Cricket match prediction discussions

[Tony116]

Rather than blaming India, the PCB should look in to their own deficiencies. Despite having a population of 250 million, the media rights market is very small in Pakistan as a result of government regulations such as content sharing requirement. OTT revenues are impacted by low broadband coverage and slow internet speed. Despite all that, when Rameez Raja was the PCB chief, he managed to sign a few lucrative deals with PSL franchises and media houses. There is a lot of potential for PCB to earn revenue, especially from the PSL. But due to various reasons, this potential is never realized to the maximum extent. And right now Pakistan is going through difficult economic conditions, and I don't think that there is much room for maneuvering.

First of all, I want to clear something up. I am actually not blaming India. They have also been through their fair share of "Bad luck". Now they have become a force of power but they have done so with a lot of hard work and pain. Pakistan cricket board has to realize that if they want to become a force like India, it is not going to be handed out to them. They also have to work really hard. Which I doubt they are actually doing.

On another side of things, I don't think it is actually fair to blame the Pakistan cricket board. Because the politics of that country is absolutely in shambles.

[JSRAW]

Speaking of media rights, there are some rumors that ICC sold England's (4 years) and Australia's (8 years) media rights for about $400-$500M, which is very low.  

They are not disclosing the details hence the rumors are floating around. If it's true then Indian broadcasters won't be happy with this development for sure and ofc BCCI too.

Don't forget when ICC sold Indian media rights, news of a $3.1 Billion deal was out in the media within hours.

Edit

ICC sources leaked the news and in the next couple of days made the public announcement.

One thing we have to realize is the Australian and English people are very good at keeping secrets. But that's not the case when it comes to India.
Indian people generally cannot or do not choose to keep a secret a "secret" for a long period of time. Even if they do, someone from the inside is going to leak the news.
And that's not the case in England or Australia. Forgive me if it feels like I am generalizing a lot of things. But this is my assumption.

[laurenB7742]

Speaking of media rights, there are some rumors that ICC sold England's (4 years) and Australia's (8 years) media rights for about $400-$500M, which is very low.  

They are not disclosing the details hence the rumors are floating around. If it's true then Indian broadcasters won't be happy with this development for sure and ofc BCCI too.

Don't forget when ICC sold Indian media rights, news of a $3.1 Billion deal was out in the media within hours.

One thing we have to realize is the Australian and English people are very good at keeping secrets. But that's not the case when it comes to India.
Indian people generally cannot or do not choose to keep a secret a "secret" for a long period of time. Even if they do, someone from the inside is going to leak the news.
And that's not the case in England or Australia. Forgive me if it feels like I am generalizing a lot of things. But this is my assumption.

[romero121]

Speaking of media rights, there are some rumors that ICC sold England's (4 years) and Australia's (8 years) media rights for about $400-$500M, which is very low.  

They are not disclosing the details hence the rumors are floating around. If it's true then Indian broadcasters won't be happy with this development for sure and ofc BCCI too.

Don't forget when ICC sold Indian media rights, news of a $3.1 Billion deal was out in the media within hours.

One thing we have to realize is the Australian and English people are very good at keeping secrets. But that's not the case when it comes to India.
Indian people generally cannot or do not choose to keep a secret a "secret" for a long period of time. Even if they do, someone from the inside is going to leak the news.
And that's not the case in England or Australia. Forgive me if it feels like I am generalizing a lot of things. But this is my assumption.

Everywhere there'll be insiders who provide information to the media. When it comes to India the competence is high to reveal a news as the agencies were found more and for the trp rating the media could go to any extent and take news.

In Australia and England the news providers have got certain limitations, beyond that they cannot take things forward. This is the reason why the news relative to BCCI or India easily gets leaked against the other leading cricketing nations.

[Sithara007]

Speaking of media rights, there are some rumors that ICC sold England's (4 years) and Australia's (8 years) media rights for about $400-$500M, which is very low.  

They are not disclosing the details hence the rumors are floating around. If it's true then Indian broadcasters won't be happy with this development for sure and ofc BCCI too.

Don't forget when ICC sold Indian media rights, news of a $3.1 Billion deal was out in the media within hours.

Edit

ICC sources leaked the news and in the next couple of days made the public announcement.

