Debasis Sen: The decision by the ICC board members in Dubai is just a wake-up call for the Board of Control for Cricket in India. The BCCI members should better realise that they cannot get away with flexing their muscles against the International Cricket Council. Let’s face the fact that the BCCI was cornered to a great extent after most of the other members voted for changes in governance and revenue structures.
But the situation could have been avoided had the Board took a measured approach instead of raging a war against ICC Chairman Shashank Manohar.
Indian cricket lovers and fans will very well know that the former BCCI President and presently the Chairman of ICC share a hot and cold relation with his former colleagues in the Indian cricket Board. It was baffling to learn that Mr Amitabh Chowdhury (regarded as pro Srinivasan lobby) rejected the ICC offer for an additional $100 million pay-out in revenue. In that case the BCCI coffers would have been richer by $390 million, accounting to a loss of $180 million from its early revenue sharing model.
Now what did we gain by not accepting the proposal by Manohar, the cash rich Board only lost its face as the member boards passed the financial model with a 9-1 vote and the governance model was passed with a 8-2 vote.
Former ICC chairman N Srinivasan formulated the Big Three model in 2014 wherein India, Australia and England boards were to get the lion’s share of the ICC revenues, with the reasoning that they contributed a larger share to the ICC revenue. There is no denying the fact that about 70 per cent of ICC’s revenues are generated from the Indian market. Earlier BCCI used to get only 4% share of its revenue, in-spite of generating more than 60-70% of the total revenue. So in that aspect, it is absolutely fair to demand more revenue shares. But what Manohar was trying to point out that the model cannot be accepted as it was against the other member boards that were not a part of Big Three.
For the game to develop globally, the entire member Boards need to have a fair share of the revenue. Manohar was trying to create parity with respect of revenue sharing. Had he been vindictive to the BCCI, then he would not have proposed for an extra $100 million. Under the new model BCCI will receive $293 which is still a considerable proportionate more than the other full members who now will get $132 million each. Previously none of the full members apart from ECB and Cricket Australia touched the $100 million mark.
The BCCI over the years has enjoyed supreme powers right from the time of late Jagmohan Dalmiya. But that do not seem to be case in the modern scenario with Manohar deciding to resign from the ICC. With Cricket Australia’s chief executive likely to take the post of interim chairman, India is in danger of finding themselves isolated from the full members.
To make matters worse BCCI is contemplating to hold a SGM to discuss the ongoing issue and may perhaps decide not to send a squad for the forthcoming Champions Trophy in England in June. That will be another huge blunder on the part of the Board as it will be treated as a direct conflict with the ICC. It is high time that the Supreme Court appointed COA headed by Vinod Rai make the right moves so as to bring the numbers to their side in ICC.