ECB, BCCI and CA to control cricket in future.

Having read that the "big three" are proposing a "take over" of sorts of the ICC, I ave a number of questions.

Firstly let me admit I have no clue how the aiZcC is run, how they earn revenue (apart from ICC events) or how each member nation contributes financially to thr ICC.

Some questions.

I am told that the BCCI brings in 80% of the revenue of the ICC. How?

Is the BCCI therefor more powerful than the ICC as recent events showed where the SA tour was basically dictated by the BCCI?

How much control does the ICC really have nad how is it that tours can be changed at a whim if one of the "powerful" three decide something doesn't suit them?

Some observations.

Over the recent past I have seen some things happen that makes me believe that Cricket as a sport is in decline due to these power struggles and D...measuring contests.

I amy be wrong so please feel free to educate me. The BCCI had an issue with Lorgat from SA being appointed to CSA board, and in turn they got peeved off for some reason about CSA releasing the tour schedule "prematurely"

This brought along a shortened test series (I heard also that Tendulkar's retirement test in India had some effect on the tour) which by all accounts must have been a big financial loss for SA.

I also heard that CSA was trying to hasten a quick test series against Pakistan prior to the India series and the BCCI had something to say about that as well.

The Sri lanka series earlier in the year which was supposed to be a test series for SA was also cancelled in favour of a few ODI's.

Since becoming number one in Tests, it at least seems to me that SA cricket has been thrown curveballs for some unknown reason.

The Proteas only played 9 trsts this year and when you consider they were supposed to play another 4 tests at least this year, I am getting the idea that South African cricket is being undermined.

More questions.

If I understand all this correctly, once the BCCI, CA and the ECB take control, there will also be tiers, whcih will have a promotion relegation system, however the three "big" unions will be exempt of being relegated?

I also read that the BcCI and other two are suggesting that revenue (which is still a mystery to me) will be split in accordance with their contribution to the IcC and therefor the other cricket boards will most likely go bankrupt over this.

How is this in the best interest of all the other countries?

Do these big three realise without all the other countries interest and repetitive competition between these three nations only will come to a stand still if all the other members decide to pull away and start up their own board?

Can anyone clarify some of these issues as I am trying to understand what is happening and the consequences of it?

Thanks.

Here is my read:

1) ICC is being formally finished from it's controlling role.....given that informally they were toothless anyway.
Now formally they will do book-keeping and administrative tasks for their bosses.

2) Monetarily.....I think there will be more direct rewards for the countries outside the big-3 now.....  for showing good relations, good behavior and for bringing value to the three BIG brothers.
Bear in mind the BIG three are astute enough to know that they need the other countries also for it to remain a global game.

3) the automatic fixed / equal percentage cut to all members  is finished.....they cannot make money off the big-brothers and be arrogant  or even inconsiderate to the interests and wishes of the big-brothers.

All of the above is neither good nor bad in a cut and dried/  black and white way. These changes have a mixed impact.

At least the sham, the charade and hypocrisy of ICC as the notional controlling body is over.

It will be seen formally now as we have known it was for some time......there is India, then there are Aus and Eng....and finally there are the rest.

I think we have to be a little bit careful with this, as it involves potentially libelous claims.

Also, those of us who are involved in some official capacity (as far as I know that's only myself, but in case there are others I give this warning) should be aware that some documents we may have seen in official capacity are confidential, and that discussion of their contents on a public forum such as this one would be a breach of confidentiality and may lead to a code of ethics investigation being instigated.

If you think this is exaggeration or scaremongering, it isn't. Please just trust me on that.

Therefore with regret Biltong in my position I must decline to comment on any of the specifics.

The only thing I can expand on (which is scarcely a secret, as it is available on their website) is the functionality of the ICC: there is no neutral executive body of the ICC per se, that is to say the main executive body of the ICC consists of one representative from each full member, and 3 representatives from the remaining 96 members (associate and affiliate).

We know, because Lalit Modi of all people has leaked minutes of ICC meetings (note that the minutes of the ICC meetings are not made public, and are part of the confidential material described above), that when members were reminded that the code of ethics of the ICC required them to act as impartial members of the board, the Indian representative made his position quite clear that he didn't agree with the code of ethics, and that he was there to represent India.

With that in mind, and moreover given that it only takes 3 full members to veto any change of policy decision, change is difficult. If any member behaves "poorly", nobody can force them back into line (e.g. India doesn't recognise the FTP and nobody can force them to do so) because there is apparently no body with that power. Or rather the body which would have that power is apparently governed in part at least by vested interests.

