BCCI and ICC

This is the forum for discussion of all cricketing issues and news. Here you will find frank analysis and opinion on subjects ranging from selection policies, favourite cricketers and match post-mortems right through to dressing room and cricket board fiascos.
User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3093
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

BCCI and ICC

Postby Paddles » Thu Apr 27, 2017 6:46 am

So most cricket fans understand the issue, for those that don't I'll put it succinctly. The BCCI wants a greater share of ICC revenue than that received by full members as the large Indian population though broadcasting creates more of the revenue to begin with. The argument is that shares shouldn't be equal as there is a disproportionate input of rupees as against dollars and pounds into the kitty.

Seems fair, if you accept that the BCCI has a right to claim the Indian's fans broadcast revenue in any form. (They don't - only the Indian government can tax broadcast inputs - BCCI cannot even control who the broadcaster is - see their abandoned tour of Pakistan recently as they did not like who got the broadcast rights for the event where the revenue was heading to tge PCB). So maybe its a reflection of equitable as against equal fan redistribution of revenue from broadcasting rights. This is a far more acceptable argument in matches involving India, but if India are knocked out in the pool stages, quarter final, or semi - final, the cricket mad audience in India - many will still watch the final. What claims do the BCCI have here to cash in on this as against the remaining full icc members? Promoting cricket awareness in India? Seems a stretch to be honest. Just because Indians are watching the event in India? If so, the West Indies and NZ with its small national populations are in big strife.

While England and Australia have agreed to go back to more equal sharing, the BCCI still wants more to reflect where the revenue is generated. The counter argument is the BCCI controls the Indian cricket team not world cricket, and world cricket would survive without India. Or more accurately, cricket would survive in India without the BCCI as it stands and is currently run.

The ICC owns all broadcasting to its own events. So why doesn't the ICC just say to the BCCI - that they'll sell the broadcasting to Indian matches separately to an Indian broadcaster, and will give the BCCI half of this rights package. (BCCI will probably want more than half base on viewership, but the ICC can then argue that it is giving the BCCI the opposition to play against, this is the heart of the custodian of the game equal sharing argument). ICC then will sell the entire ICC package to possibly another broadcaster which includes the final and semi-finals (quarterfinals perhaps as well). If India qualify for the finals, they can either forfeit, or play with no additional disproportionate share of revenue. It may be hard to value the finals separately as an ICC broadcasting package, so in that case it may be that possibly two different broadcasters broadcast the game involving India.

BCCI's threats of boycott are rather weak. India needs opposition to play for there to be any value in cricket broadcasting at all with revenue heading their way. But it is a possibly persuasive argument that the ICC redistribution of funds ought to acknowledge the disproportionate contributions based on fan base. However, countries outside the big 3 need this revenue greatly to remain competitive and pay salaries etc, and without these additional countries participating, the broadcasting value of the event would greatly diminish. An England, India, Australia tri-series is far less interesting than a world event for a partisan fan. Pakistan and South Africa still generate big audiences in India, and some NZ, SL, WI, Bang players generate wider cricketing interest globally.

These issues will become more and more common in sports moving forward as the lines between charitable international organisations that are custodians of the game start looking more like boards paying variable dividends to unequal corporate shareholders. Contributions not paid on the competitiveness and supplying of any team, but by how much the broadcasting sold for in each nation which is largely driven by population and popularity of said sport within that populace.

Is the charter of the ICC organization to promote and sustain international cricket, or to redistribute wealth from commercial activities of ICC events? Is it a business with inequal shareholders or a charity to keep all members competitive and grow cricket? Is the BCCI the biggest shareholder in the ICC or a member of a body that is the international custodian of the game as a primary stakeholder with equal full membership?

Ironically the Indian Government could remove the BCCI charity status and tax it.
Last edited by Paddles on Thu Apr 27, 2017 2:23 pm, edited 5 times in total.
If any moderator or administrator is able to add Going South to my foe list, I would greatly appreciate it.

User avatar
Going South
Muppet Administrator
Muppet Administrator
Posts: 25317
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 6:10 pm
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 0
United States of America

BCCI and ICC

Postby Going South » Thu Apr 27, 2017 7:29 am

You sure hate BCCI, don't you ?
Is it jealousy?

I see nothing wrong in BCCI asking for bigger pie.
They deserve it.
India got huge population. Expat Indians combined itself is larger than all nations combined.
Take out BCCI, you get 80% less viewership.

As a protest to ICC now onwards I am absconding all cricket matches that does not feature BCCI.

I say BCCI should stop playing ICC matches for 3 months and show difference.
Or least send C Team in defiance.

User avatar
Going South
Muppet Administrator
Muppet Administrator
Posts: 25317
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 6:10 pm
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 0
United States of America

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby Going South » Thu Apr 27, 2017 7:33 am

This internal power fight between shashank manohar and his colleagues washing dirty linen in public nothing do with rules or law or ethics.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3093
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby Paddles » Thu Apr 27, 2017 7:42 am

Going South wrote:You sure hate BCCI, don't you ?


Nopes. Don't know any of the BCCI. I identify both arguments. No hate involved at all.


Going South wrote:Is it jealousy?


I am interested in the direction international cricket is heading as are many international cricket fans.

Going South wrote:I see nothing wrong in BCCI asking for bigger pie.
They deserve it.


Everyone wants a bigger pie. Perhaps you mean a bigger slice of the pie. Why? If I make a movie on equal profit sharing with an international cast including an Indian actor, that is a hit in India but flops in the USA and elsewhere, why should I pay that actor anything extra? If for a sequel, and my budget cannot cater the full cast if I do so, then am I not making a business decision about the content of the film instead of making the film I set out to make?

Why does BCCI deserve to cash in extra on the more Indian cricket fans in India for an international product? Because it promotes the interest of cricket in that country? Seems a stretch. Indians watched the World T20 or world cup final after India was knocked out. Why should the BCCI get more for that? Because of its larger or more successful market and not its individual participation?

Going South wrote:India got huge population.

Yes. But India had a huge population before pay TV hit India. This is about ICC broadcast revenue where India provides a disproportionate share of the international kitty.

Going South wrote: Expat Indians combined itself is larger than all nations combined.
No relevance here at all. The BCCI does not get a dime nor is it asking for any dime for Indian fans watching in or playing for NZ, Aus, Eng, USA, etc. Broadcasting rights are done regionally.

Going South wrote:Take out BCCI, you get 80% less viewership.
Give me more useful stats. The issue is about ICC revenue redistribution. Are you saying any broadcasted cricket event in India without an Indian team is only worth 1/5th as much in India as if India played? Seems acceptable. So sell those rights in India, and then sell the rights with the Indian team playing and give BCCI half of that.

Going South wrote:As a protest to ICC now onwards I am absconding all cricket matches that does not feature BCCI.

I say BCCI should stop playing ICC matches for 3 months and show difference.
Or least send C Team in defiance.


The only ICC matches are the World Cups, Champions Trophy and World T20's and youth events like the U-19s. Billateral international matches are not ICC matches, the host owns the revenue rights.
Last edited by Paddles on Thu Apr 27, 2017 12:40 pm, edited 7 times in total.
If any moderator or administrator is able to add Going South to my foe list, I would greatly appreciate it.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3093
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby Paddles » Thu Apr 27, 2017 7:49 am

Going South, you're very quick to reduce this debate down to emotion. Its not about any of that.

Sport can be a business. And if so - markets of the quasi shareholders and operators matter. Sport can also be a charity. And if so - the sport matters. The ICC is an international sports body ensuring there are international teams to play each other.

Is the ICC a business owned by its shareholders in disproportionate shares subject to their respective broadcasting markets to create revenue for its members or is it a charity that is the custodian of the game? And if it is a business in your mind where markets matter, why is the BCCI still a charity?

But remember if in your mind international cricket is a business, all cricketing nations outside the Big 3 are going to fail eventually and be shut down - just business. Then there will be no debate over ICC revenue, there will just be tri-series at best.

So do you want world cricket business efficiency of 3 nations, or world cricket charity of 9 and more nations?
Last edited by Paddles on Thu Apr 27, 2017 10:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
If any moderator or administrator is able to add Going South to my foe list, I would greatly appreciate it.

