BCCI-ICC Saga REVEALED:ICCs New Revenue Model:BCCI'S Share almost Halved,ECB loses 1 percent,CA loses nothing

[Malcolm Merlyn]

Quote

Revealed: The ICC's new financial model

 

 

 

ESPNcricinfo can reveal details of the ICC's new financial model that was proposed to Full Members at last weekend's board meeting in Dubai. The models are part of a broader report, produced by an ICC working group committee, which seeks to provide the basis of a new constitution for the game.

 

The draft of a new constitution was passed in principle at the meeting, with seven members voting for it, two opposing and one abstaining. Members will now bring thoughts, suggestions and concerns to the table in April, which may result in changes to the draft.

 

The biggest obstacle will be the financial model and, in particular, the BCCI's objections to it. ICC revenues for this rights cycle - 2015-2023 - are estimated to be around US $2.5 billion. Some estimates suggest revenues may go as high as $2.7 billion. The projections in this model are for revenues up to $3 billion. These are based on the possibility of additional ICC tournaments being added to the existing cycle. ESPNcricinfo has seen the model, from which a number of things stand out.

 

HOW THE ICC REVENUES WILL BE SPLIT (2015-2023 RIGHTS CYCLE)

ICC Gross Revenues

(In US$) 2.5 Billion 2.6 Billion 2.7 Billion 2.8 Billion 2.9 Billion 3 Billion

BCCI 255-260 270-275 285-290 305-310 320-325 335-340

ECB 120-125 130-135 135-140 145-150 155-160 160-165

CA 110-115 120-125 125-130 135-140 140-145 150-155

CSA 110-115 120-125 125-130 135-140 140-145 150-155

PCB 110-115 120-125 125-130 135-140 140-145 150-155

WICB 110-115 120-125 125-130 135-140 140-145 150-155

NZC 110-115 120-125 125-130 135-140 140-145 150-155

SLC 110-115 120-125 125-130 135-140 140-145 150-155

BCB 110-115 120-125 125-130 135-140 140-145 150-155

ZC 75-80 80-85 85-90 90-95 95-100 105-110

IRE 50-55 55-60 55-60 60-65 65-70 70-75

AFG 50-55 55-60 55-60 60-65 65-70 70-75

All member board revenues in millions

No contribution, no cost

The most controversial aspect of the 2014 Big Three financial model was the idea of contribution costs, and the realisation that not all members bring to the game an equal amount of money. What each Full Member earned in total from the ICC revenue was a percentage figure of the total revenues (the contribution cost, based on contributions made, and provided as compensation for playing in ICC events: the BCCI had a 20.3% share, ECB 4.4%, Cricket Australia, 2.7% and so on) plus an equal share of the surplus (which is how revenues had been divided until then). The seven non-Big Three boards also got an additional $10 million over eight years as part of the Test Cricket Fund.

 

In the new model, this breakdown of earnings is redundant as is the contribution-cost element. Instead one lump sum figure is provided for each board. But the principle behind contribution costs remains because in every projection, the BCCI gets a bigger share of the pie than every other board - twice as much, in fact, as the next.

 

The Big Three take a hit

In the new model, the percentage shares of the BCCI and ECB in the total pie have gone down, while that of CA remains roughly the same. But a quick calculation will tell you why the BCCI is unhappy with these models. Not only is there no real formula behind them, but the Indian board takes the biggest hit from the 2014 model.

 

In that model, for gross ICC revenue of $2.5 billion, the BCCI stood to earn between 17.6-18% of the revenue (between $440-445 million*). In the new model, at the same gross revenue, it gets 10-10.2%. That is a reduction in potential earnings of between $180-190 million. The percentage share does increase should the ICC's revenue increase but it isn't a large spike: if the ICC gets $3 billion as revenue, the BCCI's share will be between 11.16-11.33%.

 

Under the 2014 model, the ECB stood to take 5.8-6%, whereas now its share is 4.8-5%, or between $20-30 million less. CA's share was between 4.4-4.6% in the last model and is more or less the same now. As with the BCCI, their shares will increase should the ICC's total gross revenue increase. That is the case with all boards.

 

Equity

The ICC said in its press release after the meeting that a sense of equity played a big part in the determining of these figures. That much is clear in the fact that below the BCCI and ECB are seven boards that stand to get essentially the same share for nearly any projected value of total gross revenue.

 

It would seem as if the ICC has tried to preserve both a sense of contribution cost - by recognising the right of the BCCI to the largest share - and, by narrowing the gap between them and the others, ensuring a degree of equality among the boards beneath them. The problem, of course, is that there remains no set formula behind these numbers - they remain, essentially, arbitrary figures.

 

Welcome Ireland and Afghanistan

You will not have missed the last two entries in the first table - Ireland and Afghanistan. The status of both was discussed at the board meeting; Afghanistan's domestic multi-day tournament was given first-class status, thus fulfilling one key prerequisite to play Test cricket.

 

This model - as well as the Test league structure - is perhaps the clearest sign yet that there is a will to have them playing Tests, or at least be part of the big boys' club. Over eight years (with ICC gross revenues of $2.5 billion) each could earn $50-55 million.

 

Goodbye Test Cricket Fund

One of the redeeming features of the Big Three model was the introduction of a Test Cricket Fund that sought to subsidise unprofitable bilateral series outside the Big Three. That amounted to $10 million for each of the seven boards over the eight-year cycle. The first payments were made to these boards last year.

