Dissension Lingers For Cash-Stricken Cricket Countries As Contentious Revenue Distribution Model Set To Pass

There is a growing expectation that a contentious proposed revenue distribution model will likely be passed by the International Cricket Council’s board even though dissension lingers over the “ridiculous” share set for cash-stricken smaller countries.

Widespread debate has erupted after ESPNcricinfo reported that India’s governing body is set to receive $230 million a year – or 38.5 per cent – of net surplus earnings from the ICC’s $3 billion media rights deal for 2024-27.

That’s a significant increase from its 22 per cent share in the current 2015-23 deal with the proposed model to be tabled at the ICC’s Annual General Meeting in July in South Africa.

While the focus has been largely on India’s enormous slice of the pie – and the subsequent pared back percentages of fellow powerhouses Australia and England – smaller cricket nations could face significant challenges keeping the sport afloat in non-traditional areas.

Associate Members – 94 nations deemed under the 12 top tiered Full Members who are granted more funding and power – are set to receive 11.19 per cent, which is about the same percentage as in the current model.

While it is true that all members will receive far more remuneration given the ICC’s media rights deal is significantly higher than the $2 billion for the 2015-23 cycle, it can be easy to be cynical of a sport so skewed towards the heft of India when it is granted more than triple the amount of a combined 94 members.

India last year received a mammoth $6 billion broadcast deal for the Indian Premier League, its money-spinning T20 competition. Jay Shah – India’s powerful cricket boss – is also the chair of the ICC’s finance and commercial affairs committee heavily involved in the proposed revenue distribution model, a position he shoehorned into amid politicking during last November’s chair election.

“I was not surprised India wanted more, but I am surprised with the ridiculous percentage for Associates, who are the largest stakeholders,” Sumod Damodar, an Associate Member representative on the influential Chief Executives’ Committee, told me.

“To appease individual Full Members, perhaps the argument was that percentages will go down but the value will increase. The problem for Associates is their membership is increasing.

“New members are coming in and there are new programmes proposed to be enforced. How the hell are we going to sustain, develop and grow if there is no increase in the pot?

“Where will all the money come from for the pathways and events?”

Ehsan Mani, the former ICC president and ex-Pakistan cricket boss, believed Associate nations deserved far more remuneration.

“The 90-odd Associates should have received at least $30-50 million (on top of the proposed $67 million a year) if the ICC board is serious about making cricket a global sport,” he told me. “This money should have been seen as an investment as some of the (Associate) economies are far more robust and a greater potential to contribute to the ICC in the longer term.”

Mani believed the ICC needed to “wean off relying just on India” and pour more funds into the U.S. and China, which was once a country of interest but cricket development there has stalled.

“From my previous discussions with the sports ministry, China is willing to develop the game seriously but requires active engagement with the ICC,” Mani said.

“The U.S. alone could contribute $600-700 million over an eight-year cycle once the game is established there. It has been done by FIFA starting with a much smaller base in the U.S. than cricket.

“Investment of $10 million each in the U.S. and China could be justified. Then there are Associate Member countries with strong economies such as Singapore, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, U.A.E. which have huge potential far more than most Full Members in the long-term.

“Africa as a whole with its mineral resources and growing population justifies a higher level of investment too.”

While strong debate is set to ensue in July’s meetings, there is a feeling of resignation from some insiders that the proposed model is likely to remain intact – or only slight amended – before being passed by the board, which only has three Associate Member representatives out of 16 directors.

“Hoping India will be amenable and it won’t be passed easily,” an insider close to proceedings told me. “But it is most likely to be passed as is. There will be carrots dangling.

“It shouldn’t pass like this….should be a matter of principle.”