If the proposed mannequin by ICC’s Financial & Commercial Affairs (F&CA) committee is handed through the Annual Conference in June, BCCI might be getting $231 million yearly whereas England would be the second-highest grosser with a 6.89 per cent share, which interprets to $41.33 million. Australia is third within the listing with earnings of $37.53 million, which is equal to six.25 per cent.
The whole listing of ICC affiliate member nations could have 11 per cent distributed between them.
He, nevertheless, added that since all different nations will witness a leap in income, there’ll hardly be any push-back on the international convention.
“The planned distribution model will be discussed at the next ICC meeting in June, but with every country getting a larger amount (in absolute terms) than now, there may be little appetite to challenge the proposals,” Atherton wrote in his column for the ‘Times London’.
“As Ehsan Mani, the former ICC president and former chairman of the Pakistan Cricket Board, said this week: the money is going where it is needed the least,” the previous right-hander said.
The major system adopted is which nation has the utmost sponsorship, income stream from TV broadcast rights, and India is a runaway chief on the subject of Star (an arm of Disney) which places the utmost cash for rights of world occasions.
“It is this last (commercial contribution) that skews the outcome significantly, given that by far the biggest contribution comes from the Indian television market,” mentioned Atherton.
“The last two factors are problematic, though, in determining any distribution. For example, for their performances in ICC events, India, Australia and England are given the highest ratings.
“In different phrases, these are the nations which have competed most successfully within the ICC knockout competitions over the previous 16 years or so. But they already get pleasure from an inherent benefit, as a result of they host extra key occasions than anybody else.”
Atherton believes that “these nations who benefit from the luck of getting dynamic residence markets already exploit that benefit by means of their home tv income streams.”
His reference was to the handsome earnings of the BCCI from broadcast rights of India’s matches at home.
“These profitable markets, due to this fact, give India and to a lesser extent England and Australia an in-built benefit.”
Atherton expressed concern in his column that West Indies, which still produces a lot of talented cricketers, will get only $27.5 million annually just because as an assortment of island nations, they are not a commercially viable destination for broadcasters.
“The West Indies, for instance, suffers from being in a high-cost, low-income area: as a vacationer vacation spot, the price of flights and accommodations is excessive (thus the price of staging cricket is excessive), and in a area of solely 5 million folks, its tv revenues are low (how a lot it contributes commercially to the ICC deal is put at 0.1 per cent).”
“For the West Indies, and others, the income stream from the ICC is extra necessary than inside markets. The ICC distribution ought to be about serving to to equalise an inherently unequal international panorama,” he wrote.
Atherton, the cricketer-turned-journalist, is a well-known critic of BCCI’s hegemony.
“There is a deeper malaise at work right here. The financial transformation of India up to now three a long time and the rising significance of tv revenues have distorted cricket’s panorama, making it extra unequal and, due to this fact, in want greater than ever of cautious strategic thought and management. But there was an absence of this on the ICC.”
Source: timesofindia.indiatimes.com