Associates swayed by potential larger revenues

Associate and affiliate nations have their doubts about the ICC's revamped governance and financial distribution model and what it means to them, but are optimistic about the benefits that it will bring. What has been communicated to them, through various informal and separate discussions with the heads of the Big Three, is that most ICC members will get twice the amount of their current revenue from the new post-2015 media-rights deal.

The main focus of the new governance model is to ensure that a vast chunk of the earnings from the ICC's bundled media deals do not go into ICC headquarters at Dubai, which one official present at the annual conference described as a "ridiculous" way to disburse revenues.

The numbers being promised from the commercial and media rights are being pegged at US$2.5 billion close to double that of the current 2007-2015 media-rights bundle which is worth $1.5 billion.

Associates were told that of the $2.5b anticipated by the ICC for the 2015- 2023 rights cycle, 32% (around $800m) would be distributed among the ten Full Members. Of this $800m, the share of the Big Three would be as follows: $508m to BCCI, $108m to the ECB and $53m to Cricket Australia. The remainder of the $1.63b would be set aside as event and administration costs. The A&A members expect to receive $207 million between them, with 50% of that going to higher performing countries. The high performing countries are likely to be a group of 13 or 14 countries but that remains to be decided.

The Associates however remain concerned that their presence on the Executive Board, in the form of three members, remains advisory without any voting powers. "There is no indication of how we can actually become FMs," an insider said. However, the Associates and Affiliates "have agreed not to fight the new constitution" because they want to secure extra finance.

Although the bulk of the A&A members will vote in favour of the new constitution, they may yet voice some objection to it. "We have three representatives on the board who can make it clear how we will feel about the changes," the insider said. Should this happen and the smaller nations' grievances are made public, they remain nervous of running the risk of having their funding affected.

One Associate member said that "we will be better off even if the governance model is unethical".