BCCI discusses restructure in sharing of ICC revenue

[silentstriker]

ICC news : BCCI discusses restructure in sharing of ICC revenue | Cricket News | Cricinfo ICC Site | ESPN Cricinfo

Wow, this would be terrible for most of the Test playing nations.

 

[hendrix]

Just because the BCCI is Indian doesn't mean they own revenue that Indian fans produce.

They own revenue from their own product. Their product is not ICC events. It's events that they themselves organise and negotiate.

 

[Maximas]

This is one way to finally kill off all those cash strapped boards

 

[silentstriker]

Well, they consider the Indian team the BCCI team - they've been pretty clear about that in the past.

 

[Prince EWS]

No shame.

 

[uvelocity]

reducing the money for the other nations is a good way to get them to unite against these ****s at least

 

[Daemon]

It's sort of fair for them to ask for a bigger share the same way it's fair that majority of the revenue is split between the major test nations rather than the associates who generate very little.

 

[benchmark00]

From a business point of view it makes sense.

From a 'is it good for the game' point of view, it does not.

I don't think sharing the wealth equally is a good idea, nor do I think the approach of 'only get out what you put in' is a good one. Should be a shift towards who needs it the most, provided strict conditions are placed upon it, such as adequate investment in grass roots infrastructure.

I've been associated with a national board where the funding they receive is invested in development, however not how it should be. These kinds of models should be ticked off by the ICC before proceeding.

In all seriousness I can see nations like New Zealand and the West Indies slip even further into minnow status unless things are changed over the course of the next decade or so.

 

[Prince EWS]

From a business point of view it makes sense.

From a 'is it good for the game' point of view, it does not.

I don't think sharing the wealth equally is a good idea, nor do I think the approach of 'only get out what you put in' is a good one. Should be a shift towards who needs it the most, provided strict conditions are placed upon in, such as adequate investment in grass roots infrastructure.

I've been associated with a national board where the funding they receive is invested in development, however not how it should be. These kinds of models should be ticked off by the ICC before proceeding.

In all seriousness I can see nations like New Zealand and the West Indies slip even further into minnow status unless things are changed over the course of the next decade or so.

Yeah, I would 100% agree with them from a business perspective.

But again I just think it boils down to the BCCI looking at international cricket as the means and wealth as the end, whereas I've always believed that running a sporting body should be seen the other way - generating revenue as a means to improving the sport.

 

[hendrix]

Yeah, I would 100% agree with them from a business perspective.
.

This is incorrect though.

They don't have any right to revenue generated from ICC events. Just because lots of Indians spend lots of money doesn't mean that the BCCI is more entitled to their money than anyone else.

 

[Prince EWS]

This is incorrect though.

They don't have any right to revenue generated from ICC events. Just because lots of Indians spend lots of money doesn't mean that the BCCI is more entitled to their money than anyone else.

It does if Indians generate more money because of the presence of the BCCI's team. The BCCI's decision to send a team to the World Cup would earn the event a lot more money than ZC's decision to do so, for example. It's therefore fair from a business perspective that they get a bigger slice of the revenue.

It should only actually eventuate like that if profit is end goal though, and while international cricket is a business these days, it's a business because that's the most effective model to improve the standard of it for the fans and and the players. Revenue should be generated from international cricket in order to achieve the end goal of improving and advancing the game, rather than "the game should be improved and advanced in order to maximise revenue." The BCCI is arse about face in general for this reason.

 

[benchmark00]

It does if Indians generate more money because of the presence of the BCCI's team. The BCCI's decision to send a team to the World Cup would earn the event a lot more money than ZC's decision to do so, for example. It's therefore fair from a business perspective that they get a bigger slice of the revenue.

It should only actually eventuate like that if profit is end goal though, and while international cricket is a business these days, it's a business because that's the most effective model to improve the standard of it for the fans and and the players. Revenue should be generated from international cricket in order to achieve the end goal of improving and advancing the game, rather than "the game should be improved and advanced in order to maximise revenue." The BCCI is arse about face in general for this reason.

Yeah you're right.

 

[uvelocity]

short term business perspective it should be noted

 

[hendrix]

It does if Indians generate more money because of the presence of the BCCI's team. The BCCI's decision to send a team to the World Cup would earn the event a lot more money than ZC's decision to do so, for example. It's therefore fair from a business perspective that they get a bigger slice of the revenue.

Again, that's incorrect. If the BCCI doesn't send their team, noone gets the revenue.

Just because you could stop someone from profiting doesn't mean you're entitled to that profit yourself.

 

[benchmark00]

So you think the BCCI's options are either play by ICC's rules or they're not allowed cricket to exist? Don't reckon they could start their own independent league??

 

[Shri]

Again, that's incorrect. If the BCCI doesn't send their team, noone gets the revenue.

Just because you could stop someone from profiting doesn't mean you're entitled to that profit yourself.

The real world doesn't work like that.

 

[Spark]

Again, that's incorrect. If the BCCI doesn't send their team, noone gets the revenue.

Just because you could stop someone from profiting doesn't mean you're entitled to that profit yourself.

uh... generally speaking, it sort of does

 

[Jono]

Not a single **** here can seriously blame them for doing this. Its incredibly sad, but cricket is an entertainment business and competes with non-sport activities and entertainment events. These ****s just want more money.

Unfortunately they are not only good at raising money but misuse their power. This would be less of a big deal if:

a) they weren't inherently evil; and
b) the other boards were actually good at what they did.

The cricket boards of Pakistan, Sri Lanka, West Indies and others have dug their own hole half the time. They don't have an automatic right to money when they are contributing **** all to the game, and often, costing boards money. Having said that, there's no doubt seeing them get even ****ter with less resources is bad for the overall game.

It just generally sucks. Everyone else needs to pull their finger out and make cricket a genuinely competitive sport, both with all teams and also competitive against other sports and other forms of entertainment. That responsibility requires the BCCI to not be ****s, sure. But it requires the other boards to learn to not be absolutely pathetic at running a sporting organisation.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Not much good for the BCCI in sending other countries' cricket teams into insolvency as then no one will make any cash money from ICC events.

They'll continue to cream the IPL, no doubt.

Who will fill in for South Africa next time the BCCI throw a paddy if the West Indies, New Zealand et. al. can no longer financially support international touring?

 

[cricketrulez]

This is an unreasonable demand by BCCI. Kick BCCI out of ICC. Start by throwing them out of t20 world cup in BD. This will be a good guidance on what BCCI/India brings to the table and will allow ICC and and the rest of the boards to budget their expenses accordingly for reduction in cricketing revenues(if any). After all cricket was flourishing before BCCI gained power. Its probably better to have ICC w/o BCCI. They should also give veto power back to ECB and CA given their record for caring for the game.