From a broadcaster’s standpoint, cricket formats are not cultural artefacts; they are monetisation engines. Tests, ODIs and T20s each deliver revenue very differently, shaped by pricing power, inventory volume, advertiser demand and, increasingly, risk. And while One Day Internationals currently remain the most lucrative format on television, early signs suggest that advantage is beginning to erode.
Test cricket remains the most emotionally valuable, yet a commercially fragile format. A single Test offers enormous inventory – close to 600 live ad spots, but limited pricing power, with average spot rates hovering around ₹1 lakh. Live match revenue therefore sits near ₹18 crore, with non-live programming adding little more than token value. More damaging than low yield is the risk profile. The model assumes five days of play; a three-day finish wipes out close to a third of inventory with no insurance cover. For broadcasters, Tests are a prestige product that builds credibility, not balance sheets.
At the other end of the spectrum sit T20 internationals. Inventory is tightly capped …typically around 90 live ad spots but pricing strength compensates. With spot rates in the region of ₹12 lakh, an India T20 generates roughly ₹32–33 crore in live advertising, with ancillary content taking total revenue to about ₹35 crore per match. The appeal for broadcasters lies in certainty: limited duration, minimal downside risk and strong advertiser pull driven by stars and immediacy. What T20s lack, however, is scalability. The ceiling is fixed.
ODIs have historically occupied the sweet spot. Lower pricing than T20s, yes, but significantly higher inventory. In a healthy market, ODIs could deliver over 200 live ad spots, translating into live match revenue of ₹47 crore and total per-match revenue north of ₹53 crore, once non-live content was factored in. On paper, ODIs still represent the most efficient television monetisation model.
But that “on paper” caveat is now doing a lot of work.
Recent series have shown a marked decline in ODI sell-through. Instead of the planned 200-plus spots, actual fills have dropped to closer to 140 live ad spots per match. At those levels, the ODI revenue advantage begins to narrow rapidly. The format still offers duration, but advertiser appetite is thinning, squeezed between the immediacy of T20s and the narrative heft of Tests. The middle is no longer comfortable.
This erosion matters because ODIs rely on volume more than price. When fill rates fall, the entire logic of ODI monetisation weakens. A format built on scale cannot afford under-utilised inventory. Broadcasters can discount, but that only accelerates perception of decline. What was once the safest bet in the revenue stack is quietly becoming the most vulnerable.
This shift also explains why broadcasters increasingly prefer series to open with T20s. Starting with that format, builds an advertiser’s confidence, locks in commitments and reduces the pressure on ODIs that follow. It is less about fan engagement and more about risk insulation. When ODIs appear later in a series, they often inherit weakened demand rather than create fresh momentum.
Digital complicates the picture further. With CPM-led pricing and revenues tied directly to views, digital often delivers 25–30% higher per-match revenue than television at the planning stage. But digital is brutally honest. If engagement drops, revenue follows instantly. There is no concept of “unsold inventory”; there is only consumption. As ODI appointment viewing weakens, digital exposes the decline faster than TV ever could.
So where does that leave the broadcaster? Tests remain indispensable but loss-making in isolation. T20s are commercially robust but limited in upside. ODIs, for now, still deliver the highest television revenue ..but only when fill rates hold. With fills slipping to 140 spots and below, ODIs risk losing their one defining advantage: monetisation efficiency.
The danger for cricket is not that ODIs are irrelevant. It is that they are becoming inefficient. And in a broadcasting ecosystem where capital is tightening and accountability is ruthless, inefficiency is far more dangerous than nostalgia.
Follow Revsportz for latest sports news