The only other comment I am willing to make is that it is a bit strange for the test teams to start complaining now, when they created this system which concentrates the power in the hands of a very few, at the expense of the very many. When you create concentration of power, you shouldn't be surprised if as may be the case the most powerful of the few concentrate the power even further.

With that, and with renewed apologies for the unusually cagey post,

My understanding is that this all remains a "proposal" at the moment.

The Big Three ...and all the others , have a vote , no ?

I imagine self-interest will feature in voting decisions , but also what is best for international cricket will be considered. Not sure that is cut and dried.

Test Cricket (once the only form) originated in England/Australia contests , and gradually spread over a number of other teams. It was originally organized by one to one agreements ; and only relatively recently has there been an attempt , through the -also fairly "new" - ICC , to set the whole thing into a cohesive whole. Attendances , in most countries , and the lack of enthusiasm shown by some boards for the long game as opposed to limited overs action , suggest that this current system isn't really working...

With the plethora of sports available today , Test Cricket is at the mercy of economic factors. And although television is helping out , the fact is some countries are struggling to afford it. I don't have a solution , by the way   

People talk of Ireland and The Netherlands as possible additional Test teams : frankly , I think they're dreaming. Bangladesh and Zimbabwe are hardly sought after opponents as it is. And forcing countries to play series against these teams , at obvious financial cost , doesn't seem a viable long term strategy. The World Test Championship continues to look a dead duck. So where to for Test Cricket ?

It really isn't like football : there everyone can play anyone . One match at a time ...and every four years they can all play off for a global trophy. Fine , but it just doesn't work for a sport like cricket ; where half a dozen teams are on another planet to the rest in terms of ability , resources and public interest. And where multi match tours are the accepted format...

Is there an ideal way to go forward ? Personally , I like the two tier Test idea , where the top six - or whatever - teams play each other and the next few have their own competitions. But how do you arrange promotion and relegation ? Not so long ago , England was briefly ranked eighth ...and Australia was down to fifth only a couple of months ago : what chance a Test system with one of them out of the top grade ? Money talks...loudly.

As I said ; no solutions. But an interesting debate ; and the discussion around this proposal will be interesting.

The one thing to be said for concentrating power in the hands I the big three is that it reduces the need for the big one buying off most of the little 6 to get the vote they need to rule them all.

Now they'd have to get the support of at least one other major board.

The icc itself it's worth noting is a tiny organisation with hardly any budget. They are not all powerful in themselves and are at the mercy of the national boards.

Let's also be honest here, it's no secret that corruption is rife in most I not all boards big or little. Sangakaras speach was just one indication of what's painfully obvious, being in a cricket board gives people access to wealth and power. Again it shouldn't come as any great shock that individuals that run a board that generates most if the income for others to get fat off might want a greater say in how the trough is fed from.

Mike, does this mean the little unions are basically at the beck and call of the big three?

alfie wrote:what is best for international cricket will be considered

Case precedent would suggest that is unlikely within the current structure.

Biltong, whether the "little unions" are bullied, rewarded or punished by the "bigger unions" depending on which way they (the little ones) vote on such matters is something I couldn't possibly comment on.

There is a good article by Andrew Nixon:
http://www.cricketeurope4.net/DATABASE/ARTICLES7/articles/000026/002686.shtml

and a petition started by our very own Shelsey I believe:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/petition-to-oppose-international-cricket-council

There is an excellent explanation of what this means by Jarrod Kimber:
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/710789.html?CMP=OTC-RSS

Thanks for all that Mike, in my personal opiniion this will eventually backfire. How long it is going to take is anyone's guess.

But think about this, talking from a South African point of view. We have been the second best nation in cricket over the past 20 years, our statistics prove that, now basically Suth Africa will play these nations less often than they used too, and possibly in shorter test series, eventually they might not get any game time against the top three or be TOLD what they can or how many games they can get.

This will lead the next best teams (excluding the big three) to band together and arrange test series amongst themselves whilst England and Australia will play an ashes series in june and another in December.

Somewhere one of the three will have to play on of the other test nations to get game time because I beleive the Ashes will become more common than Toyota's

How long before their own fans become bored stiff watching the same series over and over.

The IPL will become the mainstay of India who at least has a billion people who will run after their heroes to watch them.

Pakistan and Sri Lanka will play more ODI cricket than ever before and SA west Indies and New Zealand will entertain each other.

