Venues for the next three World Cups decided
The big story over the weekend was obviously the grant of the staging rights for the 2011, 2015 and 2019 World Cups. In one single shot, the ICC awarded 2011 to Asia, 2015 to Australasia and 2019 to England.
I wonder how the ICC would react if the governments of Australia, New Zealand or the UK suddenly withdrew the tax exemption status for hosting the event.
Of course, I still remain singularly unconvinced by the BCCI's turnaround in thinking. Unless there is some loophole they've discovered which helps them make millions of moolahs. One option could be corporate boxes.
Stadiums in Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka can host, on an average, 40000 spectators for a game. I'd assume that the boards would sell around 5000-10000 of those tickets to the corporate world, who'd be more than happy to lap up those tickets at a price upwards of Rs. 5,000 per ticket and host politicians, existing and potential clients, employees (?) etc. So even on the lower end of the bargain, the cricket boards would be able to sell 5000 tickets at Rs. 5,000 each to pocket a cool Rs. 2.5 crores. I know this calculation may not be too applicable outside of India, given the relative sizes & performances of the national economies, but there could still be significant sums earned by the boards through these corporate 'boxes', especially when you multiply that amount per game by the number of games!
Labels: 2011 world cup
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed -
|
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, 7:13:00 pm)
worma: Yes, a bigger share of a larger pie is a reasonable expectation. But the BCCI isn't the only one to profit. The whole point of the tax exemption is that the bulk of the income is apparently routed to the countries where cricket needs to be supported, maintained or developed further. My guess is that the BCCI (and the rest of the Asian bloc) is heavily betting on an Indian media house owning the ICC's event rights, which will be the Global Cricket Corporation's only till the 2007 World Cup. The location of the World Cup per se may not affect the revenues, since the payment [so far] has been a fixed sum ($550 million by GCC).
Then again, the equation may change depending on the new agreement signed by the ICC with whoever gets the rights. This time around, individual boards may have a greater say, given the way 'ambush marketing' entrenched itself in the cricketing dictionary between 2002 and 2004.
I have no doubt that the Asian bloc obviously sees a lot of good money in the event, which is why they bid for it. I just can't figure out _what_!
By Jagadish (4 May 2006, 12:31:00 am)
Yes, maybe once the GCC contract expires, the ICC may opt for a separate negotiation for each WC..and the Asians are hoping to bring their influence to get a bigger deal signed if they get to host it. Location also does matter because India corporates would probably pour in more money if its a home event (larger exposure...live promotional events with international players...more eyeballs on the build-up events etc etc)
Sure BCCI is not the only one to profit...which is why fence sitters like WI tilted over. Btw, the bulk of income is not routed to developing nations...the WC revenue has major chunk for each test playing nation, then a smaller one for associate nations and so on.
By worma (4 May 2006, 1:23:00 pm)
Ok, here' some more on the same http://www.barbadosadvocate.com/NewViewNewsleft.cfm?Record=25729 This report says that GCC would file the tender for extension of its contract. But the interesting bit is that Nimbus is their agency for negotiating contracts with sponsors. And we know how close Nimbus if with BCCI. I wouldn't be too surprised if Nimbus bids for (and wins) the contract directly this time around. And, in that case, maybe BCCI already has set up plans with them on how to 'exploit' the contract to the max...esp if the Cup hosting comes to Ind (as it did).
Just speculation....but lets wait and watch. And btw, I don't think the whole thing is going to get too much clearer than it is now, even after the new deals. We'll have to read between the lines.
By worma (4 May 2006, 1:33:00 pm)
worma: Yes, I did read reports of GCC wanting to bid yet again, despite having apparently lost heavily. Obviously they're banking on the cricket economy expanding even further to offset their past losses. The assumption is that once 2007 is done and dusted, in the fresh round of bids, India's companies will win the rights to be associated with the events in various sponsorship capacities. That'd be the only situation in which India's corporates gain. Those who aren't in the official sponsors list can't really hope for much, especially if their product/service offerings directly compete with the official sponsors' list.
By Jagadish (4 May 2006, 3:16:00 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