Sohail Speaks Yasir's Blog Fazeer's Focus

User Tag List

Results 1 to 51 of 51
  1. #1
    Debut
    Oct 2004
    Runs
    136,888
    Mentioned
    2631 Post(s)
    Tagged
    21 Thread(s)

    "The ICC is just a plaything of the Big Three" : Fazeer Mohammed

    In his latest blog for PakPassion.net, Fazeer Mohammed expresses his opinions about the control that the Big 3 exercise over world cricket, South Africa's current woes in international cricket, Phil Simmons second stint as coach of the West Indies and why the weight of expectations on the shoulders of Pakistan's young fast-bowlers could be detrimental for their progress.


    Name:  ICC_logo.jpg
Views: 43571
Size:  34.2 KB


    It’s not very often that an iconic venue perfectly symbolises what that sport represents.

    In cricket though, Lord’s, with a surface that would be condemned as unsatisfactory anywhere else in the world, typifies almost exactly the uneven playing field which is, was and probably always will be the defining characteristic of what many still laughably refer to as the “gentleman’s game.”

    And the gradient just keeps getting steeper, as exemplified in the latest attempt by the cartel of India, England and Australia to stage a four-nation One-Day International series in defiance of a convention presumably introduced by the International Cricket Council (ICC) to discourage tournaments rivalling their global events.

    Then again, the ICC is just a plaything of the “Big Three,” so any of the rules and conventions agreed to there are really for the rest of us beggars of the cricketing world to be kept in line or suffer the ultimate consequence of being locked out of the money-spinning competitions featuring the game’s traditional rivals and its economic powerhouse.

    And that’s essentially what the idea of the fourth team in that proposed event is all about: a tantalising prospect for the rest of the cricketing nations all jostling for attention and kissing up to the lords of the game for the precious invitation to their breakaway event. It is classic divide and rule and everyone knows it, even if publicly they will say otherwise.

    Wouldn’t it be nice to think that the other nine Full Member nations could band together for the real good of the game and refuse to the kowtow to the demands of the cricketing mafia? It sounds heroic but in the harsh reality of the international cricket environment, where revenue is essentially controlled by that trio, no national administration will sacrifice financial viability for principle because the same fans outraged at the injustice will burn effigies of administrators who stand their ground at the cost of matches against cricket’s ruthless godfathers.

    As I just said, we know all of this already, so what’s the point of going on about it? I don’t know really. As one well-meaning off-screen personality intimately involved in television coverage of the international game once told me: you can make all the noise you want about the inherent injustices at the elite level of the sport, nothing is going to change because the power-brokers like it so and the rest who rely on the power-brokers lack the will to effect real change.

    So let’s move on.

    While South Africa will be counted among those nations battling to stay afloat financially, their performances on the field in the nearly 29 years since re-admission have generally been of the very highest standard, even with that constant label of “chokers” when it comes to major tournament finals (with the exception of the inaugural Champions Trophy in 1998).

    Now though the picture is a very grim one.

    A 3-1 home Test series loss to England is just the latest setback for the Proteas, made all the more significant in that it occurred under the stewardship of new head coach Mark Boucher, the outstanding former wicketkeeper-batsman whose career was ended by a freak eye injury during the 2012 tour of England.

    There will continue to be mixed views on top former players stepping into the role of coaches. Some will say playing experience at the highest level is essential to fully appreciate and respond to the challenges faced by contemporary cricketers. It is also believed that possessing such a pedigree immediately commands greater regard and respect in the dressing room.

    Obviously though it doesn’t guarantee positive results. Often it is the man-management skills of the coach, more than his playing record, which makes all the difference. Take the West Indies situation for example since Phil Simmons has returned for a second stint as head coach after being unceremoniously sacked by the previous Cricket West Indies administration less than halfway into a three-year contract.

    By any standard the record of the former opening batsman is mediocre (22.26 average from 26 Tests and 28.93 from 143 One-Day Internationals). Yet as in his first term as West Indies coach and subsequent assignments with Ireland and Afghanistan, Simmons is making a noticeable difference to the Caribbean side’s level of competitiveness.

    They pushed India hard in a three-match ODI series in India in December, and while they should have shown a greater level of ruthlessness at home to the Irish in January in ODIs and T20Is, it is obvious the players are more comfortable and better motivated under Simmons’ stewardship (and with the support of the experienced Kieron Pollard as captain in the white ball formats) than was evident in the chaotic year since Australian Stuart Law gave up the job in the midst of a sub-continental tour.

    Of course this is no guarantee of long-term success, and the next Test assignment – three matches in England in June – followed by the defence of the World T20 crown in Australia in October will give a clearer picture on whether Simmons’ role as West Indies coach refutes or supports the argument for former greats as coaches.

    Finally, congratulations to Rohail Nazir and his team in reaching a ninth semi-final in the 13 editions of the Under 19 Cricket World Cup. Whatever happens in the eagerly anticipated clash with arch-rivals India for a place in the final, the young men in green have reinforced the belief in the abundant youthful talent produced by Pakistan year after year.

