BCCI projected to earn US$ 230m & Pakistan US$ 34.51m per year in ICC's new finance model

[daytrader]

India set to get 38.5% of the US$ 600 million annual earnings in the proposed model for 2024-27 cycle

The ICC's next revenue-distribution model looks set to confirm the BCCI as the only really big player in the game, with the Indian board projected to take home nearly 40% of the ICC's net surplus earnings from its next four-year commercial cycle. The new model, currently at a proposed stage and seen by ESPNcricinfo, draws from much of the rationale that underpinned the short-lived Big Three takeover in 2014, but as far as take-home earnings go, it is more the Big One. The BCCI stands to earn approximately US$ 230 million per year between 2024-27 - or 38.5% of the ICC's annual earnings of US$ 600 million.

That dwarves the next-highest earner, the ECB, in this proposed model: the ECB could earn US$ 41.33 million - or 6.89% - of the ICC's earnings. CA, the third member of the original Big Three, comes next, and could get US$ 37.53 million (6.25%). The only other board projected to make over US$ 30 million among the remaining nine Full Members is the PCB, which could receive US$ 34.51 million (5.75%). The earnings of the remaining eight Full Members are below 5% (see table below). Of the US$ 600 million projected pool, the 12 Full Members will get US$ 532.84 million (88.81%), with the remaining US$ 67.16 million (11.19%) going to the Associate Members.

The overall annual figure is based on the estimated earnings of the ICC - over US$ 3.2 billion - from the sale of its media rights alone, which recently, for the first time, were sold across five separate regions globally including the Indian market. The vast bulk of that money has come from the sale of rights in the Indian market, where Disney Star* paid just over US$ 3 billion for four years.

The four pillars of the proposed model
The proposed model was developed originally by an ICC team and then worked on by the governing body's finance and commercial affairs (F&CA) committee, before being discussed by the ICC Board this March.

At that meeting, it is understood, only some details of the model were shared, including the criteria by which each Full Member would be graded when the distribution was calculated. The paper detailing the proposed model was circulated to the Full Members and board directors thereafter.

Those criteria - "component weightings", the model calls them - are:

Cricket history
Performance in both men's and women's ICC events over the last 16 years
Contribution to the ICC's commercial revenue
And, an equal weightage for the status of being a Full Member

If this feels familiar, then it should, given how closely it resembles the primer drafted nine years ago by the Big Three.

Back then, another F&CA working group (led by the BCCI, ECB and CA) drafted a "position paper" detailing the proposed revamp of the ICC's administration and distribution of its earnings. A major focus of that paper was the distribution costs - the revenue each member would receive - through a graded percentage share, worked out by a "marked scoreboard method". That scoreboard was also based on four parameters: revenue contributed to the ICC, historical membership with the ICC, on-field performance over past 20 years in men's and women's competitions, and domestic development performance.

There are, however, slight differences in this proposed model. Here, every Full Member starts on equal footing, listed to receive an 8.3% share for being a Full Member. But the "effective percentage" each will receive ultimately is based on an average weightage of all four criteria and it quickly changes based on the other three parameters. The key criterion is the commercial value each board brings to the global pot, which is where the scales tilt heavily in favour of the BCCI.

The BCCI has consistently argued that it deserves greater returns from the ICC's revenues because of the contribution India makes to cricket's global economy. The distribution costs was the backbone of the Big Three's finance model, as recognition of every member's role in "contributing to generating ICC's revenues required to sustain the game".

This year's proposed model gives a commercial weightage of 85.3% to the BCCI. Although the document that ESPNcricinfo has doesn't explain how this is worked out, this percentage is in the ballpark of a commonly cited but anecdotal figure, which says that the Indian cricket economy contributes anywhere between 70-80% of the total cricket economy. The territory-wise break-up of the ICC's media rights for this cycle will likely help bolster that argument, given that the amount coming in from the India market - just north of US$ 3 billion - will make up the vast share of whatever is the overall value. The BCCI could argue that such a model would be more accurately commensurate with India's contribution to the global revenue, and the size of the Indian cricket ecosystem.

The next four-year rights deal, believed to be second only to the IPL in cricket, is by a significant factor greater than the US$ 2.1 billion (approximately) the ICC got (from around the world, not just India) from the previous rights cycle, which ran over eight and not four years (2015-2023).

The ICC decided to sell this batch of media rights in different territories globally in the 2024-31 cycle in order to maximise and exploit the commercial value of its world events. The value of the India rights (just over US$ 3 billion) towers over the rest of the world, especially two key markets in the UK and USA. In the UK and Ireland, Sky Sports inked a direct deal with ICC for eight years (2024-31) with an estimated value understood to be close to US$ 260 million. Willow TV secured the four-year rights to broadcast ICC events in the USA and Canada for an undisclosed sum, but it is believed the number fell well short of the expectations the ICC had.

The overall figure from rights will be higher ultimately, because it doesn't yet include the sponsorship and commercial revenues the ICC will generate from the global events, which could go up by another US$ 1 billion-plus.

What are the performance and historical components?
The performance criterion measures Full Members' performance at world events in the last 16 years - both men's and women's - and records an average weightage. This doesn't include the World Test Championship. The yardstick rewards countries that have consistently made the knockouts at ICC events, which is why Australia (21.9%), England (18.5%) and India (17.4%) receive the weightage that they do.

The historical component gives all Full Members an equal percentage share of 6.9%, other than Zimbabwe, Ireland and Afghanistan.

It is understood that one unresolved issue for the F&CA and ICC Board was the allocation of US$ 100 million as an emergency fund. If that amount is approved, the annual earning pie would be shaved to US$ 500 million, which would subsequently affect the individual money each Full Member gets.