User avatar
Boycs
Muppet Moderator
Muppet Moderator
Posts: 10124
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 10:32 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0
United Kingdom

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby Boycs » Thu Apr 27, 2017 8:28 am

Sport is a business, and wouldn't survive if it wasn't treated as such. My only hope is that the business behind the scenes can still be fronted with a facade of passionate sporting competition and love of the game, so - even if it is more of an illusion now than ever - I can still enjoy cricket at cricket.

I don't want to be told that the rabbit was in the hat the entire time but, if I was honest, I did know.

I do feel sometimes that the BCCI and the IPL are very direct about business and make it more obvious to me, with the ridiculous advertising, sloganed man of the match awards, boundaries, and completely brazen moronic commentators that sound like slogan vending machines. But then the ECB is constantly quarrelling with the counties about advertising revenue, changing the county teams to sloganed franchises.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3093
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby Paddles » Thu Apr 27, 2017 8:37 am

BoyCaught30 wrote:Sport is a business, and wouldn't survive if it wasn't treated as such.


Yet all international cricket boards are charities and the ICC has charity status. And charities survive as well. And charities do business all the time.

This isn't about one liner cliches. This is actually about the philosophical core of the institutions.
If any moderator or administrator is able to add Going South to my foe list, I would greatly appreciate it.

User avatar
Going South
Muppet Administrator
Muppet Administrator
Posts: 25317
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 6:10 pm
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 0
United States of America

BCCI and ICC

Postby Going South » Thu Apr 27, 2017 10:46 am

Useless stats? Think so ?
The way you try to answer line by line of my post (or anyone else) question your intentions as a whole. You talk ARGUMENT SAKE for any thing anyone posts and you call my post as emotional ? Hahahaha. Nice try. If you really want to argue on everything BLINDLY sorry this might not right place for you.
Fact check : India got 1.2 billion people and at least 1/4th KNOW cricket exists to watch cricket and follow. Now count number of cricket followers on all cricket nations and find how many knows there is a sport called cricket exists and follows. Numbers don't lie. Wake up.

Ps: don't argue for argument sake. Sometimes it's ok to agree to a view now and then. Be inclusive. Don't fight with everyone in the world. Hope you understand what I am saying.

User avatar
Going South
Muppet Administrator
Muppet Administrator
Posts: 25317
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 6:10 pm
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 0
United States of America

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby Going South » Thu Apr 27, 2017 11:33 am

BCCI don't need ICC.
IF not ICC, BCCI can deal directly with other boards and make plans for tours.
If they abolish non profitable NAMESAKE test cricket and play more T20 instead they are better off without ICC stealing their money.
Test cricket is on death bed anyway.
India is ready for yearlong IPL.
invite other private clubs tour India for for month long one-on-one T20 matches on different grounds.
There is market for it.
To hell with ICC.

ICC needs BCCI. They should come around or else adios.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3093
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby Paddles » Thu Apr 27, 2017 11:39 am

Going South wrote:Useless stats? Think so ?
The way you try to answer line by line of my post (or anyone else) question your intentions as a whole. You talk ARGUMENT SAKE for any thing anyone posts and you call my post as emotional ? Hahahaha. Nice try. If you really want to argue on everything BLINDLY sorry this might not right place for you.
Fact check : India got 1.2 billion people and at least 1/4th KNOW cricket exists to watch cricket and follow. Now count number of cricket followers on all cricket nations and find how many knows there is a sport called cricket exists and follows. Numbers don't lie. Wake up.

Ps: don't argue for argument sake. Sometimes it's ok to agree to a view now and then. Be inclusive. Don't fight with everyone in the world. Hope you understand what I am saying.


And India is 1 member of the ICC. And India send 1 team to the World Cup and Champions trophy. This is 1 team that plays teams from other nations in an international tournament and the revenue of which goes to ICC members to continue the playing of cricket in those member and associate nations.

What is your point? What is your argument? 1.2 billion people is not an argument.

P.S - avoid ad hominem in your arguments. They're a logical fallacy.
Last edited by Paddles on Thu Apr 27, 2017 12:38 pm, edited 3 times in total.
If any moderator or administrator is able to add Going South to my foe list, I would greatly appreciate it.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3093
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby Paddles » Thu Apr 27, 2017 11:46 am

Going South wrote:BCCI don't need ICC.
IF not ICC, BCCI can deal directly with other boards and make plans for tours.
If they abolish non profitable NAMESAKE test cricket and play more T20 instead they are better off without ICC stealing their money.
Test cricket is on death bed anyway.
India is ready for yearlong IPL.
invite other private clubs tour India for for month long one-on-one T20 matches on different grounds.
There is market for it.
To hell with ICC.

ICC needs BCCI. They should come around or else adios.


Actually, the ICC does not need the BCCI. The ICC could take tender from Indian persons to set up a rival board and domestic cricket competitions in India. Heck, they don't even need to be Indian, they could send CA into India to help grow cricket there and find a team to send to international events. This is hyperbolic but it serves to make a point, the BCCI does not own cricket - not in India, not anywhere in the world.

Again you refer to billateral series, this has nothing to do with bilateral series. It is about ICC events broadcast revenue, and I repeat, World Cups, Champions Trophy and World T20. This is not about test cricket either. The BCCI does not promote the ICC events, the ICC does. The BCCI does not organise ICC events, the ICC does. All the BCCI has to do is send a team if qualified. That's it. In exchange, it gets millions of dollars.

How is the ICC stealing BCCI money? How is the money generated from international cricket the property of the BCCI? How does the BCCI own what the Indian fan spends to watch a game played in England, involving or not involving India, on a domestic Indian television provider.

Make an argument.

Are you suggesting that the ICC is a cooperative to generate revenue that should be then paid out to the local cricket board for the region that bought the broadcasting rights of the games? So the ICC members are not EQUAL partners in international cricket tournaments and ensuring their continued existence and promotion of cricket globally via the ICC? Well if that is the argument of the BCCI, and it sees international cricket as a competitive revenue industry, why on earth does this business have charity status? If the ICC itself is a corporation for the benefit of the stakeholders and not a charity ensuring global international cricket, why would the domestic boards be any different for promoting cricket locally?
Last edited by Paddles on Thu Apr 27, 2017 12:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If any moderator or administrator is able to add Going South to my foe list, I would greatly appreciate it.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3093
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby Paddles » Thu Apr 27, 2017 12:07 pm

Maybe this is too technical for some: think of it like this. Clubs like Liverpool and Manchester United has a big fan base, both in its region and globally. But it still needs teams to play against, so it doesn't get a bigger share of the TV rights EPL pie than smaller clubs like Stoke or Leicester City. The competition to be captivating and interesting needs more than 1 or 2 strong teams each and every time to maintain interest. The fan base is maintained and expands, the sport grows as a result. This then make the tv rights worth even more. This keeps the EPL ahead of the competition with a local and global fan base that many European leagues envy (even with bigger populations than England).

Or should teams with a larger fan base demand more of the tv rights despite only sending 1 team because they have the fans? This will ultimately lead to less teams and less competition, and then less fans.

Or in IPL terms, should Hyderabhad as a lower population city and thus less fans receive less IPL revenue than a team from a more populated city like Kolkata or Mumbai who provide more fans?
Last edited by Paddles on Thu Apr 27, 2017 1:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If any moderator or administrator is able to add Going South to my foe list, I would greatly appreciate it.

User avatar
Boycs
Muppet Moderator
Muppet Moderator
Posts: 10124
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 10:32 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0
United Kingdom

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby Boycs » Thu Apr 27, 2017 1:36 pm

Paddles wrote:
BoyCaught30 wrote:Sport is a business, and wouldn't survive if it wasn't treated as such.


Yet all international cricket boards are charities and the ICC has charity status. And charities survive as well. And charities do business all the time.

This isn't about one liner cliches. This is actually about the philosophical core of the institutions.


Yeah the charity status of the ICC is really meaningful

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3093
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby Paddles » Thu Apr 27, 2017 2:19 pm

BoyCaught30 wrote:
Paddles wrote:
Yet all international cricket boards are charities and the ICC has charity status. And charities survive as well. And charities do business all the time.

This isn't about one liner cliches. This is actually about the philosophical core of the institutions.


Yeah the charity status of the ICC is really meaningful


Another possible solution could be to give international status to a second and even third Indian team, dividing them into territorial regions and giving them all equal ICC sharing, and more teams in the tournament. Works for the UK. While this does not expand the game as such, it does give sense to full membership status off the ICC.
If any moderator or administrator is able to add Going South to my foe list, I would greatly appreciate it.

