T20 'Champions Cup' part of ICC events for 2023-2031

[Stan AF]

T20 'Champions Cup' part of ICC events for 2023-2031

 

A T20 Champions Cup that would have the world's top 10 nations ploughing through no fewer than 48 matches - the same number as last year's 50-over World Cup - is the most contentious event in the ICC's proposed suite of tournaments for the 2023 to 2031 broadcast rights cycle.

The full suite of proposed events for the next broadcast rights cycle, as revealed to ESPNcricinfo, is at the heart of the current struggle between the ICC and its richest member nations over space in the calendar over the period up for debate.

 

Under the proposal, which was first tabled to the ICC Board in October last year and has been the subject of vigorous discussions between boards and the ICC since, there would be a T20 Champions Cup in 2024 and 2028 and an ODI Champions Cup in 2025 and 2029, alongside the T20 World Cups in 2026 and 2030, and the ODI World Cups in 2027 and 2031.

 

While the 50-over Champions Cup has been outlined as a brief event similar to the Champions Trophy and occupying just six teams and 16 games, the T20 Champions Cup is effectively another World Cup in size, with its 48 matches just seven fewer than the T20 World Cup proper and the same number of games as the ODI World Cup itself.

 

Member countries have been given until March 15 to submit expressions of interest to bid for global events in the 2023-2031 cycle, which as proposed by the governing body will feature both a T20 and a 50-over Champions Cup in addition to the World Cups in each format. That deadline looms ahead of the next quarterly round of ICC meetings in late March, despite there being little indication of formal agreement over the proposal itself, which was only provisionally approved, subject to plenty of adjustments, by the ICC board late last year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note: the next men's 50-over World Cup in 2023 is part of the current cycle ESPNcricinfo Ltd

 

 

 

The ICC and its chief executive Manu Sawhney have argued that there needs to be at least one ICC event in each year of the cycle to provide consistent cashflow from events revenue to the game's smaller countries. However, the BCCI, Cricket Australia and the ECB have pushed back out of a desire to maintain their own broad windows for the bilateral cricket that remains a significant money raiser for them.

 

Member boards have argued that the number of days required for these events will eat significantly into available time for bilateral cricket, and also for the World Test Championship, with its finals during the cycle set down for 2025, 2027, 2029 and 2031. At the same time, the BCCI is looking at expanding the size of the IPL, further crushing a calendar that now also features a preponderance of domestic T20 events, and from this year will also include the Hundred tournament in England.

 

Another element that the proposed schedule of events seems to push further to the margins is the concept of cricket in the Olympics. In August last year, the MCC's World Cricket Committee chairman Mike Gatting stated that Sawhney had indicated that moves were afoot to include cricket in the Olympics as early as the 2028 games in Los Angeles, the same year as one of the T20 Champions Cups is meant to be played.

 

"We've got a responsibility as one of the leading countries to make the ICC strong and the countries who are part of the ICC. But we've also got to balance that with our own requirements around bilateral cricket," the Cricket Australia chairman Earl Eddings said last year. "One of the challenges we have is Australia relies more on bilateral cricket than the ICC, where for a lot of countries it is the other way round. So just trying to find the balance.

 

"You've got more T20 competitions spreading around the world, you've got the burgeoning IPL and you've got our bilateral cricket. More importantly, what does that mean to the players and from a player welfare perspective. So you've got all these challenges to try to work through. I think there's a solution there, I don't know what it is yet, but we'll keep talking to the ICC and other countries to find a way to one, maximise the opportunities for the ICC and its members but also look after the needs of bilateral cricket and most importantly protect the sanctity of Test cricket."

 

A Champions Cup for both T20 and 50-over matches also features in the proposed women's program, albeit on a reduced scale, with both events being played by six teams over 16 matches. Under the terms set out by the ICC for bidding, the host nation for each event would retain ticketing, hospitality and catering revenues, while the ICC would retain all other commercial and broadcast rights to each event.

 

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/28726640/t20-champions-cup-part-icc-events-2023-2031

Edited February 18, 2020 by Stan AF

[LordPrabhzy]

ICC playing  a dangerous game to cram in as many world events as possible so their revenue goes up.

 

Fiddle too much with the Big 3's revenue sources you are running the risk of them leaving the Council and forming their own. They have that much clout and money to entice smaller boards to join them.