BCCI to add nearly a billion dollars over four years
The BCCI will be well-placed if the proposed model, or something close to it, is accepted by the ICC Board. In 2017, the ICC, under the chairmanship of Shashank Manohar, had rolled back the Big Three reforms and put in place a fresh finance model. After being challenged by the BCCI's then bosses, the ICC brokered a deal which guaranteed the BCCI a payout of US$ 405 million over the eight-year period between 2015-23.

While that number was more than the US$ 293 million (net earnings) stated in the initial version of the 2017 finance model, it was still short of the US$ 571.25 million (gross earnings) that the BCCI was assured under the Big Three model. The BCCI was effectively hit by a 34% cut based on net earnings: under the Big Three model, that number would have been US$ 450 million.

The 2017 model, the ICC had stated, was derived from the "guiding principles of equity, good conscience, revenue generated by members, and a recognition of an interdependency among members". It was widely accepted by the ICC Board.

The BCCI stands to make an aggregate earning of US$ 924 million in this four-year cycle (subject to ICC aggregate earnings continuing at US$ 600 million annually), nearly 82% more than second-highest earner, the ECB, which will get about US$ 165 million over the 2024-27 cycle.

What happens next?
ESPNcricinfo understands that Full Members were meant to send their feedback on the proposed model by the first week of May, after which the F&CA will put a final proposal in front of the ICC Board to ratify. The timeline, according to some officials, is for the Board to approve the model during the ICC annual conference in June in Durban, but it isn't clear whether it will pan out that way. Members are expected to pose questions to test the rigour behind some of the calculations in the model, not least the four criteria on which members have been ranked.

How much objection will be raised - and whether it will go beyond questioning - is not immediately apparent. One point that will be discussed is the timeline for the performance parameter: while the proposed version has looked at the last 16 years, some want it changed to 12. In the March meeting, at least one board is understood to have raised concerns about this. Some might ask for more transparency in the calculation of the other weighted components: at least one official from a Full Member board has referred to this being a Big Three repeat and called the calculations arbitrary and reverse-engineered.

But there is a sense among some that there will be less pushback than when the Big Three plan was put in place, as the absolute amounts are significantly higher for all Full Members since the last cycle - because of the increase in overall media rights revenue coming into the ICC. A concurrent dip in broadcast rights values for some Full Members for their bilateral cricket will also no doubt be a factor whenever the model is finalised.

[Hitman]

Well played, BCCI!

[MenInG]

Well played, BCCI!

It's nothing to do with that. The Indian market is huge

[MenInG]

Pakistan getting the highest after the Big 3 - not bad.

[MenInG]

The only other board projected to make over US$ 30 million among the remaining nine full members is the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB), which could receive US$ 34.51 million (5.75%).

The earnings of the remaining eight Full Members are below 5%.

[Front Foot Pull]

before people go and bash india. ICC media rights:
for india for 4 years - 3 billion USD
for UK for 8 years - 260 million USD
AUS will be lesser than UK and other markets are negligible. ~90% from india only.
in revenue generation there is no big 3, only 1. super one.

people might argue it is indian people & not the BCCI who is generating the money but most of that money is generated by the interest to watch this indian team (currently bcci's team).

nothing wrong in BCCI getting bigger pie, they are still contributing. however, i don't mind if their share is restricted to 25% too.

but bigger questions needed to be asked to other countries with population & cricket as no.1 sport i.e. bangladesh, pakistan. why aren't their markets contributing more? what are PCB & BCB doing? why aren't more brains working to increase interest in their market and monetize it?

[MenInG]

How would giving India more money benefit the world game?

If anything other members should get more to develop their own grounds etc.

Not sure.

[emranabbas]

before people go and bash india. ICC media rights:
for india for 4 years - 3 billion USD
for UK for 8 years - 260 million USD
AUS will be lesser than UK and other markets are negligible. ~90% from india only.
in revenue generation there is no big 3, only 1. super one.

people might argue it is indian people & not the BCCI who is generating the money but most of that money is generated by the interest to watch this indian team (currently bcci's team).

nothing wrong in BCCI getting bigger pie, they are still contributing. however, i don't mind if their share is restricted to 25% too.

but bigger questions needed to be asked to other countries with population & cricket as no.1 sport i.e. bangladesh, pakistan. why aren't their markets contributing more? what are PCB & BCB doing? why aren't more brains working to increase interest in their market and monetize it?

The answer to your bigger question will be a common sense one

India's population is 6x larger than pakistan therefore more people have interest and bcci are able to generate more money.

If you give the same amount of population to pakistan / bangladesh they would be generating similar amount

So it's nothing big bcci is doing they just have the advantage

Dispite such a big advantage bcci still can't field a decent 11 who are world beaters now that is pretty poor from bcci

[U$ofA]

How would giving India more money benefit the world game?

If anything other members should get more to develop their own grounds etc.

Not sure.

I am ok with giving more money to other boards. But there has to big time oversight and an end game. Cannot just give the money without a plan in place. A plan that leads all these boards to self sufficiency. Probably in a 5-7 year period. No more.

[Kroll]

before people go and bash india. ICC media rights:
for india for 4 years - 3 billion USD
for UK for 8 years - 260 million USD
AUS will be lesser than UK and other markets are negligible. ~90% from india only.
in revenue generation there is no big 3, only 1. super one.

people might argue it is indian people & not the BCCI who is generating the money but most of that money is generated by the interest to watch this indian team (currently bcci's team).

nothing wrong in BCCI getting bigger pie, they are still contributing. however, i don't mind if their share is restricted to 25% too.

but bigger questions needed to be asked to other countries with population & cricket as no.1 sport i.e. bangladesh, pakistan. why aren't their markets contributing more? what are PCB & BCB doing? why aren't more brains working to increase interest in their market and monetize it?

Well it is a work in progress, one of the main contributors PSL is still a fledgling and will continue to grow and contribute to the coffers.