User avatar
Going South
Muppet Administrator
Muppet Administrator
Posts: 25317
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 6:10 pm
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 0
United States of America

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby Going South » Thu Apr 27, 2017 2:52 pm

Busy at work. Can't post long ones.
Looks like it would lead to another chain. Never ending?
I rather not reply.

User avatar
Boycs
Muppet Moderator
Muppet Moderator
Posts: 10124
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 10:32 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0
United Kingdom

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby Boycs » Thu Apr 27, 2017 3:04 pm

Paddles wrote:
BoyCaught30 wrote:
Yeah the charity status of the ICC is really meaningful


Another possible solution could be to give international status to a second and even third Indian team, dividing them into territorial regions and giving them all equal ICC sharing, and more teams in the tournament. Works for the UK. While this does not expand the game as such, it does give sense to full membership status off the ICC.


Hehe the notion of giving Glamorgan international status.

To be honest Scotland are making anther referendum for independence so maybe it's time to detach Wales from the ECB :D

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3093
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby Paddles » Thu Apr 27, 2017 3:14 pm

BoyCaught30 wrote:
Paddles wrote:
Another possible solution could be to give international status to a second and even third Indian team, dividing them into territorial regions and giving them all equal ICC sharing, and more teams in the tournament. Works for the UK. While this does not expand the game as such, it does give sense to full membership status off the ICC.


Hehe the notion of giving Glamorgan international status.

To be honest Scotland are making anther referendum for independence so maybe it's time to detach Wales from the ECB :D

I was thinking Scotland (and Ireland to an extent) in cricket. The 4 home rugby nations which also particpate independantly in Soccer. Rugby League as well of late.

But Yorkshire would put together a half decent international team.
If any moderator or administrator is able to add Going South to my foe list, I would greatly appreciate it.

User avatar
Boycs
Muppet Moderator
Muppet Moderator
Posts: 10124
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 10:32 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0
United Kingdom

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby Boycs » Thu Apr 27, 2017 3:37 pm

They would indeed. There have been periods where Yorkshire have been stronger than the national team!

User avatar
Misty
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3197
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 7:13 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0
Zimbabwe

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby Misty » Thu Apr 27, 2017 4:34 pm

Paddles wrote:So most cricket fans understand the issue, for those that don't I'll put it succinctly. The BCCI wants a greater share of ICC revenue than that received by full members as the large Indian population though broadcasting creates more of the revenue to begin with. The argument is that shares shouldn't be equal as there is a disproportionate input of rupees as against dollars and pounds into the kitty.

Seems fair, if you accept that the BCCI has a right to claim the Indian's fans broadcast revenue in any form. (They don't - only the Indian government can tax broadcast inputs - BCCI cannot even control who the broadcaster is - see their abandoned tour of Pakistan recently as they did not like who got the broadcast rights for the event where the revenue was heading to tge PCB). So maybe its a reflection of equitable as against equal fan redistribution of revenue from broadcasting rights. This is a far more acceptable argument in matches involving India, but if India are knocked out in the pool stages, quarter final, or semi - final, the cricket mad audience in India - many will still watch the final. What claims do the BCCI have here to cash in on this as against the remaining full icc members? Promoting cricket awareness in India? Seems a stretch to be honest. Just because Indians are watching the event in India? If so, the West Indies and NZ with its small national populations are in big strife.

While England and Australia have agreed to go back to more equal sharing, the BCCI still wants more to reflect where the revenue is generated. The counter argument is the BCCI controls the Indian cricket team not world cricket, and world cricket would survive without India. Or more accurately, cricket would survive in India without the BCCI as it stands and is currently run.

The ICC owns all broadcasting to its own events. So why doesn't the ICC just say to the BCCI - that they'll sell the broadcasting to Indian matches separately to an Indian broadcaster, and will give the BCCI half of this rights package. (BCCI will probably want more than half base on viewership, but the ICC can then argue that it is giving the BCCI the opposition to play against, this is the heart of the custodian of the game equal sharing argument). ICC then will sell the entire ICC package to possibly another broadcaster which includes the final and semi-finals (quarterfinals perhaps as well). If India qualify for the finals, they can either forfeit, or play with no additional disproportionate share of revenue. It may be hard to value the finals separately as an ICC broadcasting package, so in that case it may be that possibly two different broadcasters broadcast the game involving India.

BCCI's threats of boycott are rather weak. India needs opposition to play for there to be any value in cricket broadcasting at all with revenue heading their way. But it is a possibly persuasive argument that the ICC redistribution of funds ought to acknowledge the disproportionate contributions based on fan base. However, countries outside the big 3 need this revenue greatly to remain competitive and pay salaries etc, and without these additional countries participating, the broadcasting value of the event would greatly diminish. An England, India, Australia tri-series is far less interesting than a world event for a partisan fan. Pakistan and South Africa still generate big audiences in India, and some NZ, SL, WI, Bang players generate wider cricketing interest globally.

These issues will become more and more common in sports moving forward as the lines between charitable international organisations that are custodians of the game start looking more like boards paying variable dividends to unequal corporate shareholders. Contributions not paid on the competitiveness and supplying of any team, but by how much the broadcasting sold for in each nation which is largely driven by population and popularity of said sport within that populace.

Is the charter of the ICC organization to promote and sustain international cricket, or to redistribute wealth from commercial activities of ICC events? Is it a business with inequal shareholders or a charity to keep all members competitive and grow cricket? Is the BCCI the biggest shareholder in the ICC or a member of a body that is the international custodian of the game as a primary stakeholder with equal full membership?

Ironically the Indian Government could remove the BCCI charity status and tax it.

DEAL IS STILL WIDE OPEN FOR 400 MILLION USA DOLLAR for india.
More and more girls hitting the ball hard from ball one

User avatar
squarecut
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 1932
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 3:06 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 3
India

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby squarecut » Thu Apr 27, 2017 4:36 pm

Common sense is that the employee that brings the biggest revenue to the company gets the biggest salary. Here BCCI bringing 70 % revenue (let us assume) was asking for 22% and ICC is cutting them to size by offering them just 11 %. On the other hand, Zimbabwe, that does not bring even 1 % of the revenue and is unlikely to get any better gets one third of what BCCI is being offered. Every one should get a fraction of what it helps the organisation earn. You cannot reward incompetent boards like Zimbabwe and West Indies just because they ganged up with ICC in cutting BCCI down to size. Whatever money these board get never gets used for the betterment of cricket in their region, as we have seen in the past.

I sincerely and seriously hope that BCCI withdraws from Champions Trophy. The sponsoring companies are mostly Indian companies or MNCs whose maximum business interests are in India and they are sponsoring CT for Indian TV market. I for once want to see how much ICC earns in an ICC event if its golden goose refuses to participate.

In 2007, BCCI were reluctant to participate in inaugural T20 championship and they were arm twisted into participating, which BCCI did by sending a "weakened" team which ironically lifted the trophy there. This time, I want BCCI to simply walk out of this tournament. Personally I was not looking forward to this tourrnament even otherwise.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3093
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby Paddles » Thu Apr 27, 2017 5:13 pm

squarecut wrote:Common sense is that the employee that brings the biggest revenue to the company gets the biggest salary.
But these are charitable organisations, not employees. But lets go with employees; all full member national boards send one team to play in the ICC tournaments - why not equal pay for equal work?

squarecut wrote:Here BCCI bringing 70 % revenue (let us assume) was asking for 22% and ICC is cutting them to size by offering them just 11 %.
Actually here the ICC brings 100% of the revenue. All BCCI has to do is send a team if they qualify. ICC owns the event. ICC organise the event. ICC promotes the event. ICC does everything to obtain revenue including sponsorship deals, broadcasting deals and even ultimately owns the ticket sales. The ICC deals with the host. All the ICC does not do is play on the field. Thats where all teams send 11 players per game so to use your employee analogy - why no equal pay for equal work?

squarecut wrote:On the other hand, Zimbabwe, that does not bring even 1 % of the revenue and is unlikely to get any better gets one third of what BCCI is being offered.
That is how charity works.

squarecut wrote:Every one should get a fraction of what it helps the organisation earn. You cannot reward incompetent boards like Zimbabwe and West Indies just because they ganged up with ICC in cutting BCCI down to size.


