The BCCI are set to take home a whopping 38.5 per cent of the ICC’s projected earnings from the 2024-27 cycle, as per the proposed financial model for the period.
There has been no official confirmation of these figures as of yet but, according to an ESPNcricinfo report, the BCCI are expected to earn a colossal USD $231 million per year out of ICC’s projected annual earnings of USD $600 million from the 2024-27 cycle.
Thes projected figures are based on ICC’s “estimated earnings” of over USD $3.2 billion, primarily from the sale of media rights. A substantial chunk of this revenue will come “the sale of rights in the Indian market” – Disney Star have alone paid USD $3 billion for a four-year period.
For perspective, the ECB, will take home USD $41.33 million per year (6.89 per cent of the total ICC earnings – less than a fifth of the BCCI), and they are next on the list. Cricket Australia follow next, taking a share of USD $37.5 million – 6.25 per cent.
The contrast between the board’s earnings is starker than in 2014, when the three boards joined hands for the 2015-23 cycle. The BCCI wanted USD $405 million back then, the ECB $143 million, and the CA $132 million.
The ICC resisted that at the time and, while ECB got $139 million and CA $128 million – not significantly less than what they wanted – the BCCI were restricted to USD $293 million, still more than any two boards put together. But not far from the numbers floated in the most recent projections.
How are the other boards set to fare?
With USD $34.51 million (5.75 per cent), the Pakistan Cricket Board come next. At the other end of the spectrum among the 12 Full Members is Zimbabwe Cricket, at a paltry USD $17.64 million (2.94 per cent). Though they will not fare better than the Associates.
The 96 Associate Nations, will earn USD $67.16 million between them – in other words, about USD $700,000 each, or slightly more than a sixtieth of the BCCI’s projected revenue.
What is the ICC revenue split based on?
As per the report, the criteria for the split involves but is, in all probability, not limited to “cricket history; performance in both men’s and women’s ICC events over the last 16 years; contribution to the ICC’s commercial revenue; and, an equal weightage for the status of being a Full Member.”
Leaving aside about a ninth (USD $67.16 million) of their total budget for the Associate Members, the ICC will distribute the remaining USD $532.84 million among the 12 Full Members.
Divided equally, that comes to USD $44.4 million per member, which is presumably what the fourth factor is about. It is also the starting point of the model and the share of the slice for each board has been increased (or decreased) depending on how they have fared as per the other factors mentioned above.
The historical component puts nine of the 12 boards – including Bangladesh but not Zimbabwe (who became an ICC Full Member before Bangladesh), Ireland, and Afghanistan – on equal footing.
Their consistent performances in the ICC limited-overs events across gender over the past 16 years have helped Australia, England, and India gain ground over others.
It is perhaps reasonable to assume that the third of these factors (“contribution to the ICC’s commercial revenue”) mentioned above had tilted – an understatement – the revenue share in India’s way.