And then the whole thing will fail because of money and power hungry individuals.

I agree. It comes down to short-termism.

Already some fans have complained about ashes overload after these last two series. Well, things aren't about to improve guys...

If people are concerned they should write to the people involved, and sign petitions. If you don't care about the world of cricket beyond your small sphere of interest then don't bother.

Are they even going to pay attention to petitions and emails?

By my experience in the business world greed doesn't pay attention to common sense.

Sounds a bit like the UN security council if I'm honest (not nearly as important, mind you). If BCCI, CA & ECB form a core unit... I can't believe that greed won't play a role. Let's not forget that during the bad old days South Africa's financial might meant the Imperial Cricket Council turned a blind eye to them refusing to play a non-white nation (or even a non-white player) for forty-odd years. The world's changed a tad since, but once a consortium takes over - greed isn't far behind.

With that said, I can't imagine that this actually changes anything - BCCI claimed to have no knowledge of the S.A. tour fixture list even after S.A. released correspondence e-mails... ICC's response "We hope they can sort it out".Without making a claim bordering on libel, I will say - If The unholy trinity do get in bed with each other, it will only be a commercialization of a reality that's been the "truth" for a while now.

Social media and other types of campaign do work in my experience. In cricket also (see 2015 world cup reversal).
Another avenue may be a CAS challenge if the rumours about protected status (i.e. away from relegation) for the 3 big sides are true.

Hopefully, the largely nonsensical proposal will remain just that, a proposal....... I wouldn't want to follow IPL for 4 months, and then tests against Australia and England every other day. Will be a very sad day if the rest of the lot meekly fall in line and vote with the BullyBoy Club....... The ICC president, who has been part of drafting this proposal is from New Zealand isn't he?

msp83 wrote:Hopefully, the largely nonsensical proposal will remain just that, a proposal....... I wouldn't want to follow IPL for 4 months, and then tests against Australia and England every other day. Will be a very sad day if the rest of the lot meekly fall in line and vote with the BullyBoy Club....... The ICC president, who has been part of drafting this proposal is from New Zealand isn't he?

this

msp83 wrote:Hopefully, the largely nonsensical proposal will remain just that, a proposal....... I wouldn't want to follow IPL for 4 months, and then tests against Australia and England every other day. Will be a very sad day if the rest of the lot meekly fall in line and vote with the BullyBoy Club....... The ICC president, who has been part of drafting this proposal is from New Zealand isn't he?

msp....why is this necessarily bad ?

--For eg abolishing FTP....is simply saying that every country decides what is good for it's markets.....markets meany paying viewers essentially

Instead of someone forcing a fixed number of reciprocal tests i a fixed template cut out by the test-focused nations

--WI and BD might decide for example......they want to play a lot of T20s..and only 3 tests anywhere per year...so be it.

---Eng and Aus may like to play an ashes every where...and Ind-Pak-SL might be playing each other in a triangular ODI series twice every year and 2 IPLs per years.

--that test cricket = only cricket and real cricket...and anything that is different from that notions is a cause for doom and gloom is unfounded. Old world imperialist model trying to paint the entire world in it's own image is an archaic model.

--for a number of years the less earning members have gained from the earnings of richer members....they should be thankful for what the got...and move on into the new world without complains.

--SA and Pak for example are still much bigger crowd pullers than Eng in India and can command their share because of the mass appeal. Lanka and NZ can command their higher shares by making their players available for IPL.
The new world will offer new avenues to negotiate new ways of earning more based on inherent strengths and mutual give and takes.

--the more i think about it the more I see merits in this proposal.....firstly and not trivially it states the power situation as it has been for some time...throwing out of the window the charade / notional presence of ICC...and secondly and also importantly gives the freedom to do what each nation's viewers want....and negotiate / carve out their own place in the world order

KPF, while the market has a major role in the cricket world, I don't want cricket to be on the line of WWE where all the high-profile action is eventually meaningless as it is all fixed...... The clause of no relegation for the BullyBoys is totally ridiculous, and the bringing back of a Cartel Veto is not going forward to the brave new world, it is bringing back the atrocious old world...... N Srinivasan wants to be in the action even after he's done with the BCCI, this is a strategy towards that.
Have you forgotten the Slogfest in October last year? If that's all we are left with, I would rather be done with cricket.......