    Often the greater task, and sometimes an insurmountable one, is to translate the age-group success to consistent senior level performances. That is where a bit of patience comes in because it can take time for all that ability to reach full flower in the senior ranks.

    There’s no doubt that, once handled properly, pacers Naseem Shah and Shaheen Shah Afridi can serve Pakistan cricket with distinction for many years to come. They appear to have all the fundamental attributes required for consistent success. But they are still teenagers with a lot to learn in the game and a lot of physical and mental development to take place before they get anywhere close to becoming the finished article.

    Burdening them too soon with the weight of expectation can be extremely damaging to their careers.
    Last edited by MenInG; 1st February 2020 at 19:04.


    For the latest updates on Cricket, follow @PakPassion on Twitter

  2. #2
    Debut
    Oct 2004
    Runs
    136,888
    Mentioned
    2631 Post(s)
    Tagged
    21 Thread(s)
    Brilliant piece of writing by Fazeer - the comments on the Big 3 hegemony are spot on and ICC need to look into it if they dont want the organization to become a laughing stock.


    For the latest updates on Cricket, follow @PakPassion on Twitter

  3. #3
    Debut
    Apr 2010
    Runs
    1,395
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Yes! Love that he said it. Go Fazeer. Hope more people would come out and say it too.

  4. #4
    Debut
    Jan 2020
    Venue
    Sydney
    Runs
    313
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    i don't get this moaning about big 3.. its like complaining about western economies and nations having better economies and quality of life because the rule of law is followed there.. Nothing is stopping Pakistan, South Africa, Bangladesh to have better administration and make more money...Even Zimbabwe troubles are self made instead of big 3.

  5. #5
    Debut
    Jan 2020
    Venue
    Sydney
    Runs
    313
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Include Sri lanka as well.. massive interest in the game but inept administration.. No wonder Sanga and Mahela stay away from such system.. big 3 did not contribute to that..

  6. #6
    Debut
    Sep 2012
    Runs
    87,887
    Mentioned
    6774 Post(s)
    Tagged
    38 Thread(s)
    The big three dominance is earned. They deserve to be where they are today.

    For those who cannot stop crying about their hegemony, I will quote Aristotle.

    “The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.”

  7. #7
    Debut
    Dec 2018
    Venue
    San Ramon
    Runs
    431
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Economy is a plaything of 1 nation till 2000, now probably 2 or 3, Military power is a plaything of just 2 nations, may be 2.5 if we count China. Baseball and Basketball both are owned by just one country, Rugby is a plaything of 3-4. Both TT, Badminton are plaything of just 2-3.

    What’s so special about cricket that probably has a total of 5-6 nations really playing.

    Why this whining? Put more effort and investment. Make yourself counted. Sponsor an an annual 50 million dollar tournament to be played in Karachi. You will own ICC too.
    Last edited by MenInG; 2nd February 2020 at 14:24. Reason: watch your language

  8. #8
    Debut
    Oct 2010
    Runs
    29,606
    Mentioned
    451 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Probably why other teams are struggling to produce exciting talents. Look at NZ or SA. Not much to look for. Cricket will definitely regress further unless ICC breaks this monopoly in cricket.

  9. #9
    Debut
    Jan 2020
    Venue
    Sydney
    Runs
    313
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MRSN View Post
    Probably why other teams are struggling to produce exciting talents. Look at NZ or SA. Not much to look for. Cricket will definitely regress further unless ICC breaks this monopoly in cricket.
    NZ is a super rich first world country... they reached finals of the world cup this year..

  10. #10
    Debut
    Dec 2018
    Venue
    San Ramon
    Runs
    431
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    No other sport association distributes so much funds to non-contributing countries as ICC. ICC is a tax on India and also England that needs to be abolished. Just like World Bank, Voting rights in ICC needs to be proportionate to Funds one contributes.

    It’s laughable that Kenya, Pakistan and Bangladesh have same voting rights as India; though the first three are just drains on ICC resources.
    Last edited by Babbar; 2nd February 2020 at 15:06.

  11. #11
    Debut
    Dec 2015
    Runs
    4,471
    Mentioned
    129 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Babbar View Post
    No other sport association distributes so much funds to non-contributing countries as ICC. ICC is a tax on India and also England that needs to be abolished. Just like World Bank, Voting rights in ICC needs to be proportionate to Funds one contributes.

    It’s laughable that Kenya, Pakistan and Bangladesh have same voting rights as India; though the first three are just drains on ICC resources.
    What a load of nonsense. Just for your information, in FIFAs latest published financial year Tahiti got over 2.5x as large a distribution as Spain.

  12. #12
    Debut
    Feb 2015
    Venue
    New York
    Runs
    1,112
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yeah, why blame ICC/ Big 3 for sheer incompetence of the boards to earn revenues? SA, WI, Zim are all victims of mismanagement/political interference while NZ cricket is facing severe crunch because of competition from other sports - none of which can be attributed to ICC.

