The cash-strapped associate member states of cricket are concerned that the proposed new international income sharing scheme, which mainly favors the game’s superpowers, might potentially impede the game’s expansion.
The International Cricket Council (ICC) has put out a new income sharing model for the 2024-27 cycle, which will be put up for a vote at the board meeting that will take place in Durban in the month of July.
According to numbers that were improperly shared with Cricinfo, the financial powerhouse of cricket, India, would be entitled to 38.5% of the total income pool, principally as acknowledgment for its contribution to the commercial revenue pot.
The remaining 89.19% of voting power would be split between the 94 associate members and the 12 full members that make up the International Criminal Court.
The International Cricket Council has not commented on the data; however, general manager Wasim Khan stated on Monday that under the proposed approach, all members will earn more money than they have in the past.
Pakistan has already made it very apparent that they are opposed to the concept in its current form, and there is growing dissatisfaction among other cricketing nations that are less developed.
According to Sumod Damodar, who serves as one of the three associate member representatives on the ICC Chief Executives Committee, the plan would not fulfill the requirements of associate members.
“If what is being proposed and discussed is likely to be the outcome then, as an associate member representative, I would be (disappointed),” he told Reuters. “If what is being proposed and discussed is likely to be the outcome then, as a result, I would be disappointed.”
“From a purely practical standpoint, there are a plethora of reasons why it wouldn’t be sufficient for associate members.”
According to Damodar, who serves as the vice chairman of Botswana’s board, associate members that have achieved one-day international (ODI) status want more funding in order to maintain their high-performance programs, whilst the other associate members require funds in order to bridge the gap.
Damodar stated that further countries would step up if they were given the necessary financial backing, and he used the examples of the quick ascent of Nepal in men’s cricket and Thailand in the women’s game.
Tim Cutler, the Chief Executive Officer of the Vanuatu Cricket Association, stated that the suggested approach will just serve to highlight the inequity that already exists in cricket between the haves and the have-nots.
According to comments made by Cutler to Reuters, “The new model is now even more heavily weighted towards the bigger cricketing nations,” and “there is a risk that the proposed changes will exacerbate this imbalance,” which puts the survival of the game in greater jeopardy.
“The unfortunate reality is that cricket will not grow beyond its current corners of the world… if the distribution of the game’s global funds aren’t more equally allocated with a view to actually growing the game,” said one commentator.
Due to the fact that full members hold 12 of the ICC board’s total 17 votes, Cutler stated that rerouting cash away from themselves or making autonomous choices for the sake of the game would be analogous to “turkeys voting for Christmas.”
When questioned about the concerns raised by the associate members, the ICC did not provide a response to a request for comment that was made.
Despite the enormous financial potential that certain cricketing nations possess, the International Cricket Council’s (ICC) former president Ehsan Mani stated that the governing body’s strategy to promoting cricketing nations lacked vision.
The former head of the Pakistan Cricket Board gave an interview to Reuters in which he stated that “one of the biggest risks for global cricket is its over-dependence on one country, India,” regarding a significant portion of the profits earned.
“Nations such as the United States of America and the Middle East, and, on the more long-term scale, China, would offer huge advantages to the International Cricket Council, its members, and the game throughout the world. Cricket throughout the world would be improved and expanded as a result.
According to Mani, it “makes no sense” for India to take the lion’s share of ICC profits, and he argued in favor of equal sharing for all full members.
“World cricket needs a strong West Indies, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Pakistan,” he continued. “Bangladesh and Pakistan also need to step up their game.”
“Due to a lack of money, cricket in Zimbabwe, as well as in Ireland and Afghanistan, has been negatively affected. Because some of these countries don’t invest enough money in cricket, the sport won’t be able to survive in the long run, and the rest of the globe will suffer as a result.