Former ICC president Ehsan Mani provided a scathing assessment of the draft proposal put forward by the BCCI, ECB, and CA, calling for the ‘position paper’ to be withdrawn. He also added it had to be reviewed by an “external, independent panel.”
In his detailed analysis, Mani pointed to lack of transparency and conflict of interest as serious governance issues. Stating that the three boards had “completely undermined the integrity and standing of the ICC,” he noted the ICC’s top brass, including the president, had “no input in, or knowledge of” the paper.
Mani, while urging the ICC Board to discuss the Woolf report’s recommendations “with a view to implementing them,” questioned the revenue-sharing arrangements laid down in the proposal. He argued that the broadcast revenues for bilateral home and away series between two members should be shared equally.
“While the values are generally greater when the broadcaster’s country is playing, not all of this can be attributed to the individual country’s board. While there would be a significant reduction in the value of the ICC commercial rights if India didn’t participate in an event, it wouldn’t be a reduction of 80% of revenues.”
Mani contended there would be a greater impact, than the values attributed to Pakistan, South Africa, and West Indies, if these three countries didn’t participate in an ICC event. “From discussions with broadcasters, if a World Cup was held without Pakistan, South Africa, and West Indies, ICC revenues could be reduced by 30-40 per cent.”
The 68-year-old also highlighted how — barring the BCCI, CA, and the ECB — other member-nations stood to gain very little monetarily. For instance, out of the total revenue of $2.5 billion, each full-member nation presently received $117,500,000 each.
The proposal’s implementation would mean Bangladesh and Zimbabwe will have to make do with $68,000,000 and $65,500,000 respectively.
In contrast, the BCCI, the ECB, and CA will earn $568,000,000, $173,000,000, and 130,500,000 respectively.
“The largest losers are the Associate & Affiliate members who will be $312.5 million worse off,” wrote Mani. “ICC events for the period 2015-23 will be held in India, England, and Australia. These boards will receive hosting fees in addition to the ICC distributions they propose. Why does BCCI need more money at the expense of other countries?”
He observed there was no need to rush the paper’s approval since the first ICC event in the new cycle was no earlier than 2016, and that ICC could float the new broadcasting tender by the end of 2014.
