India, England not in favour of cricket at Olympics

[Zero_Unit]

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/current/story/754429.html

Cricket at the summer Olympics is likely to remain a distant dream, not only because India and England are leading the opposition against the idea, but also due to the financial and commercial implications of it for all members of the ICC. Cricket is one of 33 sports recognised by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) which, it is understood, has "encouraged" the ICC to apply for the inclusion of a Twenty20 event in the Olympics, featuring up to 12 teams, both men and women. The IOC will take a decision in 2017 on which new sports to add to the existing roster for the 2024 Olympics, following an evaluation period that begins in 2015. At last year's annual conference in London, the ICC executive board was presented a report "on the benefits and drawbacks of cricket's potential involvement in the Olympics". The board deferred its decision to next week's annual conference, even while deciding to first forward the report to the Associates and Affliliates (A&A) - they were asked to deliberate on the matter during the A&A meeting scheduled for Tuesday. It is understood that Neil Speight, the chairman of the A&A, who sits as one of the directors on the ICC board, felt it was important for A&A countries to study the report. Cricket at the Olympics has always received a firm nod from the A&A countries and the report confirmed that view. "[The inclusion] has proved highly popular with the majority of Associate and Affiliate members, yet it also creates significant problems for prominent Full Members," it said. Based on a survey conducted in 2008, 90% of the ICC's members supported the idea, with a few reservations. Jon Long, ICC's head of strategic management and support services, who prepared the report, pointed out that his findings were based "predominantly from the economic perspective". According to the report, if cricket were to be part of the 2024 Olympics it would receive a "projected" dividend of US $15-20 million from the IOC. All ICC members would receive both government and national Olympics committee support of "several million dollars" per year, in addition to an estimated $4-6 million annually from the Olympic Solidarity funding. The ICC also stood to earn "increased incomes" from A&A member countries for ICC-event media rights. The inclusion would also be a boost for women's cricket, which the report said could enhance its profile globally. The report also pointed out potential drawbacks, both direct and indirect, which Long felt made the decision a very difficult one for the ICC. One of the biggest impediments was whether the ICC was willing to stage the World T20 every four years, instead of following the current two-year cycle. Last year, the ICC decided that the men's World T20 would be held once every four years starting 2016, in line with its goal of having one pinnacle tournament for every format of the game over a four-year period. "The impact of an Olympic cricket tournament will depend to a large extent on the frequency with which the ICC World T20 is staged in the future," the report said. "If the plan is to stage the World T20 every two years then, in all likelihood, an Olympic cricket tournament would have to replace one of these competitions in the future. If the plan is to target a four-year cycle for the World T20, then the ICC events calendar could potentially be rearranged to accommodate the Olympic T20 event every four years." A related consequence was lower financial returns as the report pointed out the revenue from the Olympics event would "not come close to offsetting" the projected revenues from a World T20. "By way of direct comparison, member distributions (after costs) from the ICC World T20 in 2012 were US$85.5m, whereas the distribution to a lower-ranked international federation from London 2012 was only US$14m," the report said. One of the other big obstacles was the Olympics clashing with the cricketing seasons of various Full Members - this was the ECB's main point of contention. "In the England and Wales Cricket Board's, the potential for a clash occurs every four years. Indeed, the ECB has estimated that an Olympic Games in the first half of August could see it lose an entire four-match Test series which would, based on its current valuations, cause cricket in England and Wales to miss out on revenues of US$130 million and would - based on the knock-on effects in other years - require compensation of approximately US$ 160 million," the report stated. This problem was England's alone, the report indicated, considering other Full Members like Sri Lanka, West Indies and Zimbabwe hosted bilateral tournaments during the summer months. In India's case, the reported pointed out the main issue was to do with "member autonomy", something the BCCI was reluctant to give up. "This has previously been raised as a critical issue by the BCCI and no decision to proceed could be made without a satisfactory resolution of this matter," the report said. The report stated that having an additional T20 event could also harm the cricketing ecosystem at a time when the ICC has been striving hard to maintain a balance between three formats of the game. "There is already a trend emerging of more T20 matches being scheduled in the months leading up to an ICC World T20 event, and an Olympic competition could inspire a similar increase in the number of T20 international matches. The introduction of this event should be considered in the wider context of other strategic issues including the balance between the three international formats, player workloads and domestic leagues," the report said. The report concluded by stating recent entrants to the Olympics fold, like rugby7s and golf, had done it on "emotion and instinct" whereas the ICC was more keen on embracing an "evidence-based" approach. "One certainty is that cricket undoubtedly has the capacity to thrive as a sport with or without the Olympic Games. The manner in which it will grow, however, will depend on the strategic decisions that are taken by the ICC board. A judgment on whether or not to pursue inclusion in the Olympic