Indian market is also seven times bigger so in that regards, the cut is proportionate to their relative sizes. But of course that's not the deciding factor, its the media/TV money.

[U$ofA]

Well it is a work in progress, one of the main contributors PSL is still a fledgling and will continue to grow and contribute to the coffers.

Indian market is also seven times bigger so in that regards, the cut is proportionate to their relative sizes. But of course that's not the deciding factor, its the media/TV money.

PSL is already making good money. But the problem is the how it is distributed. The franchises take almost all of it. Result, PCB makes nothing from PSL. Still dependent on ICC handout.

So, as things stand, PSL is not an avenue the PCB is going to get rich and self sufficient.

[The_Last_Samurai]

The answer to your bigger question will be a common sense one

India's population is 6x larger than pakistan therefore more people have interest and bcci are able to generate more money.

If you give the same amount of population to pakistan / bangladesh they would be generating similar amount

So it's nothing big bcci is doing they just have the advantage

Dispite such a big advantage bcci still can't field a decent 11 who are world beaters now that is pretty poor from bcci

By this logic PAK should have been the 2nd richest board as it has the largest population after India among cricket playing nations. But its ENGLAND and then AUSTRALIA. Pakistan cricket is run by incompetent and corruput administrators so it would never be able to monetize its cricket in every possible way....PCB is a circus where clowns and constitution keep on changing with the change in government. How ridiculous is that ? Any organisation needs continuity to flourish but that doesnt happen with Pakistan cricket and Govt..And whoever replaces its predecessor proves to be a bigger clown than him. More incompetent and more corrupt. Let Imran Khan replace Sharif family and install Rameez again after elections.. The constitution of PCB will be changed again and every decision taken by Sethi will be rolled backed to stamp the authority over PCB.

[Major]

I think you have to give credit to BCCI as they know how to run cricket as a business while other boards have failed. Its just their discrimination which i hate

[Kroll]

PSL is already making good money. But the problem is the how it is distributed. The franchises take almost all of it. Result, PCB makes nothing from PSL. Still dependent on ICC handout.

So, as things stand, PSL is not an avenue the PCB is going to get rich and self sufficient.

Thanks dude, though if the PSL still continues to be a success then PCB should theoretically be able pull in more income though increased sponsorship and broadcasting rights.

[Wasim Ghulam]

PSL is already making good money. But the problem is the how it is distributed. The franchises take almost all of it. Result, PCB makes nothing from PSL. Still dependent on ICC handout.

So, as things stand, PSL is not an avenue the PCB is going to get rich and self sufficient.

I explained it to you other day that its not the case. From initial sale of franchises PCB made 93 Million $ for 10 year cycle. After that Another Franchise was sold at premium around 50 Million $ which was Multan Sultan. So PCB did make some heft sales. That does nt account distribution of revenue psl will generate which is currently 95-5 in favor of franchises. But currentl cycle will end in 2025 and PCB will re evaluate franchises fee based on market net worth and profitability. If Multan is already at 50M $ valuation.. im sure PCB can generate between 300-400 M $ by adding couple more teams for next cycle. This could come down to rival its icc share annually

[Flat_Track_Bully]

Once Pakistans economy improves, this should go comfortably above $100 million.

[Front Foot Pull]

The answer to your bigger question will be a common sense one

India's population is 6x larger than pakistan therefore more people have interest and bcci are able to generate more money.

If you give the same amount of population to pakistan / bangladesh they would be generating similar amount

So it's nothing big bcci is doing they just have the advantage

Dispite such a big advantage bcci still can't field a decent 11 who are world beaters now that is pretty poor from bcci

Naive, hatred and not much knowledge.

6 times population excuse. let me clear that cloud too. are the ICC rights sold in PAK at 1/6th of india i.e. 500 million USD then? NO. let me give you more room, pak currency is weaker than INR, so let us consider that excuse too. are rights being sold for at least 250 million USD for a 4 year cycle?

it doesn't stop there. not just the media rights, look at other sponsors for ICC..MRF tyres, byju's, bharat pe, thumsup, upstox, dream 11 etc etc etc are all indian sponsors.

india always had the population. yes there has been a rise in last 2 decades but we were never a low populated country. but the value of media rights wasn't always the same. BCCI had to pay to state broadcaster in return to telecast the matches in the past. the tide turned slowly and now it is a massive market.

not saying they are doing very good, BCCI can certainly do much more in india. but some of the other boards aren't even doing that too.

the discussion is about revenues but we can try the world beaters topic as well. congratulations for 230 million pak defeating 56 million england, where cricket isn't even a no.1 sport. great logic right?

[Kroll]

I explained it to you other day that its not the case. From initial sale of franchises PCB made 93 Million $ for 10 year cycle. After that Another Franchise was sold at premium around 50 Million $ which was Multan Sultan. So PCB did make some heft sales. That does nt account distribution of revenue psl will generate which is currently 95-5 in favor of franchises. But currentl cycle will end in 2025 and PCB will re evaluate franchises fee based on market net worth and profitability. If Multan is already at 50M $ valuation.. im sure PCB can generate between 300-400 M $ by adding couple more teams for next cycle. This could come down to rival its icc share annually

Thanks for input, so income opportunities are there.

[Savak]

I am surprised England and Australia have agreed to take on such a huge hit. They are literally at par with Pakistan now.

[Savak]

Lol, out of this $231 million, BCCI will be reimbursing $116 million in taxes therefore their pay is overall $115 million which is still not bad.

[sam_ahm]

At the start of IPL, I could see on Twitter many South African fans were bashing up super sport for not agreeing a deal to broadcast IPL, threatening to call off their subscriptions... SuperSport eventually agreed a deal to broadcast, may be fearing losing out on a lot of subscribers. The same fans give a lecture on how IPL is destroying cricket and helping BCCI in its monopoly.