    Maybe other boards should take a leaf from BCCI books who fixed their own house to beat the Eng-Aussie duopoly.

  13. #13
    Debut
    Mar 2016
    Venue
    Sheffield
    Runs
    33,430
    Mentioned
    454 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Big 3 are looking after their own house and ensure they are developing players for the future. The other boards need to take responsibility for the state they are in.

  14. #14
    Debut
    Jun 2017
    Runs
    1,124
    Mentioned
    56 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by HitWicket View Post
    What a load of nonsense. Just for your information, in FIFAs latest published financial year Tahiti got over 2.5x as large a distribution as Spain.
    Does FIFA earn money the same way as ICC? Are friendlies in football as big a source of income for footballing nations as bilaterals in cricket?

  15. #15
    Debut
    Dec 2015
    Runs
    4,471
    Mentioned
    129 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AMSS View Post
    Does FIFA earn money the same way as ICC?
    In general yes, the majority of their income coming from TV rights sales and sponsorship.

    Are friendlies in football as big a source of income for footballing nations as bilaterals in cricket?
    In terms of proportion of their income I'd assume domestic leagues take up a greater proportion that they do in cricket in many countries.

  16. #16
    Debut
    Jan 2020
    Venue
    Sydney
    Runs
    313
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by HitWicket View Post
    In general yes, the majority of their income coming from TV rights sales and sponsorship.



    In terms of proportion of their income I'd assume domestic leagues take up a greater proportion that they do in cricket in many countries.
    No.. they don't earn much in bilateral friendlies... Your assumption is wrong. the volume of people watching is too less.. I lived in Spain for 2 years during the time Spanish team won World cup and Euro..
    No one bothered to watch friendlies.. and teams also use them to try out new players.
    League football has the most eyeballs and lots of money..
    But ICC is different.. And again, if the countries administration is a screw up and corrupt.. why should India, Australia and England fund for development of their players.. Even Football teams don't do that.

  17. #17
    Debut
    Dec 2015
    Runs
    4,471
    Mentioned
    129 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by chazam View Post
    No.. they don't earn much in bilateral friendlies... Your assumption is wrong. the volume of people watching is too less.. I lived in Spain for 2 years during the time Spanish team won World cup and Euro..
    No one bothered to watch friendlies.. and teams also use them to try out new players.
    League football has the most eyeballs and lots of money..
    But ICC is different.. And again, if the countries administration is a screw up and corrupt.. why should India, Australia and England fund for development of their players.. Even Football teams don't do that.
    Congratulations, you have managed to repeat exactly what I said in my post above...?

    I'm still not sure what the relevance of that is, we're discussing how the ICC/FIFAs funds are distributed.

  18. #18
    Debut
    Jun 2017
    Runs
    1,124
    Mentioned
    56 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by HitWicket View Post
    In general yes, the majority of their income coming from TV rights sales and sponsorship.



    In terms of proportion of their income I'd assume domestic leagues take up a greater proportion that they do in cricket in many countries.
    Exactly. So this entire comparison with FIFA is a nonstarter. The day BCCI (and others) starts organizing a 8 month IPL, like Spain's La Liga, unencumbered from ICC bilateral and global tournament commitments, we can start talking about ICC handing NZ and Ireland 3 times the amount they spare for India.

  19. #19
    Debut
    Dec 2015
    Runs
    4,471
    Mentioned
    129 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AMSS View Post
    Exactly. So this entire comparison with FIFA is a nonstarter. The day BCCI (and others) starts organizing a 8 month IPL, like Spain's La Liga, unencumbered from ICC bilateral and global tournament commitments, we can start talking about ICC handing NZ and Ireland 3 times the amount they spare for India.
    Like I said though FIFAs income is made up in pretty much the same way as the ICCs, how other associations make their own money shouldn't come into how the world governing body distribute theirs. The BCCI are free to cram in a 380 game tournament into a year around the international calendar if they think they can make it profitable.

  20. #20
    Debut
    Jun 2017
    Runs
    1,124
    Mentioned
    56 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by HitWicket View Post
    Like I said though FIFAs income is made up in pretty much the same way as the ICCs, how other associations make their own money shouldn't come into how the world governing body distribute theirs. The BCCI are free to cram in a 380 game tournament into a year around the international calendar if they think they can make it profitable.
    FIFA and ICC, both of them earning their income from TV rights isn't the point at all. FIFA doesn't compel major footballing nations to play global tournaments as often as ICC. Second, friendlies in football do not eat up the calendar like bilaterals in cricket. Nor do FIFA have any role in organizing friendlies between nations.

    Cricket has a fundamentally different structure. If BCCI were to make 90 percent of its profit from IPL, it won't have a problem with bigger payout for smaller nations either. The ICC cannot profit from BCCI committing its players and resources for its global events without handing India its legitimate share.