Games is arguably one of the biggest strategic decisions it will face." Cricket at the summer Olympics is likely to remain a distant dream, not only because India and England are leading the opposition against the idea, but also due to the financial and commercial implications of it for all members of the ICC. Cricket is one of 33 sports recognised by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) which, it is understood, has "encouraged" the ICC to apply for the inclusion of a Twenty20 event in the Olympics, featuring up to 12 teams, both men and women. The IOC will take a decision in 2017 on which new sports to add to the existing roster for the 2024 Olympics, following an evaluation period that begins in 2015. At last year's annual conference in London, the ICC executive board was presented a report "on the benefits and drawbacks of cricket's potential involvement in the Olympics". The board deferred its decision to next week's annual conference, even while deciding to first forward the report to the Associates and Affliliates (A&A) - they were asked to deliberate on the matter during the A&A meeting scheduled for Tuesday. It is understood that Neil Speight, the chairman of the A&A, who sits as one of the directors on the ICC board, felt it was important for A&A countries to study the report. Cricket at the Olympics has always received a firm nod from the A&A countries and the report confirmed that view. "[The inclusion] has proved highly popular with the majority of Associate and Affiliate members, yet it also creates significant problems for prominent Full Members," it said. Based on a survey conducted in 2008, 90% of the ICC's members supported the idea, with a few reservations. Jon Long, ICC's head of strategic management and support services, who prepared the report, pointed out that his findings were based "predominantly from the economic perspective". According to the report, if cricket were to be part of the 2024 Olympics it would receive a "projected" dividend of US $15-20 million from the IOC. All ICC members would receive both government and national Olympics committee support of "several million dollars" per year, in addition to an estimated $4-6 million annually from the Olympic Solidarity funding. The ICC also stood to earn "increased incomes" from A&A member countries for ICC-event media rights. The inclusion would also be a boost for women's cricket, which the report said could enhance its profile globally. The report also pointed out potential drawbacks, both direct and indirect, which Long felt made the decision a very difficult one for the ICC. One of the biggest impediments was whether the ICC was willing to stage the World T20 every four years, instead of following the current two-year cycle. Last year, the ICC decided that the men's World T20 would be held once every four years starting 2016, in line with its goal of having one pinnacle tournament for every format of the game over a four-year period. "The impact of an Olympic cricket tournament will depend to a large extent on the frequency with which the ICC World T20 is staged in the future," the report said. "If the plan is to stage the World T20 every two years then, in all likelihood, an Olympic cricket tournament would have to replace one of these competitions in the future. If the plan is to target a four-year cycle for the World T20, then the ICC events calendar could potentially be rearranged to accommodate the Olympic T20 event every four years." A related consequence was lower financial returns as the report pointed out the revenue from the Olympics event would "not come close to offsetting" the projected revenues from a World T20. "By way of direct comparison, member distributions (after costs) from the ICC World T20 in 2012 were US$85.5m, whereas the distribution to a lower-ranked international federation from London 2012 was only US$14m," the report said. One of the other big obstacles was the Olympics clashing with the cricketing seasons of various Full Members - this was the ECB's main point of contention. "In the England and Wales Cricket Board's, the potential for a clash occurs every four years. Indeed, the ECB has estimated that an Olympic Games in the first half of August could see it lose an entire four-match Test series which would, based on its current valuations, cause cricket in England and Wales to miss out on revenues of US$130 million and would - based on the knock-on effects in other years - require compensation of approximately US$ 160 million," the report stated. This problem was England's alone, the report indicated, considering other Full Members like Sri Lanka, West Indies and Zimbabwe hosted bilateral tournaments during the summer months. In India's case, the reported pointed out the main issue was to do with "member autonomy", something the BCCI was reluctant to give up. "This has previously been raised as a critical issue by the BCCI and no decision to proceed could be made without a satisfactory resolution of this matter," the report said. The report stated that having an additional T20 event could also harm the cricketing ecosystem at a time when the ICC has been striving hard to maintain a balance between three formats of the game. "There is already a trend emerging of more T20 matches being scheduled in the months leading up to an ICC World T20 event, and an Olympic competition could inspire a similar increase in the number of T20 international matches. The introduction of this event should be considered in the wider context of other strategic issues including the balance between the three international formats, player workloads and domestic leagues," the report said. The report concluded by stating recent entrants to the Olympics fold, like rugby7s and golf, had done it on "emotion and instinct" whereas the ICC was more keen on embracing an "evidence-based" approach. "One certainty is that cricket undoubtedly has the capacity to thrive as a sport with or without the Olympic Games. The manner in which it will grow, however, will depend on the strategic decisions that are taken by the ICC board. A judgment on whether or not to pursue inclusion in the Olympic Games is arguably one of the biggest strategic decisions it will face."