All the players want to play in the IPL but then curse the BCCI for not being fair to other nations and associate nations

Every cricket board wants India to tour them more often so that they can make money but then blame the BCCI for being a bully and taking a large part of ICCs revenue.

My point is, what are these fans, players and boards doing on their own capacity to reduce BCCIs dominance? Why can't thry stop worrying about hosting India? Why can't the fans from other nations stop watching IPL? Why can't these top players stop participating in the IPL (like M Starc)?

Otherwise just shut up.

[shamaan]

Not bad for Pakistan and surprised England and Australia have excepted it.

[Saj]

Numbers don't look too bad when you compare Pakistan's share to Australia and England's.

[kumjsr]

How would giving India more money benefit the world game?

If anything other members should get more to develop their own grounds etc.

Not sure.

Why not give administration of other boards to BCCI?

Why should a efficient board be losing to inefficiency and corruption of other boards?

Is it ok to give more money without accountability?

[MenInG]

Pakistan getting the highest after the Big 3 - not bad.

Afghanistan not happy!

[cricketjoshila]

The answer to your bigger question will be a common sense one

India's population is 6x larger than pakistan therefore more people have interest and bcci are able to generate more money.

If you give the same amount of population to pakistan / bangladesh they would be generating similar amount

So it's nothing big bcci is doing they just have the advantage

Dispite such a big advantage bcci still can't field a decent 11 who are world beaters now that is pretty poor from bcci

Really?

India is generating 3bn. Pakistan has a population of 220mn or one fifth of India, but Pakistan isnt generating even 10 per cent of India. Infact rest all countries together cannot make 20 per cent of what India brings.

3bn by India

RoW 200mn

Its not about population surely.

[cricketjoshila]

PSL is already making good money. But the problem is the how it is distributed. The franchises take almost all of it. Result, PCB makes nothing from PSL. Still dependent on ICC handout.

So, as things stand, PSL is not an avenue the PCB is going to get rich and self sufficient.

Franchisees take most of the revenue because there isn't enough revenue for them to make profits.

The last tv rights contract was worth 12mn a year. Thats always the biggest revenue generator.

A franchisee isnt getting more than 2-3mn from the central pool. May be all other sponsorships gate money etc contributes another million. A franchisee is making max ~4mn. They have to pay players staff all logistics and pay franchisee fee.

[Savak]

Apparently Najam Sethi is going to fight with the ICC demanding that the PCB deserves the second highest share of the revenues from the ICC after the BCCI highlighting that the ICC earns the bulk of its revenues from Indo Pak contests and therefore Pakistan deserves to be number 2 on the table.

[cricketjoshila]

I explained it to you other day that its not the case. From initial sale of franchises PCB made 93 Million $ for 10 year cycle. After that Another Franchise was sold at premium around 50 Million $ which was Multan Sultan. So PCB did make some heft sales. That does nt account distribution of revenue psl will generate which is currently 95-5 in favor of franchises. But currentl cycle will end in 2025 and PCB will re evaluate franchises fee based on market net worth and profitability. If Multan is already at 50M $ valuation.. im sure PCB can generate between 300-400 M $ by adding couple more teams for next cycle. This could come down to rival its icc share annually

The last PSL broadcast contract was 12mn a year. Considering that as the biggest revenue earner and adding other sponsorships, central pool isn't larger than 20mn. Out of which i was told PCB deducts money for all the tv production promotion etc.

The central pool share of each team isnt more than 3mn.

Each team may attract individual sponsorships of May be a million usd.

How much money is left after all expenses?

[cricketjoshila]

Apparently Najam Sethi is going to fight with the ICC demanding that the PCB deserves the second highest share of the revenues from the ICC after the BCCI highlighting that the ICC earns the bulk of its revenues from Indo Pak contests and therefore Pakistan deserves to be number 2 on the table.

The second highest tv bid was from UK and third highest from Australia.

[DeadlyVenom]

Apparently Najam Sethi is going to fight with the ICC demanding that the PCB deserves the second highest share of the revenues from the ICC after the BCCI highlighting that the ICC earns the bulk of its revenues from Indo Pak contests and therefore Pakistan deserves to be number 2 on the table.

This is a dumb move if true

[Markhor]

Once Pakistans economy improves, this should go comfortably above $100 million.

Pakistan must reduce its reliance on ICC inflows which'll only happen once PTV's monopoly on TV rights is broken to allow private networks to bid and drive up the value of our domestic broadcasting deal. That'll in turn give us a stronger hand when negotiating our share of ICC revenues.

There's a good article called Lost in Transmission which explains just how far behind our competitors we are with broadcast revenues. Obviously no cricket with India doesn't help but still for a TV market of 220m people, our TV deal is grossly undervalued and is the biggest obstacle preventing us from seriously investing in our grounds, academies and facilities.

[hitthestump]

I am surprised England and Australia have agreed to take on such a huge hit. They are literally at par with Pakistan now.

CA and ECB will benefit more than any other nation through regular Indian tours, IPL and likely a few under the table type kickbacks which won't see the light of day.

Pakistan won't see a penny in revenue from the above and that makes a substantial disparity.

[Wasim Ghulam]

The last PSL broadcast contract was 12mn a year. Considering that as the biggest revenue earner and adding other sponsorships, central pool isn't larger than 20mn. Out of which i was told PCB deducts money for all the tv production promotion etc.

The central pool share of each team isnt more than 3mn.

Each team may attract individual sponsorships of May be a million usd.

How much money is left after all expenses?