Hold on? Who helps who earn what? Cricket is global. The BCCI with billions of dollars and a region of 1.2bn people is unable to even deliver one international standard fast bowler since J Srinath. Just how exactly is the BCCI board more competent than South Africa or New Zealand who operate on shoe string budget? Are you claiming that the BCCI promoted cricket and procreation within India to generate 1.2bn people as well developing industry to create a large middle class to which generate greater broadcast revenue? Just what exactly is the BCCI doing to help the ICC earn money that every other team isn't doing? All the ICC requests is a national team be sent to play in an ICC event. The ICC brokers the broadcasting deals itself. All the national boards needs do is send a team.

squarecut wrote:Whatever money these board get never gets used for the betterment of cricket in their region, as we have seen in the past.
I can assure you that NZ and SA, as well as Pak, WI, SL, Bangl et al use money to better country within their borders. The issue for WI and SA is how to do so best.

squarecut wrote:I sincerely and seriously hope that BCCI withdraws from Champions Trophy. The sponsoring companies are mostly Indian companies or MNCs whose maximum business interests are in India and they are sponsoring CT for Indian TV market. I for once want to see how much ICC earns in an ICC event if its golden goose refuses to participate.


Well most the broadcasting deals are done, so the real loser will be the domestic Indian broadcasters who have paid with less Indian fans watching. But again, it seems that the sponsorship being Indian companies is somehow more the property of the BCCI than the rest of the International Cricket Community? How is this so? You do realise how nationalistic this view is?

squarecut wrote:In 2007, BCCI were reluctant to participate in inaugural T20 championship and they were arm twisted into participating, which BCCI did by sending a "weakened" team which ironically lifted the trophy there. This time, I want BCCI to simply walk out of this tournament. Personally I was not looking forward to this tourrnament even otherwise.


People like yourself seem to be taking a (nationalistic) business approach - that the Indian broadcasting rights deal with the ICC is somehow more the property of the BCCI for an event where members send 1 team each to participate. The money is given to full members (and associate members) to continue to be able to send teams of high level to keep the events (and international cricket) continuing.

You seem to have an issue with the international charitable organisation that is the custodian of the international game being the ICC. So - I ask you - would you be okay with IPL teams paid pro-rata on their fan bases? WIth Kolkata and Mumbai taking a lion's share, and the rest of the cities earning far less? If no, then why are you okay for international cricket tournaments to be different?

The ICC operated in an charitable equal share model when the revenue was largely formed by English and a lesser extent Australian quarters than the more recent (1990s) Indian middle class explosion. English persons and organisations generated a global international game out of its own pocket at times happily as a custodian of the game. Equal sharing is to ensure every full member can continue to send good teams, that promote international cricket home and abroad and associate sharing is to continue the growth of the international game. What many people want globally - is the same benefits to continue for International cricket that used to benefit India as well. People can either view international cricket as a good that the ICC seeks to continue, or it can see the ICC as a mere enterprise to reward the domestic viewing revenue to the participant team board and let market efficiency determine the outcome of participants, to heck with growing the game further abroad or continuing non-profitable full member states due to smaller broadcast revenues. If the latter, why should the ICC continue to have charity status globally?
Last edited by Paddles on Thu Apr 27, 2017 6:22 pm, edited 7 times in total.
If any moderator or administrator is able to add Going South to my foe list, I would greatly appreciate it.

User avatar
Going South
Muppet Administrator
Muppet Administrator
Posts: 25317
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 6:10 pm
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 0
United States of America

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby Going South » Thu Apr 27, 2017 5:37 pm

There you go again.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3093
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby Paddles » Thu Apr 27, 2017 5:38 pm

Going South wrote:There you go again.


I authored this thread, you really think that I won't participate freely and keenly in it if I so wish?

Now try and stick to the topic rather than derail the thread with personal ad hominems. Or just find a different thread you prefer to participate in.
If any moderator or administrator is able to add Going South to my foe list, I would greatly appreciate it.

User avatar
Going South
Muppet Administrator
Muppet Administrator
Posts: 25317
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 6:10 pm
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 0
United States of America

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby Going South » Thu Apr 27, 2017 6:18 pm

You are ranting & argumentative.
If it's rational I would glad to give my opinions. I have had enough I am looking other way now. Just hope this won't go out of hand

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3093
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby Paddles » Thu Apr 27, 2017 6:21 pm

Going South wrote:You are ranting & argumentative.
If it's rational I would glad to give my opinions. I have had enough I am looking other way now. Just hope this won't go out of hand


Not one part of this post is on the thread topic, and again contains ad hominem.
If any moderator or administrator is able to add Going South to my foe list, I would greatly appreciate it.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3093
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby Paddles » Thu Apr 27, 2017 6:34 pm

The argument for the BCCI taking a greater share appears to be a greater nationalistic ownership of the Indian broadcast revenue than the rest of the ICC members, despite all full members particpating equally in creating the product to be sold by sending a competitive team to the tournaments.

How is the dollar of a Indian tv international cricket viewer of an ICC event, more the property of the BCCI than the rest of the ICC? If its nationalism to greater protect and reward Indian domestic interests than those of the ICC, then as I stated at the start, isn't that for the Indian Government to claim and tax more if it so wanted to? They could put a luxury tax on the purchase of the broadcast rights, which would mean less revenue for the ICC, the same payment in market economy by the Indian broadcasters, and the remainder going into the consolidated fund of the Indian people. If that happened, there would be no argument. The ICC does not control the politics of its nations. The BCCI would still be eligible for its equal share of the pie. Heck the Indian government could then put the taxation revenue back into cricket, even through the BCCI, which would then make the BCCI accountable and more readily auditable by a government agency.

Now it is understandable why the BCCI would not promote such a suggestion, but for some reason, the nationalistic argument hinges on rights that a government has or claims, not what a domestic sports board member has to to send a team to an internationally owned and run tournament has.

Why wouldn't a government put on a luxury tax? Well there goes free trade agreements.

And that is where the nationalistic business model of an International organization's events revenue breaks down to the conceptual problem. The ICC is a charity. The ICC operates in a global market. All the members need to do is send a qualified team to ICC events, for which they are given money for by way of distribution, as are associates, and the ICC operating costs to continue and develop the international game are taken from the remainder. The BCCI by asking for more than the rest of the ICC full members, is actually claiming reward for what is not their property', but if anyone's, the sovereign Government of India. India's resources and markets for domestic tv viewing of international products are owned and run by India. Not the BCCI. That is where the nationalistic revenue generation argument falls apart, despite possibly being persuasive to many.

The counter point is to change the focus of the ICC from an international custodian charity to a business to rewards its member boards like unequal shareholders, at which point, all Governments throughout the world could challenge and remove its charity status and tax them accordingly as an enterprise for foreign profit. I suppose the ICC could operate in a West Indian tax haven somewhere and conduct its tournament's there, but that doesn't stop all countries putting a luxury or customs tax on the importation and distribution of its broadcast packages.
Last edited by Paddles on Thu Apr 27, 2017 7:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If any moderator or administrator is able to add Going South to my foe list, I would greatly appreciate it.

User avatar
Going South
Muppet Administrator
Muppet Administrator
Posts: 25317
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 6:10 pm
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 0
United States of America

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby Going South » Thu Apr 27, 2017 7:04 pm

Yawn.
You missed the point me and squarecut trying to tell.
You don't want to listen either for other opinions.
What's the point ?

User avatar
Going South
Muppet Administrator
Muppet Administrator
Posts: 25317
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 6:10 pm
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 0
United States of America

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby Going South » Thu Apr 27, 2017 7:06 pm

In India cricket=BCCI.
Indian government suggest a thing or two but the power is with BCCI alone.
Such is their monopoly.
Now think everything again with those rose tinted glasses.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3093
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby Paddles » Thu Apr 27, 2017 7:08 pm

Going South wrote:Yawn.
You missed the point me and squarecut trying to tell.
You don't want to listen either for other opinions.
What's the point ?


Nothing in this post is on topic.
If any moderator or administrator is able to add Going South to my foe list, I would greatly appreciate it.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3093
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby Paddles » Thu Apr 27, 2017 7:16 pm

Going South wrote:In India cricket=BCCI.
Indian government suggest a thing or two but the power is with BCCI alone.
Such is their monopoly.
Now think everything again with those rose tinted glasses.


