Big Three finally end. India lost both governance and revenue vote.

[Shajida Khan]

Keyword also being 'International'.

Actually Indians do not even care about international part of it. Most of the time they are more into watching their players hitting fours and sixes and bowling and taking wickets. International part can be easily be replaced with a 'League' kind of setup.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Like I said, If International is the keyword, then a tri lateral cricket series not involving India should generate the same zest from an advertiser (ie. pay the same amount for a 30s spot) as compared to a trilateral series involving India.
Then your proposal of equitable distribution makes sense.
Since that is NOT the case, my point stands.
ICC and the participating teams make more money when India is involved, than when its not!

Without other countries participating there would not be the same level of interest either. Revenues from advertising and TV rights owe just as much to the participation of other countries that they do to the participation of India - both are needed hence the proposed equitable distribution of resources given the necessity of both India AND other countries.

 

[Peshwa]

To add to this further, I remember recently in world cup India was eliminated from the finals race, this lead to huge downfall in earnings from viewership and loss for advertizers and organizers. As much hypocrite as it sounds, reality is that Indian are there only to watch few Indian players taking shots and bowling.

You stole the words out of my head. I was just thinking about the WC in west indies as an example of this!

I'm not saying that India is the belle of the ball for the world. But for Indians it is! And in terms of viewership, Indians overwhelm all others. So unfortunately it does lead to the Indian eyeballs given more value. It might be unfair but its true.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Actually Indians do not even care about international part of it. Most of the time they are more into watching their players hitting fours and sixes and bowling and taking wickets. International part can be easily be replaced with a 'League' kind of setup.

They care about watching Indian players hitting fours and sixes and bowling against INTERNATIONAL competition.

International competition is an equally important part of the equation.

On a side note, it is precisely the kind of hegemonic, selfish and greedy attitude displayed by the BCCI and many Indian commentators on this issue that makes India such a poor candidate for permanent UNSC membership.

 

[Shajida Khan]

They care about watching Indian players hitting fours and sixes and bowling against INTERNATIONAL competition.

International competition can be in form of a league of other players from around the world OR matches like Sharjah cup. It will not take long for Tata/Birla/Reliance to make multiple such 'cups'.

On a side note, it is precisely the kind of hegemonic, selfish and greedy attitude displayed by the BCCI and many Indian commentators on this issue that makes India such a poor candidate for permanent UNSC membership.

Think China and their claims on South China Sea and the way they are asserting it. When you are powerful, you assert more.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

International competition can be in form of a league of other players from around the world OR matches like Sharjah cup. It will not take long for Tata/Birla/Reliance to make multiple such 'cups'.

International players develop their reputations in international competition. While some 'reputable' players might participate in a 'breakaway' BCCI organized league/s, overtime they will fade/retire and the sanctions leveled by the ICC and other cricket boards on players participating in BCCI led 'breakaway leagues' will leave second string talent that will not pull in the viewers that current international stars pull.

Think China and their claims on South China Sea and the way they are asserting it. When you are powerful, you assert more.

Precisely why the concept of veto itself is flawed. Additional countries with veto powers makes a bad situation worse, and India is a horrible candidate given the attitudes on display in any case.

 

[Proudpakistaniguy]

Roo India Roo

 

[Peshwa]

Without other countries participating there would not be the same level of interest either. Revenues from advertising and TV rights owe just as much to the participation of other countries that they do to the participation of India - both are needed hence the proposed equitable distribution of resources given the necessity of both India AND other countries.

Ok, so lets take an example. Hypothetically speaking.

A 10 team ICC event with India generates 1B in revenue.
A 10 team ICC event w/o India generates 500MM in revenue.

If the addition of India in the series generates 500MM more ie. 50MM more per team, do you credit that to the "International" or to "India"?
And if so, should India NOT charge a higher premium for its participation since its bringing in 1.3 B additional viewers the tournament would otherwise not have had?!

Lets use the same methodology to a different sport: Boxing

An event will get a lot more traction/sponsors/advertisers if Floyd Mayweather fights vs. Anyone! Which is why Mayweather gets the lions share of the revenue. In this case, would you give the credit for the popularity of the fight to the opponent or Mayweather? Whos popularity brought in the additional viewership?
In this example, India is the Mayweather of cricket.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Roo India Roo

They are.

Ok, so lets take an example. Hypothetically speaking.

A 10 team ICC event with India generates 1B in revenue.

How much revenue does an Indian team playing itself generate?

 

[Proudpakistaniguy]

They are.


How much revenue does an Indian team playing itself generate?

They are cry babies from birth
They should boycott ICC and should be just playing Ranjhi trophy and domestic crickter between each others i.e differnt states and keep all money

 

[Peshwa]

How much revenue does an Indian team playing itself generate?

Since one cannot play an International tournament with one team, lets use IPL as an example.

http://www.business-standard.com/ar...ch-rs-1-100-crore-in-2016-116030901029_1.html

Besides, I'm not sure where you're going with your line of reasoning.
I already explained that Int Team A vs. International Team B will generate significantly less revenue compared to India vs. International Team A or B.

So the marginal increase profit or revenue is an effect of India NOT Team A or B.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Since one cannot play an International tournament with one team, lets use IPL as an example.

http://www.business-standard.com/ar...ch-rs-1-100-crore-in-2016-116030901029_1.html

Besides, I'm not sure where you're going with your line of reasoning.
I already explained that Int Team A vs. International Team B will generate significantly less revenue compared to India vs. International Team A or B.

So the marginal increase profit or revenue is an effect of India NOT Team A or B.

The profit and revenue is an effect of India AND Team A/B/C ...

What the ICC could do is allow more flexibility in negotiating revenue sharing from bilateral series.

 

[Peshwa]

The profit and revenue is an effect of India AND Team A/B/C ...

What the ICC could do is allow more flexibility in negotiating revenue sharing from bilateral series.

But isn't that what the whole argument is about?! That if a teams Net Revenue increases when it plays India, shouldn't India get a higher premium to play? Goes back to my Mayweather example

Are you suggesting that in a music festival like say Coachella, all musicians should share equal revenue even though the ticket holder came to see the showstopper?! So an Indie band from Austin should get equal share compared to Coldplay just because they are part of the same event?! That is not how show business or sports work.
You live in the US, you should know this!
All India is saying that there needs to be a premium for its participation since its adding 1.3 Billion eyeballs to the event. I don't see how that can be removed from the financial equation especially when GRPS and Ad revenue are highly correlated.

 

[hussain0216]

Pakistan always opposed the big 3_B.S

Pakistan has been proven right!

A big slap has been given to India from the cricketing world

 

[Peshwa]

The profit and revenue is an effect of India AND Team A/B/C ...

What the ICC could do is allow more flexibility in negotiating revenue sharing from bilateral series.

Overall Profit if looked at as a whole, YES.
Marginal Increase in Profit/Revenue is because of India. That increase comes with a premium. India is asking to be recognized for its contribution to this Increased Revenue. Simple.