Listen , you need to read carefully what i wrote. Im not talking about what franchises are making or how much revenue PSL is generating through Broadcast rights and Sponsorship deals. All that revenue goes to central pool and franchises get 95% of it including gate money and then franchises also have their merchandise sales and sponsorship deals for them separately. I replied to assumption that pcb is getting nothing out of psl which is nt true. PCB obviously made money from sale of teams. Actual agreement was for 10 years between team owners and pcb. And PCB made 93 million $ from initial sale of 5 teams and then Multan Sultan was added later on at premium price of 50 Million $ . You are free to cross check it

[Savak]

This is a dumb move if true

Actually an ICC study on commercial sponsorship and eye balls showed that Pakistan had perhaps the second highest eye balls in the world for cricket after India. The PCB are using these arguments to support their position which they plan to do in the next ICC meeting in July.

[DeadlyVenom]

Actually an ICC study on commercial sponsorship and eye balls showed that Pakistan had perhaps the second highest eye balls in the world for cricket after India. The PCB are using these arguments to support their position which they plan to do in the next ICC meeting in July.

I don't think the eyeballs are monetised properly by Pakistan though and that will also be the ICC's counter argument.

[DeadlyVenom]

Pakistan must reduce its reliance on ICC inflows which'll only happen once PTV's monopoly on TV rights is broken to allow private networks to bid and drive up the value of our domestic broadcasting deal. That'll in turn give us a stronger hand when negotiating our share of ICC revenues.

There's a good article called Lost in Transmission which explains just how far behind our competitors we are with broadcast revenues. Obviously no cricket with India doesn't help but still for a TV market of 220m people, our TV deal is grossly undervalued and is the biggest obstacle preventing us from seriously investing in our grounds, academies and facilities.

Why do you think PTV has a stranglehold on the rights?

I wonder if its a naive approach by the PCB to allow everyone to access the game, to avoid some of the debates we have here on cricket on free to air TV for example.

[U$ofA]

Listen , you need to read carefully what i wrote. Im not talking about what franchises are making or how much revenue PSL is generating through Broadcast rights and Sponsorship deals. All that revenue goes to central pool and franchises get 95% of it including gate money and then franchises also have their merchandise sales and sponsorship deals for them separately. I replied to assumption that pcb is getting nothing out of psl which is nt true. PCB obviously made money from sale of teams. Actual agreement was for 10 years between team owners and pcb. And PCB made 93 million $ from initial sale of 5 teams and then Multan Sultan was added later on at premium price of 50 Million $ . You are free to cross check it

The franchise fee revenue is not something that happens all the time. When will the next expansion happen?

What you need is steady inflow every year. Currently that is not happening for the PCB. Mainly their own fault, as they were part of the negotiations giving away all the money to the franchises.

[Champ_Pal]

Good for BCCI. They rule cricket.

[bujhee kom]

It is reported that BCB was offered a bigger share (6.1%) but turned it down, and asked ICC to give more to the poorer boards.
Think about how generous that is. BCB thinking about the longterm health of the game.

[MenInG]

It is reported that BCB was offered a bigger share (6.1%) but turned it down, and asked ICC to give more to the poorer boards.
Think about how generous that is. BCB thinking about the longterm health of the game.

Link to this news please.

[RajBan]

How would giving India more money benefit the world game?

If anything other members should get more to develop their own grounds etc.

Not sure.

India has more cricketing audience and infrastructure to cater to. Should not it necessitate more money in that case? It surely has to be proportional in some sense.

[MenInG]

India has more cricketing audience and infrastructure to cater to. Should not it necessitate more money in that case? It surely has to be proportional in some sense.

But what is the main point of this allocation?

If India is self sufficient - then all we are doing is giving more money to India.

Fact is other boards need money to improve their facilities etc - that will bring in more audience.

[Hitman]

But what is the main point of this allocation?

If India is self sufficient - then all we are doing is giving more money to India.

Fact is other boards need money to improve their facilities etc - that will bring in more audience.

Because cricket turned from a sport to being a business long ago.

[RajBan]

But what is the main point of this allocation?

If India is self sufficient - then all we are doing is giving more money to India.

Fact is other boards need money to improve their facilities etc - that will bring in more audience.

That is true for India as well. There is a huge untapped market in India in the NE and parts of South India towards the Konkan coast. In proportion terms India and Pakistan allocations are same as per their population, catchment area, number of stadiums and cities they need to cater to. I don't see why there should be a complain against BCCI . If anything they can ask questions why ECB and ACB is getting more but this logic of interpreting BCCI getting undue advantage does not make sense so far.

[HitWicket]

India has more cricketing audience and infrastructure to cater to.

Which also corresponds to a larger market for the BCCI to make their own profits from.

[Hitman]

That is true for India as well. There is a huge untapped market in India in the NE and parts of South India towards the Konkan coast. In proportion terms India and Pakistan allocations are same as per their population, catchment area, number of stadiums and cities they need to cater to. I don't see why there should be a complain against BCCI . If anything they can ask questions why ECB and ACB is getting more but this logic of interpreting BCCI getting undue advantage does not make sense so far.

Can't speak about other states of North East, but my state (Assam) has been cricket crazy since the days of Sir Garfield Sobers (my father, who is now deceased, told me).

[cricketjoshila]

Actually an ICC study on commercial sponsorship and eye balls showed that Pakistan had perhaps the second highest eye balls in the world for cricket after India. The PCB are using these arguments to support their position which they plan to do in the next ICC meeting in July.

Number of eyeballs means nothing if the actual revenue generation is low.

[RajBan]

Which also corresponds to a larger market for the BCCI to make their own profits from.

The same audience is also contributing to the revenue out from their pocket.

[RajBan]

Can't speak about other states of North East, but my state (Assam) has been cricket crazy since the days of Sir Garfield Sobers (my father, who is now deceased, told me).

All the more reason why additional allocation is needed to build and maintain appropriate infrastructure for that base.

[Wasim Ghulam]

The franchise fee revenue is not something that happens all the time. When will the next expansion happen?

What you need is steady inflow every year. Currently that is not happening for the PCB. Mainly their own fault, as they were part of the negotiations giving away all the money to the franchises.