 

But this is ridiculous, why do you need that many T20 world events. We already have T20 franchise tournaments.??

Edited February 18, 2020 by LordPrabhzy

[RajBan]

1 hour ago, LordPrabhzy said:

ICC playing  a dangerous game to cram in as many world events as possible so their revenue goes up.

 

Fiddle too much with the Big 3's revenue sources you are running the risk of them leaving the Council and forming their own. They have that much clout and money to entice smaller boards to join them.

 

But this is ridiculous, why do you need that many T20 world events. We already have T20 franchise tournaments.??

ICC is trying to act as an idiot here but they don't understand that BCCI and ECB can simply pick and choose which one they want to play given that ICC does not have any financial leverage unlike other sports governing bodies . Imagine ICC conducts a tournament and at the same time Ind, Eng, Aus and NZ plan that 4 nation tournament that Ganguly has talked about. Basically ICC is trying to do the same thing what big 3 tried - which is to maximize their revenues and keep the power concentrated. In this game ICC is being partnered by PCB . These things don't benefit anybody and only limits the overall potential of the cricketing world.

[ganeshran]

Pointless tournaments like this will only dilute the appeal of existing multi nation tournaments.

 

I think the current structure is perfect. ODI WC every 4 years, T20 WC ever 2 years and world test championship. 

[LordPrabhzy]

49 minutes ago, ganeshran said:

Pointless tournaments like this will only dilute the appeal of existing multi nation tournaments.

 

I think the current structure is perfect. ODI WC every 4 years, T20 WC ever 2 years and world test championship. 

I still think the T20 WC every 2 years is overkill. they should have this once every 4 years too with both WCs occurring in the space of 2 years after the previous one.  So if ODI WC is in 2023 then T20 one is in 2021 and 2025.

 

The ICC is trying to drive people and spectators away from the sport for the sake of short term revenue.

[cowboysfan]

this will kill a lot of bilateral  series  and affect local T20 leagues. I think the big 3 will not agree to this at all.

[sandeep]

4 hours ago, LordPrabhzy said:

ICC playing  a dangerous game to cram in as many world events as possible so their revenue goes up.

 

Fiddle too much with the Big 3's revenue sources you are running the risk of them leaving the Council and forming their own. They have that much clout and money to entice smaller boards to join them.

 

But this is ridiculous, why do you need that many T20 world events. We already have T20 franchise tournaments.??

Expect this to get worse, a bare knuckles fight.  Its about the future of the cricket calendar.  The ICC saw the writing on the wall with franchise cricket and doesn't want international cricket to end up like international football - A WC every 4 years and the rest of the calendar completely dominated by franchise competition.  And they don't even have the powers that FIFA has in terms of revenue or control.  Worst of all possible worlds for them.  No wonder they are attempting a maximalist approach to take as much control of the calendar, mandating frequent ICC owned tournaments every year.  

 

BCCI will have to fight this war with an iron fist, but encased in a velvet glove.  

 

Interesting times - the outcome will decide what int'l cricket will look like 10 years from now. 

 

In order to have a good outcome from this confrontation, the BCCI needed to have its organizational act together, at least the lodha inflicted civil war is behind us.  But the BCCI needs to have its own long term plans crystallized before it starts and finishes negotiations with the ICC - what does Indian cricket want to be in the next 10 to 15 years?  Does the BCCI have formal plans for IPL expansion, beyond the immediate year or 3, beyond the obvious expansion of 2 more teams?  BCCI has never been a forward-looking organization, let alone forward planning - they are good at navigating board politics, and they instinctively fight for preservation of the status quo, which would result in getting a good amount of flexibility for future growth.  But that is not going to be enough this time around.  They need to know with a good amount of clarity, what they can, and cannot give up in the calendar to the ICC.   Because there is no way that this struggle results in the ICC back-tracking 100%.  

 

 

[ganeshran]

Bcci, ECB and ACB should be ready to walk away if ICC insists on diluting the multi nation tournaments. Even if it means a couple of years of less cricket, there is no way icc should be allowed to cram a 30-40 day t20 tourney in an already crowded cricket calendar 

[sandeep]

33 minutes ago, ganeshran said:

Bcci, ECB and ACB should be ready to walk away if ICC insists

Don't be a sucker - the ICC doesn't dance unless the ECB pulls the strings.  with CA's quiet but unshakeable spport.  