So this is a might do what they want, and stuff legal, ethical or moral explanations for their actions?

Well this may well be true, but it doesn't leave a satisfactory taste in the mouth of the International cricket fan. Thankfully, the BCCI and its fans of asking for more revenue have not tried to present their argument as simply "cos we can". Its entirely reductionistic, even if ultimately accurate. And for many, "might is right" is not an acceptable justification for all behavior, even if legally acceptable for bargaining and even renegotiating contracts at arm's length subject to limitations like duress. The issues are far more nuanced.

And when the might bully others into submitting to their will, it doesn't neccessarily stop the subsequent commentary and possible complaints of such actions. But first - is the BCCI being a greedy bully or fairly asking for what ought to be there's?

First the arguments for equal and unequal distribution need to be conceptualized. What the role of the ICC is and should be. What the role of the Domestic boards is and should be. Then it needs to addressed why and is it right that the BCCI is behaving this way? And there's more influential actors at play than just the BCCI so as to remedy the situation and there could be more possible solutions if it is known what the issue is for the BCCI to be motivated to act so in this manner. Hence ideas raised in this thread.
If any moderator or administrator is able to add Going South to my foe list, I would greatly appreciate it.

User avatar
Going South
Muppet Administrator
Muppet Administrator
Posts: 25317
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 6:10 pm
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 0
United States of America

BCCI and ICC

Postby Going South » Thu Apr 27, 2017 8:29 pm

Yes. BCCI has monopoly. Can do whatever it wants in India wrt cricket. You can't do anything about it so you feel bad? Ahahaha.
We as BCCI fans are with BCCI on this in-spite of many other differences.

"I"

That's our collective middle finger to ICC.

I would be super happy to have year long IPL without any stupid test cricket eating away my calendar.

Yey. Great opportunity to say SHUT UP to all dinosaur fans that want failure business ventures called test cricket.

Shove it yours. Wooohoooo

Can't wait to have year long T20s.

User avatar
Boycs
Muppet Moderator
Muppet Moderator
Posts: 10124
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 10:32 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0
United Kingdom

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby Boycs » Thu Apr 27, 2017 9:34 pm

One thing I'm not sure I follow, paddles, is the relevance of your point that the ICC etc are charities? I'm sure the Red Cross, Cancer UK etc have the same requirements and demands of their managing boards as a multinational corporation: funds in, product out, minimise waste, and so on.

I am admittedly trying to follow this thread on my phone

User avatar
Going South
Muppet Administrator
Muppet Administrator
Posts: 25317
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 6:10 pm
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 0
United States of America

BCCI and ICC

Postby Going South » Thu Apr 27, 2017 10:04 pm

Calling BCCI as bully is baseless & is said out of jealousy.

They bring the money why don't they get the big share?
If you don't want money but adamant on equal share don't play BCCI.
SAY NO to all matches with BCCI if you don't like the money % you get.

You missed the point on micro economics.

Say Zimbabwe played BCCI in India.
It generated about 100 million PROFIT cutting all costs.
BCCI want 80 million of it. ICC gets FACILITATOR fee of 10% ( even that's too much but ok) for setting calendar and provides rules.
BCCI can take care of everything else including ad revenue etc as they are better than all get best rates. ( you don't need ICC for anything)
Zimbabwe gets 10 million.
It would be stupid of BCCI if it is pushed to share 45 million each between BCCI and Zimbabwe.

Now take out BCCI out of equation.
Suppose Zimbabwe play New Zealand.
If generates at most 10% of what BCCI generates.
Say it's 10 million.
ICC gets 1 million at 10% ??
How much new Zealand gets in this ?
Is it at loss if you share 4.5 million each between Zimbabwe and new Zealand ?
Because most of revenue is pulled by new Zealand alone, it would be stupid of them to accept a losing deal here.
EXACTLY what BCCI is asking here.

Moreover even in this EQUAL pay scenario too, playing with BCCI at 10% profit sharing at 10 million is GREATER than 4.5 million they get through equal share for both team logic.

If you are Zimbabwe team playing which team is profitable to you as a board ?

Similarly If Australia or England play West Indies same equal pay make no sense.

If Australia and India play, BCCI might reduce it by 60-40 ratio on profits but you cannot generalize it for all teams which sure give BCCI a raw end of stick.

If you are Zimbabwe team if BCCI gets pissed off and walk out of ICC matches, would not effect their current revenue by loss of 5.5 million ?

The boards are too greedy here not BCCI.

All other 9 greedy nations want to rob BCCI what's their hold on the money.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3093
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby Paddles » Fri Apr 28, 2017 1:42 am

Going South wrote:Calling BCCI as bully is baseless & is said out of jealousy.


Noone called the BCCI a bully. Questioning whether the BCCI is a bully is not baseless. The base is the BCCI asking for more than an equal share when it has equal responsibility and obligations to send 1 team to compete in the ICC tournaments. Questioning why another full member wants more than an equal share for participating in a tournament is not envious.

Going South wrote:They bring the money why don't they get the big share?


But the ICC brings in 100% of the money. The ICC brokers all the world media deals. Read up. Your having the BCCI claim ownership over the domestic tv viewing audience in India for an an internationally made product which is exported into the Indian tv market. All qualifying full ICC members share in the making of that product.

Going South wrote:If you don't want money but adamant on equal share don't play BCCI.
SAY NO to all matches with BCCI if you don't like the money % you get.


Again, and I repeat, again, this is ICC tournaments, not BCCI billateral series. The tournament broadcast package is sold as a whole.

Going South wrote:You missed the point on micro economics.
What is your point on micro economics?
Going South wrote:Say Zimbabwe played BCCI in India.
It generated about 100 million PROFIT cutting all costs.
BCCI want 80 million of it. ICC gets FACILITATOR fee of 10% ( even that's too much but ok) for setting calendar and provides rules.
BCCI can take care of everything else including ad revenue etc as they are better than all get best rates. ( you don't need ICC for anything)
Zimbabwe gets 10 million.
It would be stupid of BCCI if it is pushed to share 45 million each between BCCI and Zimbabwe.


You clearly do not understand the issue. Right now, I couldn't care less with with the BCCI claiming and taking 100% of the broadcast revenue in this situation.
Going South wrote:Now take out BCCI out of equation.
Suppose Zimbabwe play New Zealand.
If generates at most 10% of what BCCI generates.
Say it's 10 million.
ICC gets 1 million at 10% ??
How much new Zealand gets in this ?
Is it at loss if you share 4.5 million each between Zimbabwe and new Zealand ?
Because most of revenue is pulled by new Zealand alone, it would be stupid of them to accept a losing deal here.
EXACTLY what BCCI is asking here.


There is a big difference between billateral series and ICC products like the World Cup, Champions League, and World T20. You're stilla rguing from a point of ignorance. This is not about billateral series where the host gets upto 100% of the broadcast revenue.

Going South wrote:Moreover even in this EQUAL pay scenario too, playing with BCCI at 10% profit sharing at 10 million is GREATER than 4.5 million they get through equal share for both team logic.

If you are Zimbabwe team playing which team is profitable to you as a board ?

Similarly If Australia or England play West Indies same equal pay make no sense.

If Australia and India play, BCCI might reduce it by 60-40 ratio on profits but you cannot generalize it for all teams which sure give BCCI a raw end of stick.

If you are Zimbabwe team if BCCI gets pissed off and walk out of ICC matches, would not effect their current revenue by loss of 5.5 million ?

The boards are too greedy here not BCCI.

All other 9 greedy nations want to rob BCCI what's their hold on the money.



This is all about billateral series, not about being an ICC member and participating in the ICC tournaments. The ICC sells the broadcasting rights to each sovereign state that wishes to purchase it as a package.

But again, how is the cricket viewing audience in India - the property of the BCCI? The BCCI certainly gets coffers filled from its home domestic tours, and fair enough. It, as the host, effectively makes the product. This is about ICC events. That is all. Hopefully you finally get this point.
Last edited by Paddles on Fri Apr 28, 2017 4:33 am, edited 2 times in total.
If any moderator or administrator is able to add Going South to my foe list, I would greatly appreciate it.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3093
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby Paddles » Fri Apr 28, 2017 1:57 am

BoyCaught30 wrote:One thing I'm not sure I follow, paddles, is the relevance of your point that the ICC etc are charities? I'm sure the Red Cross, Cancer UK etc have the same requirements and demands of their managing boards as a multinational corporation: funds in, product out, minimise waste, and so on.

