Web Desk
Cricket’s associate member nations, grappling with financial constraints, are expressing apprehension over a proposed new international revenue distribution model that heavily favors cricket’s superpowers and could hinder the growth of the game.
The International Cricket Council (ICC) has put forth a new revenue-sharing model for the 2024-2027 cycle, which is set to be voted on during the July board meeting in Durban.
According to leaked figures reported by Cricinfo, India, the financial powerhouse of cricket, would claim 38.5% of the revenue, mainly due to its significant contribution to the commercial revenue pool.
The 12 full members of the ICC would collectively receive 88.81% of the revenue, leaving the remaining portion to be distributed among the 94 associate members.
The ICC has not officially commented on the figures, but general manager Wasim Khan stated that all members would receive more money under the proposed model compared to previous distributions.
Pakistan has already expressed opposition to the current shape of the model, and resentment is growing among other less developed cricketing nations.
Sumod Damodar, one of the three associate member representatives on the ICC Chief Executives’ Committee, voiced concerns that the proposal would not address the needs of associate members. Damodar, who is also the vice chairman of Botswana’s board, emphasized that associate members with one-day international (ODI) status require additional funding to sustain their high-performance programs, while others need financial support to bridge the gap.
Highlighting the rapid rise of Nepal in men’s cricket and Thailand in women’s cricket, Damodar asserted that more countries would make strides if they were provided with the necessary financial backing.
Tim Cutler, Chief Executive of the Vanuatu Cricket Association, warned that the proposed model would exacerbate the inequality between cricket’s more affluent nations and those with limited resources. Cutler stated, “The sad reality is, cricket will not grow beyond its current corners of the world […] if the allocation of the game’s global funds isn’t more equally distributed with the intention of expanding the game.”
Given that full members possess 12 of the 17 total votes on the ICC board, Cutler argued that it would be unlikely for funds to be diverted away from them or for independent decisions to be made for the betterment of the game. He likened it to “turkeys voting for Christmas.”
The ICC did not provide a response to the concerns raised by the associate members when approached for comment.
Former ICC President Ehsan Mani criticized the governing body for lacking vision in developing cricketing nations, despite recognizing the immense commercial potential in some of these regions. Mani emphasized that over-reliance on one country, namely India, for a significant portion of ICC revenues poses a major risk to global cricket. He advocated for equal revenue shares among all full members, asserting that a strong presence from countries such as West Indies, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Pakistan is essential for the prosperity of world cricket.
Mani further warned that the lack of investment in certain countries, including Zimbabwe, Ireland, and Afghanistan, would render the game unsustainable and diminish the overall wealth of world cricket.