 

This conflict is BCCI's to fight.  Alone.  It will not prevail if it attempts to woo support from ECB/CA.  The re-structuring of the ICC voting committee has tilted the levers of power away from the BCCI - no longer can it assert its will by 'buying' votes of SL, BD, WI and Zim.  And even those votes - apart from SL's are on the other side.  

[ganeshran]

23 minutes ago, sandeep said:

Don't be a sucker - the ICC doesn't dance unless the ECB pulls the strings.  with CA's quiet but unshakeable spport. 

It's not as simplistic as that. England and Australia will side with whoever is winning. I don't think it's in their Interest to cede so much control of their cricket calendar to the icc either.

 

Either way the bcci should keep the nuclear option ready because it might have to use it. 

[sandeep]

16 minutes ago, ganeshran said:

England and Australia will side with whoever is winning.

 

I  believe they have far more influence and control of the ICC, than they let on.  

 

17 minutes ago, ganeshran said:

the bcci should keep the nuclear option ready because it might have to use it. 

Maybe.  But the brinksmanship method carries risks, as well as costs even when you 'succeed'.  It should be the last resort, not the first. 

 

 

[Zero_Unit]

I dont think any other sport does what ICC is trying to do. This is ridicilous ... 3 formats, 2 worldcup, now test championship and to top it off, all these extra stuffs. WTF ... kinda already getting too much cricket these days, let's not take away the interest of wtv is left.

 

IF you thought players were retiring too early, this is one way of giving them a 5 min start.

Most players looks for that IPL contract, if not then they go seek out PSL/BPL/BigBash/etc. Those T20 will most likely suffer due to this kind of incompetency

Edited February 18, 2020 by Zero_Unit

[SUMO]

Have ODI WC, T20 WC & Test Championship every 3 year, with one ICC event occurring every year.

[ShoonyaSifar]

That joker Shashank Manohar and his lackey Manu Sawhney look to be in exceptional hurry. Want to ensure they are ahead of the game Srini is gradually getting into. Fun times. As much as I hate Srini, on this matter absolutely 9n his and BCCI’s side.

[Stan AF]

BCCI upset with ICC for overlooking objections to new events in 2023-31 cycle

 

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/28728021/bcci-upset-icc-overlooking-objections-new-events-2023-31-cycle

 

Pretty self explanatory!!!

 

The BCCI remains adamant that bilateral series need to be worked out before the ICC events are finalised. "We are very clear on that," a senior voice in the BCCI said. "Suppose if the important boards don't file any expression of interest, then… will ICC plan events on its own? By planning ICC event every year, it doesn't work for world cricket actually. The ICC needs to understand this. Bilaterals are more important. It will affect IPL, Big Bash, bilaterals - there will be no window. And how much can the players play?"

Holding a global event every year, this official said, would also potentially reduce the "value" and prestige attached to winning a World Cup.

 

"You lose the charm of winning the World Cup if you are planning to host it every year. Too much of something is not good. When you win a World Cup you look to the next one four years later, but if you host a world event every year then you could lose value of that tournament."

[Stan AF]

[Stan AF]

damn, what the hell is this men's odi champions cup???. I was looking forward to the super league between 4 top ODI teams as envisaged by ganguly.

[Lannister]

Good decision. Tournaments are more competitive in nature and weak captains like Kohli will have less shelf life since they keep getting exposed year after year. This is what Indian cricket need to weed out mediocre players. 

[R!TTER]

18 hours ago, RajBan said:

ICC is trying to act as an idiot here but they don't understand that BCCI and ECB can simply pick and choose which one they want to play given that ICC does not have any financial leverage unlike other sports governing bodies . Imagine ICC conducts a tournament and at the same time Ind, Eng, Aus and NZ plan that 4 nation tournament that Ganguly has talked about.

You can't do that if you've signed on the dotted lines, which admittedly they haven;t done right now. And the only objection they have right now is chiefly from BCCI, while ECB & CA have given up to their greedy urges like they did in the past so many times!

[Stan AF]

I don't mind bilaterals being reduced. However I'd like to see more triangulars/quadrangulars on sportive pitches.