president. They became independent from England and today the FIFA is proper, functioning, sports governing body.

    But India's financial rise since the 1983 world cup has exposed the incompetence of the ICC in last 10-15 years. This is another chance for cricket to finally make the ICC a independent governing body. England & Australia need to have a change of mind, organize the rest of the boards & rise up against India. Then see if India will really break way from World Cricket.

  • Neel_123 on January 27, 2014, 4:22 GMT

    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 800 $ for community and (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.

    Good on you BCCI, get your FAIR share from ICC!

  • on January 27, 2014, 4:29 GMT

    It's not just the cricket world which is governed by expedience and self-interest. In other walks of life such as politics and business those with financial clout abuse power and get away all the time. That's the nature of the world that we live in. The BCCI is merely acting the way anyone would if they had that much money.

  • on January 27, 2014, 4:29 GMT

    Sports will survive India is scared that no new can be explored that's the soul reason they want this proposal Crown Prince of Dubai has given his indication that he wants to the city world sporting hub his cricket as well which is played and loved by 50% of expats population. Cricket will survive with out it will find new market. India cant be trusted since they betrayed Srilanka,Bangladesh in the recent past

  • anilkp on January 27, 2014, 4:55 GMT

    Raj Sundaram, did you read this article completely? Give me one reason why Indian fans should boycott cricket. Give me one reason why India (BCCI), which generates a huge sum of money, should give away its earnings. Do you (or any other BCCI-basher in the world) donate >80% of your income? Why must not the other boards try to generate and manage their funds? Why must they all crave for a chunk of pie that India bakes--with help of its hard-working fans who spend their dear money? Make no mistake, India is the bread-earner of global cricket. India/BCCI deserves to dominate--no problem if it takes ECB and CA along.

  • on January 27, 2014, 5:22 GMT

    The international Olympic committee,FIFA,World rugby Federation and the world hockey federation must be happy that Indians are not good on these sports,if not these boards too will be messed up like ICC,its the typical indian attitude as said by Sri Lanka ex-captain Arjuna Ranatunge.bangladesh cricket will be in receiving end since they are in 10th position.Imagine if Indians had played all their test matches overseas,they would probably in 12th position based on drubbing they got in Autralia 4-0 and in England 4-0 in test matches.

  • on January 27, 2014, 5:37 GMT

    anilkp: Will you just stop already? That India brings in more than 80% of the money is despite the BCCI! It is just because of the fanatic fan following in India; nothing really that BCCI has done. Despite all the big earnings, has BCCI done enough to improve the experience of watching a Cricket match at a stadium? The BCCI has just stumbled on this gold mine and is just milking the hell out of it. Is this the way to show leadership by threatening to boycott ICC tournaments? What is next? That India will not tour anywhere?

  • Yousuf.hatim on January 27, 2014, 5:39 GMT

    Let the money be with BCCI and let the competition be open for all . BCCI needs money and we want cricket of 90's as said by the editor . 1990's cricket was really something to watch !!