I am admittedly trying to follow this thread on my phone


A charity has a charitable purpose for tax exemption status. Such as the continuation and further development of global international cricket is a widely accepted charitable purpose as a community good for tax exemption status whereas enterprise for profit redistribution to unequal corporate shareholders is a more business motivation and far less about community good - either local for non BCCI countries, nor international.

National jurisdictions jealously guard their revenues, and there is no automatic right to charity status. If its not good for national or international community, its not a charity. The ICC is either a charity with a charitable purpose, or its a taxable business. And I very much doubt that the leading shareholder BCCI would qualify for charitable status in Australia, England, SL, NZ, WI or SA.

The ICC moved from Lords to the British Virgin Islands (wow - read above) because it wanted its commercial staff to be free from tax in the UK. The UK refused to grant such a precedent. So the ICC does care about its tax obligations.
If any moderator or administrator is able to add Going South to my foe list, I would greatly appreciate it.

User avatar
squarecut
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 1932
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 3:06 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 3
India

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby squarecut » Fri Apr 28, 2017 2:15 am

ICC is not charity organisation. It is a gang of crooks masquerading as charity organisation. That is true for the member organisers too, by the way.

It is a matter of who helps earn what. Here ICC has promised every other board higher amount by reducing BCCI's amount and have secured their votes. But who is helping bring in the bulk of amount that these boards are being promised by ICC ? That is why I want that BCCI should withdraw from Champions trophy and let us see how much revenue this tournament brings to the coffers of ICC to share among the boards. It will give everyone a good idea of who helps bring in what amount of money.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3093
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby Paddles » Fri Apr 28, 2017 2:20 am

squarecut wrote:ICC is not charity organisation. It is a gang of crooks masquerading as charity organisation. That is true for the member organisers too, by the way.

It is a matter of who helps earn what. Here ICC has promised every other board higher amount by reducing BCCI's amount and have secured their votes. But who is helping bring in the bulk of amount that these boards are being promised by ICC ? That is why I want that BCCI should withdraw from Champions trophy and let us see how much revenue this tournament brings to the coffers of ICC to share among the boards. It will give everyone a good idea of who helps bring in what amount of money.


The ICC brings in 100% of the revenue from the global tv viewing audience. The ICC sells the packages themselves.

Again I ask you, what conceptual right does the BCCI to the dollars spent by the Indian population to Sony or Star or whoever broadcasts the ICC product? The ICC organises the event, the ICC promotes the event, the ICC sells the event.

But lets say we are business partners, and we form a corporation, with a constitution, and we have 1 share each. We pool our resources and put on a show, sending 1 team each. None of us independently promote, sell or organise the product. Why is one party entitled to more?

Now lets say the corporation is a the charitable ICC, and its constitution is to further develop and continue international cricket. How is this best served by treating full members unequally?

If the BCCI is worried about rupees leaving the Indian economy, that is for the Indian national government to intervene by way of tarrifs and luxury taxes on the importation of ICC products. Not for the BCCI to claim as there's somehow. That money spent by Sony or Star India was never the property of the BCCI. It is one for thing for a government to nationalise, and claim it is for the good of its people, it is another for an independent board that is registered as a charity in India to do so.

If this is some fear of the exploitation of India and Indian people by its international cricketing partners, have the government tax the broadcast rights, keep the rupees. Nationalise and protect Indian tv markets, luxury tax the imported cricket tv products. Indian rupees are more the property of the Government than the BCCI anyway. But call it what it is.
If any moderator or administrator is able to add Going South to my foe list, I would greatly appreciate it.

User avatar
Going South
Muppet Administrator
Muppet Administrator
Posts: 25317
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 6:10 pm
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 0
United States of America

BCCI and ICC

Postby Going South » Fri Apr 28, 2017 7:38 am

I see what's happening here.
Paddles want to argue and nitpick every sentence of anything any other member posted here. There is not a single instance of agreeing with any point whatsoever. Typical troll. This thread is now locked, thanks paddles for contribution, we don't need such endless loop of pointless discussions wasting everyone's time.

User avatar
Boycs
Muppet Moderator
Muppet Moderator
Posts: 10124
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 10:32 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0
United Kingdom

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby Boycs » Fri Apr 28, 2017 9:11 am

I'm not sure I agree with that, GS.

Did we not go the great lengths recently to try and encourage new people to come to the forum? Curbing peaceful's nonsense to try to avoid alienating people since the boatload of users became inactive (squarecut, bolero, lungi, et al.) and Paddles - and later BMG and his companions - are contributing, productive members of the forum.

We said we wanted debate on cricket, even arguments, more spice and zest in the forum. We can't complain if that is what we get. Sure, Paddles in an intractable argument maker and pretty unyielding when he makes his point, but that's what you are doing too. It's healthy, it makes good reading. You guys were having a debate, the fact that neither of you were making much ground against the other doesn't negate the enjoyment of the debate.

And particularly given that you were one half of the debate, and I don't think I agree with you shutting it down. In the end that just stops the debate because one of you happens to have mod powers and the other doesn't.

If there was disruptive or abusive behaviour then one of the un-involved mods could shut it down. But there wasn't. People just disagreed with each other.

I enjoy discussing cricket with both of you on here. Lets carry on.

User avatar
Going South
Muppet Administrator
Muppet Administrator
Posts: 25317
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 6:10 pm
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 0
United States of America

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby Going South » Fri Apr 28, 2017 10:12 am

You think so? Fine. Unlocked.
Please continue. The topic for me is beaten to death. You guys carry on.

User avatar
Misty
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3197
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 7:13 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0
Zimbabwe

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby Misty » Fri Apr 28, 2017 10:45 am

BCCI and ICC are Two sides of Coin, both need each other.ICC offer more to India under the table because Australia will get only 850 CRORE for next 8 years while England more than AUS but India wants More than England

I bet India will play in CT plus get more money
More and more girls hitting the ball hard from ball one

User avatar
squarecut
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 1932
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 3:06 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 3
India

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby squarecut » Sat Apr 29, 2017 5:50 am

It is quite interesting indeed that I am supporting BCCI in this case. I am supporting BCCI because I think that other boards and ICC are playing a dirty trick on BCCI by ganging up together. I find it interesting to see that a board like BCB has decided to vote against BCCI even though it is not getting more in ICC proposal than what it was getting in BCCI proposal.

Coming to the argument that the money from Indian market is not owned by BCCI, it has to be admitted that Indian market pays this money because they watch Indian cricketers play on TV. If a cricket tournament does not involve India, then majority of Indian TV watchers are unlikely to follow that tournament with any great interest. So that way, Indian team (selected by BCCI) does help bring in money from the Indian market. And this market is easily the biggest consumer market in cricket playing nations mainly because of its population (the second largest population in the world) which is readily prepared to spend money on products advertised on TV.

Other cricket playing nations do not have the population to come anywhere close. Bangladesh has the second largest population among all cricket playing nations, but their population and economy is only comparable to one of India's states. Economy of the Indian state of Maharashtra is larger than that of Bangladesh or Pakistan for that matter. Australi and England have bigger economies but not the population.

So whichever way one looks at it, Indian does offer the biggest cricket watching consumer market.

User avatar
squarecut
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 1932
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 3:06 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 3
India

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby squarecut » Sat Apr 29, 2017 6:20 am

BCCI earns a lot of money from Indian market. ICC and other boards want to snatch away as much from this market as they can and so they have ganged up together in their greed. One can be rest assured than all the money that Zimbabwe board or West Indies board get will end up in the accounts of their board officials, while their cricketing infrastructure and players will suffer and will not be paid their wages.

Looking holistically, I would want Indians to take interest in more global sports than cricket. The four subcontinental teams take interest in cricket mainly because they are not good enough in any other sports and cricket makes them feel that they are good in this sports. While Indians feel happy that they have won a few tournaments, teams like Pakistan and Bangladesh get gloating rights if they beat India in a cricket match. If India somehow stops playing cricket then their absence will be felt more by Pakistan and Bangladesh because they no longer will get a chance to feel superior by beating India in some one off cricket matches. And these teams are not good at world level in any other sports.