Actually current cycle is ending in 2025. After that New agreement will be signed between franchises and PCB. And yes to answer your assumption again , franchise fee is what PCB will make out of psl and thats why Revenue distribution is in favor of Franchises with 95-5 ratio. The estimated franchise fee after adding two more teams could be between 300-400 Mil $ over next 10 years. That's comparable to what ICC is offering Pakistan

[U$ofA]

But what is the main point of this allocation?

If India is self sufficient - then all we are doing is giving more money to India.

Fact is other boards need money to improve their facilities etc - that will bring in more audience.

Which boards do you suggest get the money? I hope not WI, SL, SA, BD. All these boards are corrupt to the core. Will be a bottomless pit situation. PCB themselves are not far off from these boards.

[U$ofA]

Actually current cycle is ending in 2025. After that New agreement will be signed between franchises and PCB. And yes to answer your assumption again , franchise fee is what PCB will make out of psl and thats why Revenue distribution is in favor of Franchises with 95-5 ratio. The estimated franchise fee after adding two more teams could be between 300-400 Mil $ over next 10 years. That's comparable to what ICC is offering Pakistan

From what you are saying, looks like nothing will change for the PCB. They will still depend on ICC handouts to the tune of 50% of their revenues. Which is what it currently is.

[Wasim Ghulam]

From what you are saying, looks like nothing will change for the PCB. They will still depend on ICC handouts to the tune of 50% of their revenues. Which is what it currently is.

What im saying is that PCB does stand to make money from PSL contrary to your assumption.

Also ICC share given to Pakistan is not handout but they get what they actually deserve. ICC earns lot of money by Just scheduling India Vs Pakistan every tournament.. its admittedly blockbuster of icc tournaments so why shouldn't pcb get somr share of pie??

[Master Blaster]

Beggers can't be choosers. If you want to increase your share of revenue then work your *** off. Increase the popularity and demand for the game in your part of the world. Bring in the sponsors who are queuing to pay you billions which in turn will swell the coffers of ICC. Show the results to ICC (sponsors and revenue part, not the win percentage against C teams) and then instead of begging you can demand your worth and go up the ladder.

Unfortunate that cricket is not charity anymore.

[HitWicket]

The same audience is also contributing to the revenue out from their pocket.

The BCCI have a larger market to support, in turn they also have a larger market to capitalise on for their own profits. The primary focus of the ICCs profits should be expanding the game further globally rather than giving massive handouts to countries that already have their own developed revenue sources.

[Kroll]

What im saying is that PCB does stand to make money from PSL contrary to your assumption.

Also ICC share given to Pakistan is not handout but they get what they actually deserve. ICC earns lot of money by Just scheduling India Vs Pakistan every tournament.. its admittedly blockbuster of icc tournaments so why shouldn't pcb get somr share of pie??

Slightly off topic, Indian always chest thumping they don't need Pak, but still fix these games via their vassal the ICC. I don't like this as the draw should be fair and square as it effects all other teams in the pot.

[cricketjoshila]

The BCCI have a larger market to support, in turn they also have a larger market to capitalise on for their own profits. The primary focus of the ICCs profits should be expanding the game further globally rather than giving massive handouts to countries that already have their own developed revenue sources.

BCCI developed this market from which ICC is profiting. Its only fair that BCCI receives a larger share of revenue.

When ICC revenue generation is less lop sided they can do whatever they want with it.

Currently India is pulling in $3bn and rest together are pulling in 200mn.

[zn426]

Pakistan's economy needs to climb out of the shambles for PSL and PCB revenue shares to increase. Beyond that, it's all about business. Karachi needs to do better with managing and growing the fan base, perhaps do more corporate sales since there are so many businesses within the city compared with other cities. It's beyond me that a city of 20 million people can't put 40k in the stands for every home game.

Here in the USA locally it's all about TV rights and butts in seats as well as merchandising. The most successful teams make money more money from butts in seats and merchandising then they do from the TV revenue. Then you have to add in local business advertising through media and at the games, and you have a really strong team.
One thing the teams could do to grow revenue is add more premium seating areas with 30-40 seats each around the top ring. Those can be sold to companies local to the city and include food, drinks, etc. Here in the US these luxury boxes generate millions in revenue annually.

[HitWicket]

BCCI developed this market from which ICC is profiting.

Which again, they'll see the benefit of in their own revenue sources. That should not be the focus of the ICCs profits.

Currently India is pulling in $3bn and rest together are pulling in 200mn.

This figure is not accurate.

[Suleiman]

Pakistan getting the highest after the Big 3 - not bad.

Can even put it on par with Australia, barely any difference. That’s really good.

[cricketjoshila]

Which again, they'll see the benefit of in their own revenue sources. That should not be the focus of the ICCs profits.



This figure is not accurate.

So what is the accurate figure as per you? Since espn Cricinfo and other media outlets are all reporting similar figures.

[Wasim Ghulam]

So what is the accurate figure as per you? Since espn Cricinfo and other media outlets are all reporting similar figures.

So Najam sethi gave interview to Sports Tak and questioned about Broadcaster reservations on hybrid model and cost associated with it. Najam sethi totally dismissed it by saying production is non issue and pcb is willing to bear the cost of production.. so there you go .. your demand of pcb taking on cost of hybrid model is already non issue for PCB and i told you its never gonna be a problem like some people are making it one

Now what excuse is left by Bcci to not accept it?

[RajBan]

The BCCI have a larger market to support, in turn they also have a larger market to capitalise on for their own profits. The primary focus of the ICCs profits should be expanding the game further globally rather than giving massive handouts to countries that already have their own developed revenue sources.

That's fine if the money truly goes to unchartered territories in Africa, Latin America , not to already established other cricket boards who are running their own league and minting money just like BCCI.