 

This move is likely linked to the introduction of a league structure for Test cricket, which, in theory, means that all bilateral contests have greater context, and thus, greater financial value and so do not need subsidising.

 

*Footnote: The figures in this Big Three model are different to those that appeared in the original position paper in January 2014

 

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

 

 

[Malcolm Merlyn]

@sandeep

 

When i say some figures exist.They do exist.The media may report it later.

[Cricketics]

We will be fine.We are rich, will stay rich too. "Mogambo abhi bhi khush hai."

[Malcolm Merlyn]

We will be fine.We are rich, will stay rich too. "Mogambo abhi bhi khush hai."

 

Lol.Yea take away BCCIs share and give it to boards like PCB.Tu rehne de bhai.Tu khush rah.

[Cricketics]

2 minutes ago, Malcolm Merlyn said:

 

Lol.Yea take away BCCIs share and give it to boards like PCB.Tu rehne de bhai.Tu khush rah.

Na I am laughing at you being too worried about BCCI going bankrupt or something from last one month.  We will stay rich.

[kosingh]

So ECB losing much more than 1%

[Malcolm Merlyn]

So ECB losing much more than 1%

 

Nopes.It is not.

[kosingh]

3 minutes ago, Malcolm Merlyn said:

 

Nopes.It is not.

Then at least calculate BCCI reduction and ECB reduction using the same method. You are calculating BCCI reduction in comparison to it's previous share, but calculating ECB reduction in comparison to total ICC revenues.

[Malcolm Merlyn]

1 minute ago, kosingh said:

Then at least calculate BCCI reduction and ECB reduction using the same method. You are calculating BCCI reduction in comparison to it's previous share, but calculating ECB reduction in comparison to total ICC revenues.

Quote

 

In the new model, the percentage shares of the BCCI and ECB in the total pie have gone down, while that of CA remains roughly the same. But a quick calculation will tell you why the BCCI is unhappy with these models. Not only is there no real formula behind them, but the Indian board takes the biggest hit from the 2014 model.

 

In that model, for gross ICC revenue of $2.5 billion, the BCCI stood to earn between 17.6-18% of the revenue (between $440-445 million*). In the new model, at the same gross revenue, it gets 10-10.2%. That is a reduction in potential earnings of between $180-190 million. The percentage share does increase should the ICC's revenue increase but it isn't a large spike: if the ICC gets $3 billion as revenue, the BCCI's share will be between 11.16-11.33%.

 

Under the 2014 model, the ECB stood to take 5.8-6%, whereas now its share is 4.8-5%, or between $20-30 million less. CA's share was between 4.4-4.6% in the last model and is more or less the same now. As with the BCCI, their shares will increase should the ICC's total gross revenue increase. That is the case with all boards.

 

[Malcolm Merlyn]

27 minutes ago, Cricketics said:

Na I am laughing at you being too worried about BCCI going bankrupt or something from last one month.  We will stay rich.

This will basically wipe out more than 50% of BCCI's surplus at present.

[sandeep]

What's missing from the ECB's share in all this media coverage is the fact that they are "hosting" champions trophy and ODI world cup in this cycle.  That's a few hundred million dollars right there.  

[Malcolm Merlyn]

2 minutes ago, sandeep said:

What's missing from the ECB's share in all this media coverage is the fact that they are "hosting" champions trophy and ODI world cup in this cycle.  That's a few hundred million dollars right there.  

 

So i am not a Feku sir.

[King Tendulkar]

44 minutes ago, kosingh said:

Then at least calculate BCCI reduction and ECB reduction using the same method. You are calculating BCCI reduction in comparison to it's previous share, but calculating ECB reduction in comparison to total ICC revenues.

We await new calculations 

[Malcolm Merlyn]

1 minute ago, King Tendulkar said:

We await new calculations 

 

Calculation has been done by ESPN.

[express bowling]

So. basically,  BCCI  contributes around 80% of the ICC's  revenues and gets 10% of it under the new revenue sharing model.

 

BCCI  does not  want  that to happen but is forced to.

 

Where is the fairness and  equity in that   !!

Edited February 9, 2017 by express bowling

[express bowling]

What is the    " Revenue Received  /  Revenue Generated    ratio "    of other top countries like England and Australia  ?

 

India's ratio has been cut from  around 0.25 to around 0.125

 

England and Australia most probably have this ratio at more than 0.50 or 0.60

 

Why  is this the case  ?

 

What is the basis of this new model  ?

 

" Revenue Received  adjusted by  cost of living    /   Population  ratio  "      is also quite low in case of India.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 9, 2017 by express bowling

[HalfMan]

BCCI should know it's worth and if ICC doesn't meet that, then let's walk away. 8 month IPL sounds like a great idea.

[mishra]

Knowing English and ECB, I can guarantee that ECB 1% must have been compensated in equivalence of 2% somewhere

[King Tendulkar]

11 minutes ago, HalfMan said:

BCCI should know it's worth and if ICC doesn't meet that, then let's walk away. 8 month IPL sounds like a great idea.

8 month ipl sounds horrendous lol

 

we have to do what ICC says or we doomed 

Edited February 9, 2017 by King Tendulkar

[HalfMan]

22 minutes ago, King Tendulkar said:

8 month ipl sounds horrendous lol

 

we have to do what ICC says or we doomed 

If BCCI leave ICC, then Cricket is all set to become Field Hockey's slightly richer cousin. ICC would hate this scenario far more than BCCI, and this is where BCCI needs to leverage it's position. I will actually be pissed if BCCI bows down here.