It is my dream that BCCI will boycott Champions Trophy and ICC expels them from ICC, and attempts of BCCI to form a rebel ICC fails. That may kill Indian interest in cricket once and for all. The man hours that we lose in pursuing cricket matches can then be utilised in more productive pursuits than following cricket.

User avatar
raja
Muppet Administrator
Muppet Administrator
Posts: 27190
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 6:14 pm
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 0
Pakistan

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby raja » Sat Apr 29, 2017 6:41 am

Fascinating discussion.

Got to see it only now, so couldn't participate earlier.

I must also admit that I'm not totally tuned in on this topic, so my views might come from ignorance more than anything else.

My views on BCCI are all too well known here to need repetition - but for once, I'll try to contribute without trolling or bias (won't be easy, but I'll try). :-)

Ok, so I've gone through the whole discussion - and there's value in both points of view, but there's no convergence because the starting point itself is different.

Summarising:

Paddles
-----------
Paddles is (rightly) insistent that these are ICC tournaments, where each participant has the SAME responsibility - to send a squad for the tournament. Nothing more, nothing less. ICC takes care of the rest. So equal sharing of revenue (in theory) should be fine.

Also, Paddles makes a case for ICC having a charitable goal in promotion of cricket - and such promotion would need a different way of running and financing the sport than one run purely on commercial "business unit profitability" factors.

GS/squarecut
-----------------
Indian cricket fans make up the bulk of cricket's money, BCCI represents Indian cricket fans, so BCCI should get bulk of cricket's money. This "equal sharing" is effectively BCCI subsidising other boards, through the ICC.

Neither GS nor squarecut could care less about the ICC - for them, it's there, fine, but it needs to be cut to size if it doesn't give BCCI its due recognition, respect & money.

My thoughts will follow in the next post.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3093
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby Paddles » Sat Apr 29, 2017 6:56 am

squarecut wrote:It is quite interesting indeed that I am supporting BCCI in this case. I am supporting BCCI because I think that other boards and ICC are playing a dirty trick on BCCI by ganging up together. I find it interesting to see that a board like BCB has decided to vote against BCCI even though it is not getting more in ICC proposal than what it was getting in BCCI proposal.

Coming to the argument that the money from Indian market is not owned by BCCI, it has to be admitted that Indian market pays this money because they watch Indian cricketers play on TV. If a cricket tournament does not involve India, then majority of Indian TV watchers are unlikely to follow that tournament with any great interest. So that way, Indian team (selected by BCCI) does help bring in money from the Indian market. And this market is easily the biggest consumer market in cricket playing nations mainly because of its population (the second largest population in the world) which is readily prepared to spend money on products advertised on TV.

Other cricket playing nations do not have the population to come anywhere close. Bangladesh has the second largest population among all cricket playing nations, but their population and economy is only comparable to one of India's states. Economy of the Indian state of Maharashtra is larger than that of Bangladesh or Pakistan for that matter. Australi and England have bigger economies but not the population.

So whichever way one looks at it, Indian does offer the biggest cricket watching consumer market.



India does indeed have the biggest cricket watching market - but why is that even relevant? The ICC organises the product, the ICC runs the product, the ICC sells the product. In the IPL - Kolkata and Mumbai are largeer cities and bring more fans to watch their games than Hyderabhad, would you want the tv broadcast equal share deal between IPL teams to reflect this as well with no salary cap? So that ultimately only Kolkata and Mumbai are competitive?
If any moderator or administrator is able to add Going South to my foe list, I would greatly appreciate it.

User avatar
squarecut
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 1932
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 3:06 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 3
India

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby squarecut » Sat Apr 29, 2017 7:01 am

ICC is seeking to "subsidise" (bribe) other cricket boards with Indian market money so that they can "subsidise" themselves at the cost of BCCI.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3093
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby Paddles » Sat Apr 29, 2017 7:14 am

squarecut wrote:BCCI earns a lot of money from Indian market. ICC and other boards want to snatch away as much from this market as they can and so they have ganged up together in their greed.


The ICC gave Australian and English surplus pounds long before the Indian TV market became so valuable in the 1990s. But if the concern is rupees remaining in India, isn't that a nationalization issue for the Indian government to tax the ICC product? India is just one equal ingredient in the product, yes, it brings more consumer demand for the product which makes the product more valuable, but the ICC owns and sells the product. If the concern is foreign greed as you suggest, such as treating the Indian tv market like a jewel in the crown to be exploited; tax the product, nationalise the tv industry. But for the BCCI to claim it has a greater commercial interest and should benefit accordingly in how much Sony or Star pay for a cricket tv product, is tantamount to the BCCI playing the role of the Indian Government. The Indian TV audience and Sony and Star India, are not the property of the BCCI. The market place in which Sony and Star India negotiate and transact with the ICC is not governed by the BCCI.

One can be rest assured than all the money that Zimbabwe board or West Indies board get will end up in the accounts of their board officials, while their cricketing infrastructure and players will suffer and will not be paid their wages.


But I would be careful to besmirch foreign cricket boards. Firstly, its just not that relevant to the issue of equal sharing. The mess that Zimbabwe is in is also a factor why it is also not even on equal sharing. But how the boards spend their allocation is their business to a certain degree. Secondly, if in the alternative you believe it is that relevant, and the Zimbabwe issues then cloud NZ, SA, SL, Pak, Bang, et al some will question where exactly the BCCI revenue stream is going.
Last edited by Paddles on Sat Apr 29, 2017 7:33 am, edited 3 times in total.
If any moderator or administrator is able to add Going South to my foe list, I would greatly appreciate it.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3093
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby Paddles » Sat Apr 29, 2017 7:16 am

squarecut wrote:ICC is seeking to "subsidise" (bribe) other cricket boards with Indian market money so that they can "subsidise" themselves at the cost of BCCI.


Yes, the ICC is seeking to subsidise allcricket boards bar England, Australia and India, but at the cost of Sony and Star India. Not the BCCI.
If any moderator or administrator is able to add Going South to my foe list, I would greatly appreciate it.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3093
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby Paddles » Sat Apr 29, 2017 7:28 am

raja wrote:Fascinating discussion.

Got to see it only now, so couldn't participate earlier.

I must also admit that I'm not totally tuned in on this topic, so my views might come from ignorance more than anything else.

My views on BCCI are all too well known here to need repetition - but for once, I'll try to contribute without trolling or bias (won't be easy, but I'll try). :-)

Ok, so I've gone through the whole discussion - and there's value in both points of view, but there's no convergence because the starting point itself is different.

Summarising:

Paddles
-----------
Paddles is (rightly) insistent that these are ICC tournaments, where each participant has the SAME responsibility - to send a squad for the tournament. Nothing more, nothing less. ICC takes care of the rest. So equal sharing of revenue (in theory) should be fine.

Also, Paddles makes a case for ICC having a charitable goal in promotion of cricket - and such promotion would need a different way of running and financing the sport than one run purely on commercial "business unit profitability" factors.


This is the gist, but the ICC may seek to maximise revenue and business unit profitability from selling its broadcasts. The issue is where the funds are allocated thereafter as a an organisation with a global charitable interest to promote cricket, or whether just to be tool to generate profits for the EWCB, CA and BCCI.
raja wrote:GS/squarecut
-----------------
Indian cricket fans make up the bulk of cricket's money, BCCI represents Indian cricket fans, so BCCI should get bulk of cricket's money. This "equal sharing" is effectively BCCI subsidising other boards, through the ICC.

Neither GS nor squarecut could care less about the ICC - for them, it's there, fine, but it needs to be cut to size if it doesn't give BCCI its due recognition, respect & money.

My thoughts will follow in the next post.


See I just do not understand conceptually or legally, how the BCCI represents the Indian cricket tv viewing fan. The government represents the people of India. Sony and Star India try to give the Indian people tv they want to watch at a profit for itself. It has to buy the broadcast product. It buys the product from the ICC. The chain of contracts is between the viewer to the tv broadcaster to the ICC.

If the concern is exploitation of the Indian tv viewing public, with rupees leaving the country by a exploitative commercial agent like the ICC, then is the place for the Indian government to step in and tariff or luxury tax the importation of ICC broadcasts. According to laws of demand and supply, Sony and Star India will still spend the same for the broadcast, as is profitable for them, but the ICC will receive far less, with the Indian Government taking the remainder.