[Titan24]

PCB has done pretty well here in terms of share. Pretty close to Aus and Eng. India with its market especially for cricket was always going to lead the share.

[HitWicket]

So what is the accurate figure as per you? Since espn Cricinfo and other media outlets are all reporting similar figures.

There is no accurate figure available, the likes of Cricinfo have only reported the value of the rights for India and the UK so far.

[MenInG]

Cricket is too reliant on cash-rich India whose affluence and clout can only be diminished by a revamped International Cricket Council board, according to former ICC president and ex-Pakistan cricket boss Ehsan Mani.

Fears for the global game's health have heightened after ESPNcricinfo reported that India's governing body is set to receive $230 million a year - or 38.5 per cent - of net surplus earnings from the ICC's $3 billion media rights deal for 2024-27.

That's a significant increase from its 22 per cent share in the current 2015-23 deal with the proposed revenue distribution model set to be tabled at the ICC's Annual General Meeting in July in South Africa.

Fellow powerhouse England are well behind with 6.89 per cent of revenue while the Associate Members - 94 nations deemed under the 12 top tiered Full Members who are granted more funding and power - are set to receive 11.19 per cent, which is about the same percentage as in the current model.

All members, however, will receive far more remuneration given the ICC's media rights deal is significantly higher than the $2 billion for the 2015-23 cycle.

But amid continual uncertainty over international cricket's future, as nations shun the expensive five-day traditional Test format while lucrative T20 franchise leagues swell across the world, India's gobbling of the ICC's coffers again raises concern over inequality.

India are still basking in last year's mammoth $6 billion broadcast deal for the Indian Premier League, its money-spinning T20 competition.

"(Proposed revenue distribution model) will be giving the most money to the country that needs it the least, which makes no sense," Mani, who was ICC president from 2003-06 and stepped down from the Pakistan Cricket Board in 2021, told me.

"I think it's very unfortunate. There's no strategic thinking about the development of the global game. There's no vision."

Mani believed cricket shouldn't rely merely on India, despite its pulling power and sheer populace, and needed to grow the game beyond its traditional base.

"It only takes one downturn in an economic cycle for the ICC members to be affected. There is far too much reliance on India," he said.

"If the ICC wants a truly global game and diversify its financial reliance, the country to develop is the U.S. I would have put $20-30 million into the U.S. You also need to grow the game in Africa, that's the future.

"I think the global game (Associates) should have been allocated at least 30 per cent (instead of 11 per cent). That's the only way to globalize the game."

Mani also advocated for financial parity amongst the 12 Full Members, disregarding some belief that India deserve the lion's share because of its undisputed heft in the sport.

"You have to give countries enough resources to not only develop their players but to pay them a fair amount, especially with the IPL and other T20 leagues targeting players," said Mani, who was an architect of the ICC’s media rights deal when he was chair of the finance and commercial affairs committee.

"The Indian market brings in a lot of money...it's not the BCCI (India's governing body). There are benefits to the Indian companies to advertise in the ICC events and worldwide. India are not playing on its own, they are playing against other members. It's a two-way street."

Eyebrows were raised from some insiders over last November's ICC chair election, where amid the usual politicking resulted in Jay Shah - India's powerful cricket boss - becoming the chair of the all-important finance and commercial affairs committee in this pivotal juncture.

There has been a lot made over India's apparent outsized influence on the ICC board made up of the 12 Full Members, three Associate directors, independent female director Indra Nooyi, the ex-PepsiCoPEP +0.6% boss, and chair Greg Barclay.

Given its enormous wealth, India seemingly can rule with an iron fist although Mani believed a reshaped board could potentially loosen its stranglehold.

"Unfortunately there's no appetite for countries to stand up to India," Mani said. "The governance review, which was discussed when I was on the board, has gone quiet. I don't think there should be more than 12 board members and at least seven of them should be independent directors.

"The directors of the ICC need to stand up and look at where they are taking this game," he added. "They are guardians of the international game. They don't act like that sometimes."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tristan...h=1d5d05613730

[cricketjoshila]

There is no accurate figure available, the likes of Cricinfo have only reported the value of the rights for India and the UK so far.

The value of Australia rights are also known. Its 60mn.

So in next 4 years

3bn from India
130mn from UK
60 mn from Australia

Thats the majority of ICC tv rights revenue.

[HitWicket]

The value of Australia rights are also known. Its 60mn.

So in next 4 years

3bn from India
130mn from UK
60 mn from Australia

Thats the majority of ICC tv rights revenue.

A source for the Australian TV rights please?

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

before people go and bash india. ICC media rights:
for india for 4 years - 3 billion USD
for UK for 8 years - 260 million USD
AUS will be lesser than UK and other markets are negligible. ~90% from india only.
in revenue generation there is no big 3, only 1. super one.

people might argue it is indian people & not the BCCI who is generating the money but most of that money is generated by the interest to watch this indian team (currently bcci's team).

nothing wrong in BCCI getting bigger pie, they are still contributing. however, i don't mind if their share is restricted to 25% too.

but bigger questions needed to be asked to other countries with population & cricket as no.1 sport i.e. bangladesh, pakistan. why aren't their markets contributing more? what are PCB & BCB doing? why aren't more brains working to increase interest in their market and monetize it?

Ofcourse, it is because of indian population BCCI is rich and making money. You need to do some research before posting illogically.

[MenInG]

Cricket is too reliant on cash-rich India whose affluence and clout can only be diminished by a revamped International Cricket Council board, according to former ICC president and ex-Pakistan cricket boss Ehsan Mani.

Fears for the global game's health have heightened after ESPNcricinfo reported that India's governing body is set to receive $230 million a year - or 38.5 per cent - of net surplus earnings from the ICC's $3 billion media rights deal for 2024-27.

That's a significant increase from its 22 per cent share in the current 2015-23 deal with the proposed revenue distribution model set to be tabled at the ICC's Annual General Meeting in July in South Africa.

