Should the ICC pay International Cricketers?

[G.I.Joe]

What if the ICC paid the cricket boards the same as they do now, but a portion of it would be direct paychecks to the cricketers instead?

I suppose a truly corrupt board would have ways of recuperating that "lost" income by instituting membership fees or somesuch for their players.

 

[TNT]

so, basically, they already do pay international cricketers, indirectly?

South Africa will receive $96,000,000 from the ICC over the next seven years.

 

[TNT]

What if the ICC paid the cricket boards the same as they do now, but a portion of it would be direct paychecks to the cricketers instead?

I suppose a truly corrupt board would have ways of recuperating that "lost" income by instituting membership fees or somesuch for their players.

That's crickets biggest problem, corruption has destroyed SL and WI cricket and until that is under control there is no point throwing good money down the drain.

 

[TheJediBrah]

South Africa will receive $96,000,000 from the ICC over the next seven years.

holy ****

and people are still complaining?

 

[91Jmay]

South Africa receive that because they provide that value. It isn't a freebie, how many eyeballs watch an ODI between SA and Aus/Ind/Eng because of AB ? Plenty.

 

[TheJediBrah]

South Africa receive that because they provide that value. It isn't a freebie, how many eyeballs watch an ODI between SA and Aus/Ind/Eng because of AB ? Plenty.

what does that have to do with direct funds from the ICC though? Any value they provide will be made from fees, crowds/tv rights etc. when they host or tour the big teams

like, isn't that contradictory? If SA "provided that value" then they would be given that value and wouldn't need charity from the ICC. Purely theoretically speaking of course. SA are obviously valuable to international cricket.

 

[91Jmay]

Direct ICC funds come from the World Cup and it's TV deals/sponsorship. The reason SA get that money is because they are an integral part of the world Cup. As I said, this last WC wouldn't have been the same without AB.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Direct ICC funds come from the World Cup and it's TV deals/sponsorship. The reason SA get that money is because they are an integral part of the world Cup. As I said, this last WC wouldn't have been the same without AB.

You could say that about most teams though. Any of the Indian players would provide more interest than AB, as would many other players from other sides.

 

[91Jmay]

Yeah, that is why India get far far more money from the ICC than SA do.

http://www.totalsportek.com/cricket/new-icc-revenue-sharing-model/

India get $586 million (22.9%) of the revenue and England get $295 million (11.7%). Which is 'fair' from a perspective of them bringing in most revenue, but in terms of growing the global game and ensuring other international teams are all competitive it doesn't help.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah, that is why India get far far more money from the ICC than SA do.

ICC Cricket Revenue Sharing Model (What each board will get)

India get $586 million (22.9%) of the revenue and England get $295 million (11.7%). Which is 'fair' from a perspective of them bringing in most revenue, but in terms of growing the global game and ensuring other international teams are all competitive it doesn't help.

sounds about right. Growing the global game would be great and all, but that's not really how economics works.

However I don't think too many people in this thread actually think it's a realistic option, just that it's nice in theory.

 

[91Jmay]

Well if the people who ran boards actually understood economics they would grow the game, as it gives them larger revenue streams in the future (it is something called 'investment' which you might want to look into) but they are power hungry idiots who are so short termist it is embarrassing.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I'd say they're most likely investing about as much as is financially appropriate. You don't make huge profits from leaking money into less-profitable ventures.

 

[91Jmay]

I'd suggest actually reading about the Big 3 and what they are doing to the international game before making wildly incorrect statements.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I'd suggest actually reading about the Big 3 and what they are doing to the international game before making wildly incorrect statements.

come on, don't be ridiculous. Maybe you're a career economist whose spent decades studying the financial aspect of World Cricket and consider yourself more knowledgeable than the group of professionals deciding policy for the ICC, and if so, I'll defer to your judgement.

Otherwise I'll just continue to take your comments as passionate yet ignorant opinions stated with the assuredness as though they were fact.

 

[91Jmay]

Your insistence that the ICC is run for the good of the game rather than for the interests of the most powerful is cute.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Your insistence that the ICC is run for the good of the game rather than for the interests of the most powerful is cute.

I didn't say that at all. I'm saying I'd be willing to bet that it's run to make the most money for the short-to-medium term as is possible.

How it's going to come off long term is anyone's guess.