Eventually - A monopoly of power destroys the game. It first destroys the smaller nations, and then eventually, your stuck watching the Ashes, and Border Gavaskar, as all the other teams are off playing t20s in Tahiti, or Connecticut, like crickets Harlem Globetrotters, or something (think I'm joking? How many Teams does Afridi and co play for? Bravo? Narine?).

I'm not sure what your problem is with the future tours programme, to be quite honest. To say its not perfect is one thing, but to suggest some form of market-related programme is almost asking for cricket to be slaughtered. What happens when t20 is no longer fun (it happened to 50-overs)? T20? have Narine and co play three games a day?

The only thing I do agree with is that at best this unmasks the charade of the last ten years.

England are currently ranked #4 in the world...
The teams below them are Pakistan and Sri Lanka, England lost 3-0 to Pakistan, and drew 1-1 with SL, they also beat SL 1-0 at home... so last nine tests, they've gone 2-4 vs the teams ranked below them, and yet they absolutely positively cannot get relegated while these two teams can? How this makes sense I don't know.

This proposal makes me feel very angry.

SA need to included as part of the executive decision making process - along with perhaps two other nations as well.

As it is, cricket (in general) is rapidly losing its worldwide appeal and with these current shifty ICC characters and their greedy way of running our game it will only get worse for us all.

It's all about the money mate. SARU should learn from this, they should worry less about others and just worry about their own pockets.

You can see this trend happening all over, England and French rugby, Cricket. It seems the collective spirit loses out in tough eonomies and the money seems more important.

I know, I know.

Just a pity for all of us fans from the Full Member nations... we need to keep playing each other on as much of a regular basis as possible. The sport is heading for a disaster if this proposal proceeds.

kingraf wrote:Eventually - A monopoly of power destroys the game.

How specifically ? I'd say it's rather a perception

It first destroys the smaller nations, and then eventually

How specifically....from 2 nation power at the start of the 20th century developed about 12 playing nations and the spread and transfer of power.

your stuck watching the Ashes, and  Border Gavaskar, as all the other teams are off playing t20s in Tahiti, or Connecticut, like crickets Harlem Globetrotters, or something (think I'm joking? How many Teams does Afridi and co play for? Bravo? Narine?).

you (and we) are watching...because it's selling elsewhere and a lot......it's not about only you or me...but what the majority of paying customers want.........for example all those West Indian islands would much rather prefer T20s only........and cutting downs tests might revive the economics of cricket in WI...and BD and probably half a dozen other countries

I'm not sure what your problem is with the future tours programme, to be quite honest. To say its not perfect is one thing, but to suggest some form of market-related programme is almost asking for cricket to be slaughtered. What happens when t20 is no longer fun (it happened to 50-overs)? T20? have Narine and co play three games a day?

FTP is an imposed one template deemed fits all....and unfortunately the template is designed by the test preferring traditional nations.
getting to bilateral agreements means each two sets of nations can design templates that best fit the wants of their paying viewers.
what's wrong with that?
anything but that is wrong actually.

The only thing I do agree with is that at best this unmasks the charade of the last ten years.

England are currently ranked #4 in the world...
The teams below them are Pakistan and Sri Lanka, England lost 3-0 to Pakistan, and drew 1-1 with SL, they also beat SL 1-0 at home... so last nine tests, they've gone 2-4 vs the teams ranked below them, and yet they absolutely positively cannot get relegated while these two teams can? How this makes sense I don't know.

relegation exception  clause while seemingly unreasonable is in the form of game that most members care least for and in the least marketable form of the game.

hence to sustain that form of the game....an exception has to be imposed almost like a subsidy.

to not have this exception this format must stand un-subsidized or the otehr alternative would be drop this form completely...in whihc case also all  members but one outside the big 3 would not care much.

This might just be a proposal right now, but as a Windies fan, I believe it's a really sad day that the Big Three could even be proposing this....

Yes, in the past the ICC just paid lip service to weak teams like the West Indies, but now the pretense has been dropped.

This does nothing to win Caribbean sports fans back to cricket. Like me, they're moving away to other sports, like track and field athletics.

I suppose Shivfan put it perfectly. Can't add more to that - The crowd that came to watch Kallis' farewell test will tell about how healthy S.A. cricket is at the moment. But yeah, Twiddle your thumbs while Rome is burning.

Promotion/relegation is a fantastic idea.

But making England/Australia/India immune from relegation? Catastrophic.

For those who may have missed the reference on the Ind-NZ thread.

A new proposal was added to the draft document following India's defeat today. Following this any defeat by India by exactly 24 runs which happens on the 19th of any month will automatically be overturned, and corrected to an Indian win by 200 runs.

