Cashed-Up India’s Wealth And Power Should Be Reduced, Says Former Pakistan Cricket Boss

Cricket is too reliant on cash-rich India whose affluence and clout can only be diminished by a revamped International Cricket Council board, according to former ICC president and ex-Pakistan cricket boss Ehsan Mani.

Fears for the global game’s health have heightened 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 revenue distribution model set to be tabled at the ICC’s Annual General Meeting in July in South Africa.

Fellow powerhouse England are well behind with 6.89 per cent of revenue while the 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.

All members, however, will receive far more remuneration given the ICC’s media rights deal is significantly higher than the $2 billion for the 2015-23 cycle.

But amid continual uncertainty over international cricket’s future, as nations shun the expensive five-day traditional Test format while lucrative T20 franchise leagues swell across the world, India’s gobbling of the ICC’s coffers again raises concern over inequality.

India are still basking in last year’s mammoth $6 billion broadcast deal for the Indian Premier League, its money-spinning T20 competition.

“(Proposed revenue distribution model) will be giving the most money to the country that needs it the least, which makes no sense,” Mani, who was ICC president from 2003-06 and stepped down from the Pakistan Cricket Board in 2021, told me.

“I think it’s very unfortunate. There’s no strategic thinking about the development of the global game. There’s no vision.”

Mani believed cricket shouldn’t rely merely on India, despite its pulling power and sheer populace, and needed to grow the game beyond its traditional base.

“It only takes one downtown in an economic cycle for the ICC members to be affected. There is far too much reliance on India,” he said.

“If the ICC wants a truly global game and diversify its financial reliance, the country to develop is the U.S. I would have put $20-30 million into the U.S. You also need to grow the game in Africa, that’s the future.

“I think the global game (Associates) should have been allocated at least 30 per cent (instead of 11 per cent). That’s the only way to globalize the game.”

Mani also advocated for financial parity amongst the 12 Full Members, disregarding some belief that India deserve the lion’s share because of its undisputed heft in the sport.

“You have to give countries enough resources to not only develop their players but to pay them a fair amount, especially with the IPL and other T20 leagues targeting players,” said Mani, who was an architect of the ICC’s media rights deal when he was chair of the finance and commercial affairs committee.

“The Indian market brings in a lot of money…it’s not the BCCI (India’s governing body). There are benefits to the Indian companies to advertise in the ICC events and worldwide. India are not playing on its own, they are playing against other members. It’s a two-way street.”

Eyebrows have been raised from some insiders over last November’s ICC chair election, where amid the usual politicking resulted in Jay Shah – India’s powerful cricket boss – becoming the chair of the all-important finance and commercial affairs committee in this pivotal juncture.

There has been a lot made over India’s outsized influence on the ICC board made up of the 12 Full Members, three Associate directors, independent female director Indra Nooyi, the ex-PepsiCo
PEP
boss, and chair Greg Barclay.

Given its enormous wealth, India seemingly can rule with an iron fist although Mani believed a reshaped board could potentially loosen its stranglehold.

“Unfortunately there’s no appetite for countries to stand up to India,” Mani said. “The governance review, which was discussed when I was on the board, has gone quiet. I don’t think there should be more than 12 board members and at least seven of them should be independent directors.

“The directors of the ICC need to stand up and look at where they are taking this game,” he added. “They are guardians of the international game. They don’t act like that sometimes.”