  21. #21
    Debut
    Dec 2015
    Runs
    4,471
    Mentioned
    129 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    FIFA doesn't compel major footballing nations to play global tournaments as often as ICC.
    Completely global, perhaps not, but there's still a world cup every 4 years, the qualifying tournaments for the world cup, regional tournaments like the euros every 4 years (which have their own qualifying processes), the nations league every other year etc.

    Nor do FIFA have any role in organizing friendlies between nations.
    Neither do the ICC.

  22. #22
    Debut
    Jun 2017
    Runs
    1,124
    Mentioned
    56 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by HitWicket View Post
    Completely global, perhaps not, but there's still a world cup every 4 years, the qualifying tournaments for the world cup, regional tournaments like the euros every 4 years (which have their own qualifying processes), the nations league every other year etc.



    Neither do the ICC.
    Imagine an incomparably global sport like football doesn't have its governing body forcing powerhouse footballing nations to compete in global tournaments every year. That's what ICC does.

    ICC isn't removed from bilaterals given that members sit together and thrash out FTP (with test championship at stake) under its auspices. FIFA doesn't do this for friendlies. India still plays bilaterals with Windies and Zimbabwe and NZ and what have you every few years. When was the last time any of the European footballing nations invited India (forget Pakistan) for a football friendly?

    Amazes me that you are unable to comprehend this elementary point.

  23. #23
    Debut
    Dec 2015
    Runs
    4,471
    Mentioned
    129 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AMSS View Post
    Imagine an incomparably global sport like football doesn't have its governing body forcing powerhouse footballing nations to compete in global tournaments every year. That's what ICC does.

    ICC isn't removed from bilaterals given that members sit together and thrash out FTP (with test championship at stake) under its auspices. FIFA doesn't do this for friendlies. India still plays bilaterals with Windies and Zimbabwe and NZ and what have you every few years. When was the last time any of the European footballing nations invited India (forget Pakistan) for a football friendly?

    Amazes me that you are unable to comprehend this elementary point.
    India are free to reject playing the West Indies and Zimbabwe outside of the WTC and new ODI league that they voted in favour of taking place, where they are allowed to negotiate/dictate when the games will be played. International teams are generally competing in international tournaments every year in football as well.

  24. #24
    Debut
    Jun 2017
    Runs
    1,124
    Mentioned
    56 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by HitWicket View Post
    India are free to reject playing the West Indies and Zimbabwe outside of the WTC and new ODI league that they voted in favour of taking place, where they are allowed to negotiate/dictate when the games will be played. International teams are generally competing in international tournaments every year in football as well.
    At this point, you don't even know what you are talking about.

  25. #25
    Debut
    Dec 2015
    Runs
    4,471
    Mentioned
    129 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AMSS View Post
    At this point, you don't even know what you are talking about.
    A convenient cop-out to avoid responding to any of the points I'm making. Feel free to point out where anything I've said is incorrect.

  26. #26
    Debut
    Jun 2017
    Runs
    1,124
    Mentioned
    56 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by HitWicket View Post
    A convenient cop-out to avoid responding to any of the points I'm making. Feel free to point out where anything I've said is incorrect.
    You have literally not disputed a single point from me.

    Does the FIFA control football the same way as ICC? No.

    Does the FIFA earn money from organizing global tournaments every year? NO

    Do the big footballing nations share profits with nations like India (and Pakistand and SL, and ....) by playing friendlies against them? NO

    Do the cricketing nations have the same window as big footballing nations to run domestic leagues? NO

    Given the above, why would ICC share revenues the way FIFA does?

    But I have learnt enough to know you have no interest in reasoned arguments so feel free to have the last word.

  27. #27
    Debut
    Oct 2016
    Runs
    16,841
    Mentioned
    480 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mamoon View Post
    The big three dominance is earned. They deserve to be where they are today.

    For those who cannot stop crying about their hegemony, I will quote Aristotle.

    “The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.”
    It was obviously well said by Aristotle. However, what that statement can be applied to varies. Even if we talk about it from economics point of view biggest revolutions and revolts happened when disparity reached a certain level. I don’t believe in forcing the ones at the top down to create an illusion of equality but surely governments can play a role for the ones at the bottom who can be provided with enough oppurtunities and support to climb up.

    Coming to cricket, ICCs role isnt to make things equal by pushing down the ones at the top but the least they can do is to provide assistance to the ones at the bottom to stand up. Allowing separate windows to big three and much more matches will obviously keep on making the difference steeper and steeper unless other cricket playing nations are also provided with atleast the opportunities to grow. Yes if certain boards are poorly managed then thats their fault but its ICCs job to keep on providing equal opportunities to even those member boards.

    As Fazeer has indicated the steeper the gradient will be, more will be chances of either cricket finishing in the teams below or a revolt for survival. What the top 3 are getting, they might have deserved it but if the cricket in other nations touches rock bottom which it is on the way for some than even the top ones will have something to think about in the long run as there wont be as big a pie as before.

  28. #28
    Debut
    Dec 2015
    Runs
    4,471
    Mentioned
    129 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    For the sake of this thread I'm going to consider events organised by the regional management boards such as UEFA given they distribute their funds in a similar fashion to FIFA.