A BCCI spokesman was heard to comment: "India bring in 99.9% of the revenue for the ICC. Losing matches is contrary to India's interests, and hence to cricket's interests as a global sport. A match being declared as a defeat under those circumstances is an unacceptable affront to India's dignity, and as such it is only right the result be overturned."

An NZCB spokesman commented: "it is not my place to comment on what are confidential proposals. I can confirm that no proposals are being put forward which would damage the NZCB's interests in any way. I would like to apologise to the BCCI for the recent result, which was a travesty of the natural order of things, and would assure them that we shall do our utmost to ensure it won't happen again. We hope the Indian delegation will accept this show of good faith and agree to finish the current tour, and consider returning at some future date."

England fans can look optimistically to the day when 5-0 ashes defeats are made illegal...

Ha ha Mike... but surely Australia will have the power to veto any such move.

I found this on cricinfo.


Tony Irish, chief executive of the South African Cricketers' Association defined the document as, "concerning," saying it will have "significant implication for cricket, particularly for smaller countries of which South Africa is one - revenue wise." South Africa's alienation by the Big Three - either from being involved in the formulation of the plan or as a beneficiary in their Test match fund to support smaller nations - is deliberate. South Africa are ranked No.1 on the ICC's Test rankings but find themselves ranked below Pakistan at the highest level of revenue share projections. It is understood that there had been "overtures" on behalf of the Big Three and the South Africans, and presenting them with the choice of finding themselves in the "top four or the bottom six." Cricket South Africa's (CSA) response in the situation, should the matter go to vote in the Board meeting on January 28-29, may well hold the answer to that particular question put to them.

top four or bottom six?? That's the ultimatums that are being made now - the amount of criticism levelled at Sepp Blatter seems remarkable when you see a game with over 100 member nations being run like a school gang.

I say CSA must oppose them openly. Bugger them, we should not stand for blackmail.

We'll find a way to make our cricket financially sustainable.

I tend to agree with you, Biltong. I'd hate to lose out on intl. cricket with our countries sporting past, but this isn't international cricket, it's a three nation tri series that will be played on loop until the second coming, with everyone else playing in meaningless T20s... Crickets the second biggest sport in the country, marketed better, I think we could be self-sufficient. What's being suggested is CSA being left with Breadcrumbs, I fail to see how a better run domestic circuit can't make similar, if not more revenue.

And here it is, just read this on cricinfo. CSA officially oppose the draft.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/current/story/711713.html

As the opposition looks, we'd probably need the mini six to join in... Seems unlikely

Yeah, I think we are going to stand alone in this, CSA did the right thing. Now they need to concentrate on how they ate going to increase revenue, we have already seen the attitude of the BCCI, I doubt we will be playing any cricket against them in the near future.

I think the reality is, going forward, CSA is going to have a smaller piggy bank going it alone. But it probably won't be any smaller than if we remain in the ICC in its current, or future, I suppose, guise. The difference is at least this way, we have our balls intact. Put a proper domestic season in place. Bring back the original 11 districts, put some domestic cricket back on Free to air, and encourage people to get to stadiums. Doing it this way does admittedly increase the likelihood of a player drain, but how many players are we going to keep playing vs Bangladesh, Zim and SL in t20s every four or so months for pennies? For all the talk of t20s being financially viable, Sri Lanka and West Indies, have both had financial difficulty with players unpaid, despite packing their t20 schedules... so I don't buy this buyer's market nonsense.

What a sorry state of affairs really. Well done to the CSA though. The BCB chief did hint that the board is against the proposal, The CSA and BCB need someone else to stand up along side them. Hopefully the PCB will? Can the CSA get to use South Africa's political influence in Zimbabwe to swing things there? Not really expecting the WICB, SLC or NZc to stand up and be counted.......

Mugabe is always looking to stick it to imperialists. Zimbabwe would probably join in.

Agree Kingraf, we will have to revamp our domestic cricket, even if it may be tough initially this "enforced" exile from the big three may well just force the CSA to think outside the box.

It seems from the latest I am hearing that CSA and PCB will oppose this. They need 2 more, because the proposal needs a 2/3ds majority of full members to pass. The only two possibilities are the BCB and ZCU as things are looking. It is almost certain that SL and WICB will back this, and the NZC's public comments don't seem to augur well.

I still think the best chance of this not going through is it being withdrawn due to public outrage, so urge you all to sign the petitions you find, and email the heads of these boards.

