In a critical stance, former England captain Michael Atherton has expressed his disapproval of the International Cricket Council’s (ICC) proposed profit-sharing model for the next four-year cycle (2024-2027). The model suggests that India would receive 38.50 percent of the annual USD 600 million revenue, which Atherton finds concerning.
Under the proposed model, the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) would receive USD 231 million annually, making them the highest earner. England would be the second-highest grosser with a 6.89 percent share, amounting to USD 41.33 million. Australia follows closely behind with earnings of USD 37.53 million, equivalent to 6.25 percent. The remaining ICC associate member countries would collectively receive 11 percent of the revenue.
Quoting Ehsan Mani, the former ICC president and former chairman of the Pakistan Cricket Board, Atherton highlights that the money is flowing to where it is least needed. The distribution model primarily considers factors such as sponsorship, revenue from TV broadcast rights, and India’s significant contribution through Star, a subsidiary of Disney, which invests heavily in global event rights.
“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 former right-hander stated.
ALSO READ: Pakistan Cricket Board threatens Sri Lanka Cricket | Asia Cup 2023
The former cricketer expresses concern for the West Indies, which produces talented players but would receive only USD 27.5 million annually. He attributes this low figure to the region’s high costs, limited income, and unattractiveness to broadcasters as a tourist destination.
Atherton, known for his criticism of the BCCI’s dominance, argues that a deeper issue is at play. He points out that India’s economic transformation over the past three decades and the increasing significance of television revenues have distorted the cricket landscape, exacerbating inequality.
“It is this last (commercial contribution) that skews the outcome significantly, given that by far the biggest contribution comes from the Indian television market,” said 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.
ALSO READ: Rejection of Second PCB Hybrid Model Could Cause World Cup Logjam
“In other words, these are the countries that have competed most effectively in the ICC knockout competitions over the past 16 years or so. But they already enjoy an inherent advantage, because they host more key events than anyone else.” Atherton believes that “those countries who enjoy the good fortune of having dynamic home markets already exploit that advantage through their domestic television revenue streams.” His reference was to the handsome earnings of the BCCI from broadcast rights of India’s matches at home.
“These lucrative markets, therefore, give India and to a lesser extent England and Australia an in-built advantage.” Atherton expressed concern in his column that West Indies, which still produces a lot of talented cricketers, will get only USD 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 example, suffers from being in a high-cost, low-income region: as a tourist destination, the cost of flights and hotels is high (thus the cost of staging cricket is high), and in a region of only five million people, its television revenues are low (how much it contributes commercially to the ICC deal is put at 0.1 per cent).” “For the West Indies, and others, the revenue stream from the ICC is more important than internal markets. The ICC distribution should be about helping to equalise an inherently unequal global landscape,” he wrote.
Atherton believes that strategic thought and leadership are essential at the ICC to address this problem, which he feels is currently lacking.
“There is a deeper malaise at work here. The economic transformation of India in the past three decades and the growing importance of television revenues have distorted cricket’s landscape, making it more unequal and, therefore, in need more than ever of careful strategic thought and leadership. But there has been an absence of this at the ICC,” Atherton concluded.