    Quote Originally Posted by AMSS View Post
    Does the FIFA control football the same way as ICC? No.
    Clearly not in completely the same fashion but in general? Yes. In fact even more so in recent times. Both boards have set up longer-term tournaments with allocated fixtures to try and counter the irrelevance of bilaterals/friendlies.

    Quote Originally Posted by AMSS View Post
    Does the FIFA earn money from organizing global tournaments every year? NO
    The world cup, regional tournaments like the Euros (operated by UEFA with the same distribution style) the nations league and qualifiers means there are tournaments every year. Whether teams are pooled into these tournaments/groups depending on their location is irrelevant

    Quote Originally Posted by AMSS View Post
    Do the big footballing nations share profits with nations like India (and Pakistand and SL, and ....) by playing friendlies against them? NO
    We've been over this, India don't have to play anyone they don't want to outside the WTC and new ODI league. The only reason they play with teams like Zimbabwe is to buy their vote which they'll then ironically use to reduce the funding given to the smaller nations, not a particularly pleasant cycle.

    Quote Originally Posted by AMSS View Post
    Do the cricketing nations have the same window as big footballing nations to run domestic leagues? NO
    As I've also said before, India are free to cut down on their international commitments outside the WTC and ODI league (and even inside it by reducing the number of games they play in each series) to play more domestic cricket.

  29. #29
    Debut
    Dec 2018
    Venue
    San Ramon
    Runs
    431
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AMSS View Post
    Exactly. So this entire comparison with FIFA is a nonstarter. The day BCCI (and others) starts organizing a 8 month IPL, like Spain's La Liga, unencumbered from ICC bilateral and global tournament commitments, we can start talking about ICC handing NZ and Ireland 3 times the amount they spare for India.
    Thank you! So this whole discussion is about how to rob the Indian economy (most money comes from India, BCCI or not).

    Grow up! This attitude is not going to bring Pakistan to the top. It’s just rent seeking behaviour where India should pay to Pakistan for the privilege of playing with them. Pakistan’s ranking, players quality, players’ wealth etc tanked once India stopped playing with them. It hurts somewhere.

    None of the current Pak players are as good, as rich or as popular as those in 90s/2000s. Playing against India made IK into Prime Minister; Miandad, Shoaib, Wasim and even Amir legends. None of the current players will be called legend till India agrees to play bilaterals.

    Now in the absence of bi-laterals, by hook or crook, trying to get ICC to force India to pay - directly, through flimsy law suits, through equal revenue sharing, fake youtube praises, blackmails (not playing in or WTC or T20 WC) etc. Anything will do as long as some money is handed over.

    Pakistan board needs to introspect. Else what goes of anyone else’s father.

  30. #30
    Debut
    Jun 2017
    Runs
    1,124
    Mentioned
    56 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    LMAO @HitWicket , did you seriously use the example of UEFA? I mean, I should say thanks for making my point for me. Let me help you understand, UEFA's profits stay within Europe. FIFA has SFA to do with it. The poorest footballing nations do not see a penny from it.

    It'd be similar to BCCI, CA and ECB playing annual tournaments among themselves without sharing the proceeds with the rest. The rest of the board can play their own tournament but would they be viable financially? No.

    Therefore, best to restrict FIFA with ICC without bringing in regional footballing boards. For the Nth time, ICC cannot make BCCI play global tournaments every year, and perpetuate a structure where there's no football-like window for domestic cricket leagues and expect BCCI to be charitable when it comes to revenue sharing.

    Unless FIFA makes England play in global tournaments every year, forces them to play India and Pakistan with profits equally split, you are convincing nobody that ICC should share revenue like FIFA does.

  31. #31
    Debut
    Dec 2015
    Runs
    4,471
    Mentioned
    129 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AMSS View Post
    LMAO @HitWicket , did you seriously use the example of UEFA? I mean, I should say thanks for making my point for me. Let me help you understand, UEFA's profits stay within Europe. FIFA has SFA to do with it. The poorest footballing nations do not see a penny from it.

    It'd be similar to BCCI, CA and ECB playing annual tournaments among themselves without sharing the proceeds with the rest. The rest of the board can play their own tournament but would they be viable financially? No.

    Therefore, best to restrict FIFA with ICC without bringing in regional footballing boards. For the Nth time, ICC cannot make BCCI play global tournaments every year, and perpetuate a structure where there's no football-like window for domestic cricket leagues and expect BCCI to be charitable when it comes to revenue sharing.

    Unless FIFA makes England play in global tournaments every year, forces them to play India and Pakistan with profits equally split, you are convincing nobody that ICC should share revenue like FIFA does.
    Yes, I bought up UEFA, a members board where every member gets the same funding each year regardless of their contribution. Every country with a registered football board is part of their own regional members board where the same system applies. The likes of Estonia, San Marino, Kosovo, Albania get the same as the likes of England, Italy, Spain, Germany.