Tell me the difference between this scenario, if the English Football Association demanded money from Fifa due to the fact that their participation meant Sky UK paid more for the tv rights to the Soccer World Cup. Of course, Fifa would say piss off. And the tournament would proceed without England. But if the English Government put a tax on the broadcast, England would participate and all would be well.

In my legal and economic view, squarecuts argument effectively is that the BCCI is effectively playing the role of nationalistic politician to keep rupees in India, not an equal participant board that exists to send a team of athletes to a sporting tournament to continue and develop the international sport. But this is for the Indian Government to nationalize to keep rupees in India.

Differing to squarecuts view, some may say that the BCCI may conceptually claim that the Indian team is a more valuable ingredient than the rest of the ICC member teams, that is wishes to sell to the ICC at closer to a market price as it is not a equal partner member to act as a charity for the ICC members, in which case it is doing business out of the Indian people and the ICC, at the ultimate expense set by Sony and Star India and ought to be taxed accordingly, both domestically and abroad. But this argument still reduces down that the extra value is in what Sony and Star India pay for the broadcast, it is still about ownership over the spending of the tv viewer which is outside the BCCI realm. Its nationalism.

The problem with the BCCI view is that it fails to recognise what Kerry Packer realised early on, the national team you have control over, its broadcast value reflected worth as much in broadcast rights as the teams it plays against. If world cricket becomes a tri-series between England, India and Australia, the ICC events will be worth far less.
Last edited by Paddles on Sat Apr 29, 2017 8:14 am, edited 2 times in total.
If any moderator or administrator is able to add Going South to my foe list, I would greatly appreciate it.

User avatar
raja
Muppet Administrator
Muppet Administrator
Posts: 27190
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 6:14 pm
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 0
Pakistan

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby raja » Sat Apr 29, 2017 7:43 am

Continuing from my previous post:

The views of GS/squarecut are fully representative of millions of Indian cricket fan, both in India and around the globe.

This is a viewpoint that has been developing over the last 25 years, coinciding with rapid commercialisation of cricket in India.
It's not something that's happened overnight.

To get a better sense of this, it might help to look beyond cricket.

Till 1990, India as a country was pretty laid back. The economy used to grow then at what used to be called a "Hindu rate of growth" (read up on this!).

By 1991, the economy was on the brink, with foreign exchange reserves precariously low (a cover of barely a few weeks!).

The IMF stepped in to bail India out, but with very stringent conditions. Key was that India HAD to institute reforms, which included opening up its economy.

With a gun to its head, India went for it - these are famously referred to in India as "the 1991 reforms".

And how!

India was always a sleeping giant. When a population of (then close to) a billion wakes up, it can create a noise louder than thunder.

That's what happened.

Suddenly, the rate of economic activity multiplied manifold, sectors opened up, we had private airlines, hundreds of private TV channels, private telecom companies (earlier we had only govt-owned airlines, govt-owned TV, govt-owned telecom).

Obviously with privatisation, multiple players in every industry - and competition - one of the industries to benefit the most was advertising. With hundreds more products and brands out there vying for people's attention, the advertising industry soared.

And cricket was one of the biggest beneficiaries of this economic surge.

Cricket (and films) had always been the opium for the Indian masses anyway. But cricket, even more than films.

Films in India have a constraint of language. Contrary to popular belief, Hindi is NOT spoken right across the country, though it is the most common language of communication. Bollywood films have to compete with regional films for popularity and theater space.

Cricket has no such constraint. Across the country, from Assam in the east to Gujarat in the west, from Kashmir in the north to Kanyakumari in the south, cricket has always been massively popular - and a major binding factor for a population, otherwise divided on several markers.

So when this economic surge happened (1991 onwards), advertisers flocked to flog customers' products using cricket as their vehicle.

BCCI, till then a corrupt, but fairly sleepy, body running the game in India woke up and realised the true milking potential of cricket in India. (Aside: Historically, even before independence in 1947, cricket in India was patronised by royalty - the likes of Maharaja of Patiala, or Holkar or Baroda. Even after independence, though erstwhile kingdoms were absorbed into the Indian state and the Maharajas lost much of their power, they would be the chief patrons of the sport. It was only in 1971, when PM Indira Gandhi abolished privy purses of royalty (on grounds of equality) that Maharajas began losing their influence - and politicians actively entered the fray).

Power shifted from Maharajas to politicians. And you can rest assured, at least in India (and probably worldwide), where there's a honey pot, there'll be politicians keen to get their hands on it.

With liberalisation of the economy in 1991, cricket - and therefore BCCI - got its biggest fillip ever.

Cricketers did too - Tendulkar was a popular cricketer even otherwise, he achieved superbrand status after liberalisation, endorsing a whole lot of product brands.

With private TV also coming in and each channel trying to outdo the other, TV rights became a prize to fight over. Who benefited most? BCCI.

It began making tons and tons of money. Unheard of in its history. Initially it didn't quite share enough of this with the players and in typical, "old BCCI" fashion, put conditions on players.

But these were players of a new generation - liberalised India. After a player revolt of sorts (I remember Kumble being part of this), the BCCI was smart enough to realise where its money was really coming from. The players. So it buckled down - and since then has been handsomely rewarding players. Annual contracts, they can continue product advertising (as long as it doesn't interfere with their cricketing commitments) and so on. Players happy, BCCI happy.

All this meant that Indian cricket was becoming SO flush with money that it was beginning to become ICC's biggest goose. Until then, ICC had been largely dominated by England and Australia.

Liberalisation-era Indians hated this. Now that the equation was changing, now that their Board was contributing so much to ICC revenues, they wanted power.

This is the history behind the current mindset of most Indians.

They accept their Board is corrupt - but they're nationalistic when it comes to defending their Board on an international forum. It becomes a matter of India vs The Rest.

As for "developing the game around the world", most Indians couldn't care less. They see it as "our money" being enjoyed by ICC to distribute to Boards, comprising officials just interested in freebies. Free travel and food in the name of "promoting the game".

A previous generation of Indians (pre 1990s) might have been more respecting of the ICC. Post-liberalisation India doesn't care about the ICC.

Every event that the ICC organises, BCCI could organise much better - that's the Indian view.

And to be fair, BCCI has organised, or hosted, events very well - starting with the Reliance World Cup 1987, the first World Cup hosted outside England. It was hosted jointly by India-Pakistan, and was a smashing success (even if neither team made it to the finals).

Again, BCCI (through Lalit Modi) organised IPL2 (2009) in a matter of weeks in South Africa, when the event had to be shifted there last-minute due to elections in India. Again, a fantastic job done in a very crash timeframe.

In contrast, the ICC World Cup in 2007 is widely regarded as a terribly organised event.

So all of this, makes Indians feel they can organise events better than the ICC.

Then come to the IPL.

It is a smashing success of an event, a BCCI event. Foreign players are keen to get picked in the auction and earn handsome money for just a few weeks of cricket.

Another proof held up by Indians that cricketing power is largely India-centric.

Financial demands by the BCCI are being made in this context.

Post 1991, India is a very commercially-oriented country. Charity isn't quite its thing.

It's about milking opportunities, making as much money as possible, getting the maximum share of a pie...arm-twisting if necessary.

If ICC represents other countries too, and tries to play hard ball with BCCI, it's possible BCCI will cut down on its "international" calendar.

There's talk already (in Indian circles) of two IPLs in a year. The revenue will be BCCI's - ICC will lose out.

Am not making a judgment call on what's fair and what's not.

Cricket itself is changing, T20 leagues are becoming more and more attractive for cricketers (though some, esp from England & Australia, might still say Tests are the ultimate).

If there are two IPL tournaments in a year, spectators will still lap them up, cricketers will benefit, the BCCI will benefit.

And ICC will be left out in the cold.

Does ICC need the BCCI, or does BCCI need the ICC?

Depends on what you want to see as cricket in the future.

If you still want a lot of international contests, yes, ICC has a big role to play (though BCCI could even do this, negotiating with boards).

If you are ok with limited international events, ICC's role gets even more limited.

Most Indians feel, whatever ICC does, BCCI could do better anyway.

So BCCI being treated as one among equals, is the last thing most Indians of today will accept.


Return to “General Cricket Discussion Forum”