[Vilander]

it gives ind/pak/sl a fair chance on gold this should be encouraged.

[Scarves]

India I don't understand why. England maybe bceause they would have to be Great Britain. This is like India's best chance for gold.

[BlueBee]

:facepalm: DAFUQ India :idunno:

[Vilander]

India I don't understand why. England maybe bceause they would have to be Great Britain. This is like India's best chance for gold.

Indian shooters will disagree with that statement and they have guns :winky:.

[kirisatha96]

India missed good opportunity for some gold.

[MCcricket]

sreeni the flag bearer OLYMPICS LOL :cantstop:, GIVE US 50 % REVENUE OR WE WILL HAVE OUR OWN OLYMPICS IN CHENNAI

[Scarves]

Indian shooters will disagree with that statement and they have guns :winky:.

Shooting is their 2nd best chance. :winky: But cricket would be like the best chance to win a gold medal since their awesome streak in hockey.

[moniker]

India I don't understand why. England maybe bceause they would have to be Great Britain. This is like India's best chance for gold.

Why would BCCI care about gold? It doesn't bring them any money.

[maniac]

Shooting is their 2nd best chance. :winky: But cricket would be like the best chance to win a gold medal since their awesome streak in hockey.

We won 2 medals in Boxing,One of the leading nations in badminton so don't know what you are on about....anyways definetely a chance for Srilanka and Pak to win something....Bangladesh well they are Bangladesh

[Desi Cartman]

Its simple, IOC doesnt run or have ANY control over BCCI. Techincally BCCI is not even representing Indian. BCCI wants to be separate body and doesnt want any other body to interfere.

[maniac]

Its simple' date=' IOC doesnt run or have ANY control over BCCI. Techincally BCCI is not even representing Indian. BCCI wants to be separate body and doesnt want any other body to interfere.[/quote'] Just like the Good Taliban>Bad Taliban theory I beleive BCCI>IOC so maybe they don't want the babus at IOC to get a share of the cut

[Desi Cartman]

Just like the Good Taliban>Bad Taliban theory I beleive BCCI>IOC so maybe they don't want the babus at IOC to get a share of the cut

yes they dont. Plus once its under IOC, BCCI will have to implement anti-doping rules and IOC will have visibility into other operations of BCCI.

[sachin34357]

no money = no approval

[Desi Cartman]

plus IPL > Olympics .. The money they make from IPL, they can buy tons of Gold Medals :finger:

[Scarves]

We won 2 medals in Boxing' date='One of the leading nations in badminton so don't know what you are on about....anyways definetely a chance for Srilanka and Pak to win something....Bangladesh well they are Bangladesh[/quote'] I didn't say India can't win gold medals. I said it was India's best chance for gold. You gotta read it as it is there is nothing to read between the lines.

[adi B]

introducing t20 cricket would have been a chance to strike gold but i am confident india will win at least 10 medals this time with a couple of golds. more than cricket,i am looking forward to kabbadi being introduced in olympics but then is it practised in 70+ countries? india's best bet is kabbadi

[Scarves]

India's best chance was hockey until they decided not to fund it or something.

[G_B_]

shooting is realistically the best chance India have in the olympics for a gold. (it has already yielded a gold) The reason being there are some 18 golds on offer (men and women). Hockey offers 2. People also need to get out this olympic = spread the sport. Its a stupid theory. Field hockey for example never took off cause the USA for eg or even China decided not to allocate resources to an event which needed a lot of funding and yielded only 2 medals at max. If cricket say became an olympic sport. Your telling me that nations are going to set aside lots of money to develop their cricket (when there are established players). When the same money can be used in events such as swimming athletics and shooting which can yield a whole mass of medals and are much cheaper to run than cricket? Even the IOC will be stupid to accept cricket as a sport. Cricket needs specialist infra from making pitches to circular fields. I read that field hockey stadium in greece is basically used now as a futsal pitch and is in a bad condition.

[Zero_Unit]

You guys are missing the point. A bit of sacrifice can bring in more nations to cricket. In business if you're not willing to invest well then don't expect a great return.