    As I've already mentioned, the BCCI are free to make their own windows to play more domestic cricket. They have similar international commitments to international football teams (a tournament every year or 2 and qualifiers/league-style tournaments running regularly) and can cut down their schedule around that completely if they so wish. On average the ICC require (as voted in favour of by the BCCI) that each year a team has to play 4 test matches and from next year 8 ODIs. Throw in an event of an average length of about 3 weeks each year and India have 9 months total time free to schedule around if they want to focus on domestic cricket, just like international football teams.
    Last edited by HitWicket; 2nd February 2020 at 19:17.

  32. #32
    Debut
    Aug 2013
    Runs
    609
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    So you wants to reduce power of big three, by taking stand against them.
    Also you wants to create cartel of remaining 9 against big 3.
    No one is stopping it, but do not ask big 3 to finance them.

  33. #33
    Debut
    Jun 2017
    Runs
    1,124
    Mentioned
    56 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Sure, UEFA share equally and CA, BCCI and ECB can do the same. Only someone stupefyingly dense would call that equitable. You keep insisting BCCI is free to have as long a domestic window as possible. No, no they are not. This is why I keep bringing in the radically different structure of cricket under ICC vis-a-vis football under FIFA. The cricket boards in SL, Zimbabwe, and even NZ stays afloat only and only because India tours them every 4 years or so. Read up Alistair Campbell recent interview on cricinfo.

  34. #34
    Debut
    Dec 2015
    Runs
    4,471
    Mentioned
    129 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AMSS View Post
    Sure, UEFA share equally and CA, BCCI and ECB can do the same. Only someone stupefyingly dense would call that equitable.
    That's exactly how it would work. The reason the BCCI are proposing a 4 team tournament with Aus, Eng and another is because the funds would be distributed between only those involved (and I think it's safe to assume it wouldn't be an equal split). UEFA split it equally so even their poorest/smallest members get the same (or even more) as their richest/largest members. Just like FIFA.

    Quote Originally Posted by AMSS View Post
    You keep insisting BCCI is free to have as long a domestic window as possible. No, no they are not. This is why I keep bringing in the radically different structure of cricket under ICC vis-a-vis football under FIFA.
    Of course they are. That is the BCCI's decision to make, like I said the ICC only state they need to play on average 4 tests, 8 ODIs and roughly 3 weeks of an international tournament each year. Nothing more than that. If they want to spend the rest of the time playing international cricket rather than more domestic cricket that's up to them.

    The ICCs profits should be used to grow the game and develop it in new areas, not to line the big 3s pockets, that's the role of their own income sources.
    Last edited by HitWicket; 2nd February 2020 at 19:35.

  35. #35
    Debut
    Dec 2015
    Runs
    4,471
    Mentioned
    129 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    To add to that:

    Quote Originally Posted by AMSS
    The cricket boards in SL, Zimbabwe, and even NZ stays afloat only and only because India tours them every 4 years or so. Read up Alistair Campbell recent interview on cricinfo.
    Do you think that's maybe got anything to do with the associates budget being less than half of what it was several years back with a massive amount rerouted to India?
    Last edited by HitWicket; 2nd February 2020 at 19:47.

  36. #36
    Debut
    Dec 2015
    Runs
    4,471
    Mentioned
    129 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Correction:

    Do you think that's a situation that's going to be helped long term by the associates budget being less than half of what it was several years back with a massive amount rerouted to India?* We're just going to end up with more and more teams reliant on bigger nations touring because they've already taken their funding for themselves.
    Last edited by HitWicket; 2nd February 2020 at 19:51.

  37. #37
    Debut
    Jan 2019
    Venue
    India
    Runs
    2,308
    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Play good cricket, build infrastructure, grow in stature, generate great revenue and challenge the hegemony like India did in the 90s. No one's gonna listen to you when your team is mediocre at best, sad but that is how the world rolls.

  38. #38
    Debut
    Jun 2017
    Venue
    Toronto, Canada
    Runs
    2,855
    Mentioned
    214 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Big three bashing is getting quite ridiculous. BCCI or Big three in general never asked for any special window with ICC, correct me if I’m wrong. Big three are free to do with their calendar whatever they wish. They are using fraction of their cricket calendar for potential multi team tournament. Like Big three, rest of the board should think creative and come up with proposals that could potentially increase their revenue. But here people just like to bash big three for even trying.

    Smaller boards don’t want to do anything on their own and would criticize big three for doing something.
    Last edited by CanadianG00se; 3rd February 2020 at 01:32.

  39. #39
    Debut
    Nov 2019
    Runs
    112
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Ah the victim card. It's out again. And what better platform than this to play the card. Never gets old.

  40. #40
    Debut
    Nov 2008
    Runs
    10,278
    Mentioned
    67 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    A question for those in the know:

    ### The big three are “the big three” due to:

    A) Their overall better cricket teams?
    B) Their overall better national economies?
    C) Their overall larger audiences (thereby bigger and more profitable sponsors)?
    D) A combination of AB, BC or CA, or all three
    E) None of the above

    In case of E please explain..