It is becoming clear that the proposal which was originally presented as being a proposal from the finance committee was in fact nothing of the sort. Amongst those sitting on the finance committee who claim to have not been aware of it are Neil Speight, the associate and affiliate rep (from Bermuda) and Dave Richardson, CEO of the ICC...

As CSA has come out in the open against this obnoxious proposal, hopefully there will be more support for them and enough public opinion generated so that Srinivasan and his fellow conspirators from England and Australia will back off.

Unlike Ravi Shastri and to some extent Sunil Gavaskar, Harsha Bhogle often speaks his mind on contentious issues rather than taking the BCCI line or sitting quiet. Here is his initial take on the ongoing debate.
http://indianexpress.com/article/sports/cricket/decision-to-run-cricket-according-to-commercial-interests-will-cause-inequity/0/

I think this is a big step towards the inevitable death of Test cricket as we know it i.e. all the countries playing each other home and away over a period of time.
 
But you do have to ask, outside of England and Australia whether Test cricket in front of half empty, even empty stadiums was ever going to last long. Pains me to say it but I think Tests have become unsustainable in most of the world.
 
The knock on would then be a loss of interest in Eng and Aus as the never-ending Ashes series starts. I for one was completely bored of the recent back to back series (and that is not to do with the 5-0, just overkill of the same fixture). I don't want to see any more Ashes Tests that is for sure and wouldn't pay to watch them.

Reports from the Colombo Gazette (not sure how reliable: http://colombogazette.com/2014/01/20/lanka-to-oppose-indo-uk-aussie-proposal/) that SL are also going to oppose. I must say I'm surprised given their financial situation and reliance on Indian largesse at times.

If this is true this is a big blow for the big 3, and quite possibly marks the end for these proposals.

VTR: surely the question then is how to make tests sustainable in those parts of the world? What this proposition does is make test cricket obsolete, and eventually unsustainable everywhere, because as you say people won't pay to see ashes after ashes after ashes.

I read an outrageous comment on cricinfo this morning, one I certainly didn't believe.

There was a South African making a statement that South Africa has been the greatest test nation in the last 50 years.

I then went and checked it.

To my surprise these are the win/loss ratio's of the test nations since 1 jan 1960

SA 1.93
AUS 1.77
ENG 1.12
PAK 1.12
WI 0.98
India 0.94
SRI 0.82
NZ 0.55

Now is that not an interesting statistic.

Mike Selig wrote:VTR: surely the question then is how to make tests sustainable in those parts of the world? What this proposition does is make test cricket obsolete, and eventually unsustainable everywhere, because as you say people won't pay to see ashes after ashes after ashes.

Yes agreed but I don't think its a question anyone will ask, as I feel that Test cricket has already been ruined in a lot of places and would now be hard to turn round. Not impossible, but I just don't see the appetite is there to put in the effort to get it to where it should be.

Issues that have caused it are: 2 Test "series", scheduling at the wrong times of year (e.g. some Tests in the Windies), India and Pakistan not really playing each other, the proliferation of ODIs and T20s.

Kudos to CSA for opposing this....
  
Unfortunately, the cricket boards in Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and the West Indies are completely gutless, and won't dare cross the BCCI, for fear of no longer getting handouts.  NZ have already indicated they will tow the line laid out for big brother Australia.

So, that just leaves Zimbabwe as the only "weaker" nation who might back South Africa....

It's a very sad state of affairs....

Personally, I like the idea of relegation and promotion...what I oppose is the way the Big Three are seeking to divide up the financial pie between them.

Can anyone provide clear cut information on the revenue of the ICC, I am trying to get my head around how the BCCI provides 80% of the revenue to the ICC and how much it is.

Trouble is Biltong minutes of ICC meetings aren't readily available so it is hard for anyone to get any concrete information really.

I'm not really sure how much I am at liberty to divulge, because I'm not sure how much is in the public domain. $1.5bn seems a widely quoted figure for the last ICC cycle (4 years). The 80% figure usually quoted is ahem creative.

I understand you can't willy nilly divulge information. However what ai am trying to understand is how the revenue is earned.

Example.

ICC tournament in Sri Lanka, there is broadcasting rights, gate money and sponsors, those are the main revenue earners.

So logic tells me the ICC gets a percentage of that?

Test series in SA, same applies, but does the ICC get a cut of that?

If you invite Australia to SA, how is the revenue shared?

The IPL, does the ICC earn any share of that?