Opinion BCCI’s choice

om an estimated $570 million expected to come its way in a eight-year cycle, its revenue share is now expected to be halved to $293 million — not a paltry sum, still double that of any other country. (Representational)

To be called money-minded is not an insult for the suits running sporting bodies with millions in their vaults. But even so, the revenue-sharing model proposed by the BCCI in collusion with Cricket Australia and England and Wales Cricket Board, was not only antithetical to good governance but also blatantly undemocratic. Demanding four times more than most full members who struggle to keep cricket afloat in their multi-sport nations was an act of greed. It also exposed the short-sightedness of a super-power in a sport played by a handful of countries. Thankfully, the ICC showed the wisdom to unpick the deal before it could blight the growth of a sport striving to be global.

This has left the BCCI miffed. From an estimated $570 million expected to come its way in a eight-year cycle, its revenue share is now expected to be halved to $293 million — not a paltry sum, still double that of any other country. The ECB at $143 million is the ICC’s second most-favoured cricket nation. Post-the Dubai snub, then, the BCCI has resorted to an old trick — threatening to pull out of the Champions Trophy and other ICC tournaments. The board could go ahead with this mutiny, thinking with it would go a large share of viewership and sponsorship. It could even lengthen the IPL and promise extra bilateral series as sweeteners, but it would only be amplifying its image as the global cricketing bully. That it didn’t receive a single full-member or associate nation’s backing testifies to this isolation.

Advertisement

India’s clamour for power and prominence draws justification from a past in which the board endured the high-handedness of the English and the Australians. But by securing an unprecedented position of strength — never has any country been as powerful as India is — the BCCI had a chance to set a new benchmark. It could have shed egos and worked for the organic growth of the game. It could have easily avoided eating into the small nations’ meagre share of the pie — the total sum allocated to all the associate nations ($280 million) is still less than what the BCCI will earn. Secondly, its magnanimity would have increased cricket’s longevity. The BCCI has a choice to make: It can be the popular king of a growing game or the despised don of a dying sport.