    Thx

  41. #41
    Debut
    Nov 2019
    Runs
    149
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I would gladly take Pakistan joining and making it a Big 4. No reason they can't make it.

  42. #42
    Debut
    Aug 2009
    Venue
    Terrestrial
    Runs
    4,991
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rather than worrying about the big three, we need to improve our own cricket structure. At least for now we have a reputation in the past for producing world class players in not too distant memory so there's something to look forward to and correct.

    Another decade of lalu panju players and board mediocrity will lead to an irreversible collapse.
    Last edited by MenInG; 3rd February 2020 at 13:50.

  43. #43
    Debut
    Jun 2017
    Runs
    19
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    No one had a problem when Aus/eng dominated for over a century with veto powers controlling over 90% of the money and the sub continent was scraping bottom of the barrel to just survive playing the game.
    Last edited by MenInG; 3rd February 2020 at 17:00.

  44. #44
    Debut
    Nov 2019
    Runs
    112
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodamma90 View Post
    No one had a problem when Aus/eng dominated for over a century with veto powers controlling over 90% of the money and the sub continent was scraping bottom of the barrel to just survive playing the game.
    Even now they will not have an iota of problem if it was just England and Australia. They are happy to be slaves under big 2. Can't digest it being a domination of big 3 and particularly the 3rd one in the said troika.

  45. #45
    Debut
    Jan 2005
    Venue
    Orlando, FL
    Runs
    26,471
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Vastunna View Post

    Originally Posted by Bodamma90 View Post
    No one had a problem when Aus/eng dominated for over a century with veto powers controlling over 90% of the money and the sub continent was scraping bottom of the barrel to just survive playing the game.
    Even now they will not have an iota of problem if it was just England and Australia. They are happy to be slaves under big 2. Can't digest it being a domination of big 3 and particularly the 3rd one in the said troika.



    Oh, so it is always because India has joined the 3 evil ones and dominating even the other two original evil ones...that is why everyone else started complaining about the setup/monoply, noiice! Now I get it smh

    Luckily Fazeer is not Pakistani, that basically nulls the general Indian argument that only jealous Pakistanis are the ones complaining...if only 3 teams were needed to have cricket survive, why is it that ICC has been so hell bent on expanding the game to USA, China etc?

    You guys are only happy because India is dominating, the hel.l with the game and all...guess what only BCCI folks and some politicians are reaping the financial rewards, the average Indian gets zilch. If this domination continues, then why even have U19, emerging players, U23, Adia cup etc. Why the heck even England Australia to be there, India can create 5 teams of their own and just play amongst them!

  46. #46
    Debut
    Feb 2014
    Venue
    SW Uk
    Runs
    625
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The other 9 should band together and arrange a massive odi/t20 between themselves maybe a simple best of 3 home and away, all teams one group, everyone plays 4 home 4away, top 4 and final playoff at neutral venues, 5 games played at the countries finishing 5/9
    Logistical nightmare but I'm sure it would be worth the effort for all nations involved

  47. #47
    Debut
    Aug 2018
    Runs
    5,322
    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Poor sook from Fazeer. I like his voice, has a very soothing voice while commentating and is a good analyst of the game.

    But here he is just sooking...Had WI been any good, would he still be sooking about big-3? I bet, no.

  48. #48
    Debut
    Aug 2018
    Runs
    5,322
    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    There are no free lunches in this world. You've to earn them.

    What stops the 'less privileged' boards to play well when they face big-3 and earn recognition and hence moolah?

    Or perhaps, organize their own tours amongst themselves?

  49. #49
    Debut
    Nov 2019
    Runs
    23
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MenInG View Post
    In his latest blog for PakPassion.net, Fazeer Mohammed expresses his opinions about the control that the Big 3 exercise over world cricket, South Africa's current woes in international cricket, Phil Simmons second stint as coach of the West Indies and why the weight of expectations on the shoulders of Pakistan's young fast-bowlers could be detrimental for their progress.


    Name:  ICC_logo.jpg
Views: 43571
Size:  34.2 KB


    It’s not very often that an iconic venue perfectly symbolises what that sport represents.

    In cricket though, Lord’s, with a surface that would be condemned as unsatisfactory anywhere else in the world, typifies almost exactly the uneven playing field which is, was and probably always will be the defining characteristic of what many still laughably refer to as the “gentleman’s game.”

    And the gradient just keeps getting steeper, as exemplified in the latest attempt by the cartel of India, England and Australia to stage a four-nation One-Day International series in defiance of a convention presumably introduced by the International Cricket Council (ICC) to discourage tournaments rivalling their global events.

    Then again, the ICC is just a plaything of the “Big Three,” so any of the rules and conventions agreed to there are really for the rest of us beggars of the cricketing world to be kept in line or suffer the ultimate consequence of being locked out of the money-spinning competitions featuring the game’s traditional rivals and its economic powerhouse.

