The BCCI's convoluted thinking
A couple of months ago, the new BCCI administration caused a flutter when it announced that India would not participate in future editions of the Champions Trophy. In addition, it also objected to the ICC's plans for a Twenty20 World Cup. Both these actions were on the basis that the BCCI would not get any substantial revenues from events organized by the ICC, since the ICC has its own sponsorship/telecast deals for its events.
The ICC yesterday announced that it had received bids/proposals for several events, including the 2011 and 2015 World Cups, the Women's World Cup and a few editions of the Champions Trophy. It has been apparent for a while now that there're two main contenders for the 2011 World Cup: A cartel of Bangladesh, India, Pakistan & Sri Lanka and the duo of Australia & New Zealand.
Given that the BCCI honchos have often argued about ICC-owned events not being profitable for host countries, why did they go ahead with the bid for the 2011 World Cup in the first place? Surely it can't be their case that the World Cup is such a huge event and that it would automagically result in significant revenues aside from what the ICC would earn. From what I can infer, the only revenue a hosting country/board earns is the gate revenue, i.e. spectators at the ground. Sponsorships at the grounds, on television etc. are controlled by the ICC's deals with its official sponsors. Any violation of this would amount to ambush marketing. Gate revenue would obviously form a very insignificant portion from the proceeds, even if the tickets (and products sold inside the stadium) are priced at a high premium. The BCCI would also need to get a confirmation from the government in terms of a tax exemption from the Indian government for hosting the event.
I can't see the logic behind the change of heart. Can you?
Labels: 2011 world cup, bcci
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed -
| BCCI would find ways to get a lot of money out of this Jagdish.
How, Pratyush? In-stadia advertising, sponsorship deals, broadcast/telecast/webcast deals will be part of the ICC's contract with GCC/IDI. Unless the BCCI wants to flout its agreement with the ICC, it cannot have its fingers in those pies. What else?
By 
Jagadish (2 Mar 2006, 2:52:00 pm)
I am suggesting getting the agreement twisted/flouting with parts of the agreement at latter stages when little can be done.
If there is money involved, the BCCI will find a way to get it.
pratyush: I _really_ doubt it. There are legal implications. The BCCI couldn't get really away with the ambush marketing thing last World Cup. I can't see them armtwisting the ICC significantly this time around either. Given that there is money involved, the ICC won't be sitting doing nothing :)
By Jagadish (3 Mar 2006, 4:10:00 pm)
Hey...I came to this post via today's post (3rd may)...and my thinking on why BCCI is interested in the world cup - because they think that *in general* a world cup hosted in India (or Asia) would generated much higher revenue in total. That would mean a much bigger share for all ICC members, as ICC has to share significant portion of the revenue with them.
Read this story, I posted y'day, related to the whole controversy over Asian group winning the bid http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3655394a10133,00.html
And esp the last portion ""It said the Indian and Pakistani representatives told the member nations at the meeting that if Asia won the right to host the tournament they were guaranteed a minimum appearance fee of around $US14 million ($NZ22.29 million) each and also another $US400,000 per match.
The IndiaTimes reported that the promised appearance money in the cup was nearly $US5 million more than what the countries would get to play in the 2007 World Cup.""
That does explain a few things
By worma (3 May 2006, 6:13:00 pm)
We'd prefer if you posted comments with your real name to add more credibility to your opinions. However, the moderators reserve the right to delete comments, especially those containing offensive or unsuitable language. The opinions in the comments are your own views. You are welcome to provide a URL to your own cricket blog, but the moderators reserve the right to delete comments which only reference sites for viewing live streams.
Links within entries open in a new window. Some of the links may now be broken/not take you to the expected report since the original content providers may have archived/removed the contents. Some of the sites linked may require registration/subscription.
All opinions expressed are those of the authors alone. The authors' respective employers (past, present or future) are in no way connected to the opinions expressed here.
All pictures, photographs used are copyrights of the original owners. We do not intend to infringe on any copyright. Pictures and photographs are used here to merely accentuate and enhance the content value to our readers.
|
|
|
|
Post a Comment