Fellow powerhouse England are well behind with 6.89 per cent of revenue while the Associate Members - 94 nations deemed under the 12 top tiered Full Members who are granted more funding and power - are set to receive 11.19 per cent, which is about the same percentage as in the current model.

All members, however, will receive far more remuneration given the ICC's media rights deal is significantly higher than the $2 billion for the 2015-23 cycle.

But amid continual uncertainty over international cricket's future, as nations shun the expensive five-day traditional Test format while lucrative T20 franchise leagues swell across the world, India's gobbling of the ICC's coffers again raises concern over inequality.

India are still basking in last year's mammoth $6 billion broadcast deal for the Indian Premier League, its money-spinning T20 competition.

"(Proposed revenue distribution model) will be giving the most money to the country that needs it the least, which makes no sense," Mani, who was ICC president from 2003-06 and stepped down from the Pakistan Cricket Board in 2021, told me.

"I think it's very unfortunate. There's no strategic thinking about the development of the global game. There's no vision."

Mani believed cricket shouldn't rely merely on India, despite its pulling power and sheer populace, and needed to grow the game beyond its traditional base.

"It only takes one downturn in an economic cycle for the ICC members to be affected. There is far too much reliance on India," he said.

"If the ICC wants a truly global game and diversify its financial reliance, the country to develop is the U.S. I would have put $20-30 million into the U.S. You also need to grow the game in Africa, that's the future.

"I think the global game (Associates) should have been allocated at least 30 per cent (instead of 11 per cent). That's the only way to globalize the game."

Mani also advocated for financial parity amongst the 12 Full Members, disregarding some belief that India deserve the lion's share because of its undisputed heft in the sport.

"You have to give countries enough resources to not only develop their players but to pay them a fair amount, especially with the IPL and other T20 leagues targeting players," said Mani, who was an architect of the ICC’s media rights deal when he was chair of the finance and commercial affairs committee.

"The Indian market brings in a lot of money...it's not the BCCI (India's governing body). There are benefits to the Indian companies to advertise in the ICC events and worldwide. India are not playing on its own, they are playing against other members. It's a two-way street."

Eyebrows were raised from some insiders over last November's ICC chair election, where amid the usual politicking resulted in Jay Shah - India's powerful cricket boss - becoming the chair of the all-important finance and commercial affairs committee in this pivotal juncture.

There has been a lot made over India's apparent outsized influence on the ICC board made up of the 12 Full Members, three Associate directors, independent female director Indra Nooyi, the ex-PepsiCoPEP +0.6% boss, and chair Greg Barclay.

Given its enormous wealth, India seemingly can rule with an iron fist although Mani believed a reshaped board could potentially loosen its stranglehold.

"Unfortunately there's no appetite for countries to stand up to India," Mani said. "The governance review, which was discussed when I was on the board, has gone quiet. I don't think there should be more than 12 board members and at least seven of them should be independent directors.

"The directors of the ICC need to stand up and look at where they are taking this game," he added. "They are guardians of the international game. They don't act like that sometimes."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tristan...h=1d5d05613730

Some excellent points by Mani Sahib.

[Savak]

Have no complaints about India getting such a huge share, the country of India overwhelmingly contributes 90% of the finances of the ICC and is carrying all the ICC members therefore they deserve the lion share.

Was seeing Rashid Latif's tweet where he wants Sethi to demand the ICC put PCB at number 2 and allocate 18-20% of the funds based on the fact that ICC makes the bulk of its money, profits from Indo Pak contests in ICC events, the fact that Pakistan has the second largest eye balls in cricket and Pakistan's rich cricketing history, ICC rankings

[Kashmiri_Pak_fan]

The value of Australia rights are also known. Its 60mn.

So in next 4 years

3bn from India
130mn from UK
60 mn from Australia

Thats the majority of ICC tv rights revenue.

How much is from Pakistan?

[RajBan]

Ofcourse, it is because of indian population BCCI is rich and making money. You need to do some research before posting illogically.

To be fair population is one part of the equation. Jagmohan Dalmiya in many ways planted the seeds to generate revenue in mid 90s. Prior to that BCCI was lagging behind most of the cricket boards including PCB and South Africa both in terms of operating model and revenue generation.

[cricketjoshila]

A source for the Australian TV rights please?

The Australian rights are believed to have been sold for approximately US$60m for four years.

https://www.news18.com/cricketnext/a...e-7544935.html

[cricketjoshila]

Some excellent points by Mani Sahib.

Ofcourse its a two way street and thats why the other teams are also getting huge money from ICC.

[cricketjoshila]

Have no complaints about India getting such a huge share, the country of India overwhelmingly contributes 90% of the finances of the ICC and is carrying all the ICC members therefore they deserve the lion share.

Was seeing Rashid Latif's tweet where he wants Sethi to demand the ICC put PCB at number 2 and allocate 18-20% of the funds based on the fact that ICC makes the bulk of its money, profits from Indo Pak contests in ICC events, the fact that Pakistan has the second largest eye balls in cricket and Pakistan's rich cricketing history, ICC rankings

Its not the eye balls but the dollars that matter.

[Cricfan4eva]

ICC is a sham. It's just boards meeting under the garb of a world body and passing rules that suits them the most. Obviously the influential boards get what they want.

[cricketjoshila]

ICC is a sham. It's just boards meeting under the garb of a world body and passing rules that suits them the most. Obviously the influential boards get what they want.

How do you think the ICC was formed?

[gazza619]

But what is the main point of this allocation?

If India is self sufficient - then all we are doing is giving more money to India.

Fact is other boards need money to improve their facilities etc - that will bring in more audience.

More money to other boards will also mean more corruption in other boards. This is applicable to Pakistan anyway.

Grass roots will remain dry.