    And that’s essentially what the idea of the fourth team in that proposed event is all about: a tantalising prospect for the rest of the cricketing nations all jostling for attention and kissing up to the lords of the game for the precious invitation to their breakaway event. It is classic divide and rule and everyone knows it, even if publicly they will say otherwise.

    Wouldn’t it be nice to think that the other nine Full Member nations could band together for the real good of the game and refuse to the kowtow to the demands of the cricketing mafia? It sounds heroic but in the harsh reality of the international cricket environment, where revenue is essentially controlled by that trio, no national administration will sacrifice financial viability for principle because the same fans outraged at the injustice will burn effigies of administrators who stand their ground at the cost of matches against cricket’s ruthless godfathers.

    As I just said, we know all of this already, so what’s the point of going on about it? I don’t know really. As one well-meaning off-screen personality intimately involved in television coverage of the international game once told me: you can make all the noise you want about the inherent injustices at the elite level of the sport, nothing is going to change because the power-brokers like it so and the rest who rely on the power-brokers lack the will to effect real change.

    So let’s move on.

    While South Africa will be counted among those nations battling to stay afloat financially, their performances on the field in the nearly 29 years since re-admission have generally been of the very highest standard, even with that constant label of “chokers” when it comes to major tournament finals (with the exception of the inaugural Champions Trophy in 1998).

    Now though the picture is a very grim one.

    A 3-1 home Test series loss to England is just the latest setback for the Proteas, made all the more significant in that it occurred under the stewardship of new head coach Mark Boucher, the outstanding former wicketkeeper-batsman whose career was ended by a freak eye injury during the 2012 tour of England.

    There will continue to be mixed views on top former players stepping into the role of coaches. Some will say playing experience at the highest level is essential to fully appreciate and respond to the challenges faced by contemporary cricketers. It is also believed that possessing such a pedigree immediately commands greater regard and respect in the dressing room.

    Obviously though it doesn’t guarantee positive results. Often it is the man-management skills of the coach, more than his playing record, which makes all the difference. Take the West Indies situation for example since Phil Simmons has returned for a second stint as head coach after being unceremoniously sacked by the previous Cricket West Indies administration less than halfway into a three-year contract.

    By any standard the record of the former opening batsman is mediocre (22.26 average from 26 Tests and 28.93 from 143 One-Day Internationals). Yet as in his first term as West Indies coach and subsequent assignments with Ireland and Afghanistan, Simmons is making a noticeable difference to the Caribbean side’s level of competitiveness.

    They pushed India hard in a three-match ODI series in India in December, and while they should have shown a greater level of ruthlessness at home to the Irish in January in ODIs and T20Is, it is obvious the players are more comfortable and better motivated under Simmons’ stewardship (and with the support of the experienced Kieron Pollard as captain in the white ball formats) than was evident in the chaotic year since Australian Stuart Law gave up the job in the midst of a sub-continental tour.

    Of course this is no guarantee of long-term success, and the next Test assignment – three matches in England in June – followed by the defence of the World T20 crown in Australia in October will give a clearer picture on whether Simmons’ role as West Indies coach refutes or supports the argument for former greats as coaches.

    Finally, congratulations to Rohail Nazir and his team in reaching a ninth semi-final in the 13 editions of the Under 19 Cricket World Cup. Whatever happens in the eagerly anticipated clash with arch-rivals India for a place in the final, the young men in green have reinforced the belief in the abundant youthful talent produced by Pakistan year after year.

    Often the greater task, and sometimes an insurmountable one, is to translate the age-group success to consistent senior level performances. That is where a bit of patience comes in because it can take time for all that ability to reach full flower in the senior ranks.

    There’s no doubt that, once handled properly, pacers Naseem Shah and Shaheen Shah Afridi can serve Pakistan cricket with distinction for many years to come. They appear to have all the fundamental attributes required for consistent success. But they are still teenagers with a lot to learn in the game and a lot of physical and mental development to take place before they get anywhere close to becoming the finished article.

    Burdening them too soon with the weight of expectation can be extremely damaging to their careers.
    just to reiterate what fazeer is saying who cares about what anyone but the big three are saying
    Last edited by Babar_Azam_fan; 24th February 2020 at 10:58.

  50. #50
    Debut
    Feb 2015
    Runs
    745
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MP2011 View Post
    There are no free lunches in this world. You've to earn them.

    What stops the 'less privileged' boards to play well when they face big-3 and earn recognition and hence moolah?

    Or perhaps, organize their own tours amongst themselves?
    Yes indeed. Why are the "less privileged" boards less privileged. What stops them from becoming privileged ? They basically want the "privileged" boards to do the hard work of earning revenue and help fill the coffers to the so called "less privileged" (read incompetent) boards.

  51. #51
    Debut
    Oct 2004
    Runs
    136,888
    Mentioned
    2631 Post(s)
    Tagged
    21 Thread(s)
    Is it time to challenge the new world order?


    For the latest updates on Cricket, follow @PakPassion on Twitter


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •