Simran SinghaniaThe International Cricket Council’s (ICC) planned new international revenue distribution scheme, which disproportionately benefits the superpowers in the game, is causing concern among several Associate board members, who believe it may hinder the game’s expansion.
A new revenue-sharing plan for the 2024–27 cycle has been presented by the ICC and will be decided upon at its board meeting in Durban in July later this year. As was previously stated, the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) would individually be entitled to 38.5% of the new financial model’s annual earnings. This is primarily in acknowledgment of the BCCI’s contribution to the commercial revenue pot. The remaining portion would be divided among the 94 Associate members, with the 12 Full Members of the ICC taking a combined 88.81%.
Although general manager Wasim Khan stated on Monday that all members would receive more money under the proposed model than they had been earning in the past, the ICC has not yet responded to the numbers. The Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) has already stated that it opposes the model in its current form, and disappointment is also growing among other, relatively less-advanced cricket-playing nations.
Sumod Damodar, Vice-Chairman of the Botswana board and one of the three Associate members on the ICC Chief Executives’ Committee, said:
“If what is being proposed and discussed is likely to be the outcome then, as an Associate member representative, I would be disappointed. There are numerous practical reasons why it would be inadequate for Associate members.“
According to Damodar, Associate members with ODI status require more funding to maintain their high-performance initiatives, while the others require funding to fill the gap. He believes that more nations would participate if they were given the necessary financial backing, citing the rapid growth of men’s cricket in Nepal and women’s cricket in Thailand.
Tim Cutler, Vanuatu Cricket Association, Chief Executive, said:
“The new model is now even more heavily weighted towards the bigger cricketing nations, and there is a risk that the proposed changes will exacerbate this imbalance, putting the future of the game at further risk. The sad reality is cricket will not grow beyond its current corners of the world… if the allocation of the game’s global funds aren’t more equally allocated with a view to actually growing the game.“
Cutler has compared making decisions for the benefit of the game or diverting money away from oneself to “turkeys voting for Christmas” because full members hold 12 of the board’s total 17 votes.
Queries regarding the worries of the Associate members have not been responded to by the ICC.
Despite the enormous commercial potential of some of them, according to former ICC president Ehsan Mani, the organisation’s approach to developing cricketing nations lacks vision. He has supported equal shares for all Full Members, having stated that it “makes no sense” for India to take the lion’s share of the ICC profits.
Ehsan Mani, Former ICC President, further added:
“One of the biggest risks for global cricket is its over-dependence on one country – India – for a major part of the revenues generated. Countries like the USA and the Middle East and, in longer term, China would bring enormous benefits to the ICC, its members and the global game. World cricket would be stronger and richer for it. World cricket needs a strong West Indies, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Pakistan. Cricket in Zimbabwe has suffered due to lack of funds, as have Ireland and Afghanistan. Lack of investment in some of these countries will make the game unsustainable, and world cricket will be poorer for it.“