One thing we have to realize is the Australian and English people are very good at keeping secrets. But that's not the case when it comes to India.
Indian people generally cannot or do not choose to keep a secret a "secret" for a long period of time. Even if they do, someone from the inside is going to leak the news.
And that's not the case in England or Australia. Forgive me if it feels like I am generalizing a lot of things. But this is my assumption.

This is the official statement from the ICC:

https://www.icc-cricket.com/media-releases/3039247

And in case of England, the deal with Sky Sports is for 8 years, and not 4 years as you are claiming. As per the ICC, this was a "direct contractual relationship" between the two sides and no bidding was involved. And I won't be surprised if the $400 million figure that you have mentioned, if it was for a 4-year period. But for 8-year period, the above mentioned amount sounds too low for me. And now coming to Australia, in normal circumstances, the media rights are sold at one-third to half of that in the UK. So it maybe around $150 to $200 million.

[JSRAW]

~edited out~
England's (4 years) and Australia's (8 years) media rights for about $400-$500M, which is very low.  

This is the official statement from the ICC:

https://www.icc-cricket.com/media-releases/3039247

And in case of England, the deal with Sky Sports is for 8 years, and not 4 years as you are claiming. As per the ICC, this was a "direct contractual relationship" between the two sides and no bidding was involved. And I won't be surprised if the $400 million figure that you have mentioned, if it was for a 4-year period. But for 8-year period, the above mentioned amount sounds too low for me. And now coming to Australia, in normal circumstances, the media rights are sold at one-third to half of that in the UK. So it maybe around $150 to $200 million.

Yeah, guess i mixed it up with ECB and CA but one of them got the raw deal of 4 years and closed door deal happened because no one was excited about it much so ICC directly approached the broadcasters.

Even if both countries fetched a $500 Million, it's not a good sign and looks undervalued or call it Indian media rights were overvalued. I'm sure it won't sit well with the BCCI-Indian broadcasters and rightly so.

[laurenB7742]

Everywhere there'll be insiders who provide information to the media. When it comes to India the competence is high to reveal a news as the agencies were found more and for the trp rating the media could go to any extent and take news.

In Australia and England the news providers have got certain limitations, beyond that they cannot take things forward. This is the reason why the news relative to BCCI or India easily gets leaked against the other leading cricketing nations.

Yes, I absolutely agree. We all know that in Australia or England if a news report does actually cross certain limits, it is going to be facing some serious issues. But in India, if you have friends in powerful places, you are not going to face too much of a problem, doesn't matter what you do. I am not saying that England and Australia are absolutely the opposite. But in India having friends in good places will save you from a lot of things which if happened in Australia or England, you might necessarily not be able to get away with.

This is the official statement from the ICC:
https://www.icc-cricket.com/media-releases/3039247
And in case of England, the deal with Sky Sports is for 8 years, and not 4 years as you are claiming. As per the ICC, this was a "direct contractual relationship" between the two sides and no bidding was involved. And I won't be surprised if the $400 million figure that you have mentioned, if it was for a 4-year period. But for 8-year period, the above mentioned amount sounds too low for me. And now coming to Australia, in normal circumstances, the media rights are sold at one-third to half of that in the UK. So it maybe around $150 to $200 million.

Yeah, guess i mixed it up with ECB and CA but one of them got the raw deal of 4 years and closed door deal happened because no one was excited about it much so ICC directly approached the broadcasters.
Even if both countries fetched a $500 Million, it's not a good sign and looks undervalued or call it Indian media rights were overvalued. I'm sure it won't sit well with the BCCI-Indian broadcasters and rightly so.

This is a huge difference when compared with Indian media rights. Well, I should say BCCI media rights. Personally, I think that the ECB and CA media rights have been undervalued. And of course, I also agree that this is going to cause a lot of controversies as well.

[Sithara007]

Yeah, guess i mixed it up with ECB and CA but one of them got the raw deal of 4 years and closed door deal happened because no one was excited about it much so ICC directly approached the broadcasters.

Even if both countries fetched a $500 Million, it's not a good sign and looks undervalued or call it Indian media rights were overvalued. I'm sure it won't sit well with the BCCI-Indian broadcasters and rightly so.

I wouldn't call the valuation for Indian market made by Disney-Star as "overvalued". Looking at the revenue numbers provided by Hotsar, they are justified in spending $1.5 billion for 4 year period (the other $1.5 billion was spent by Zee for the TV rights). OTT is a rapidly growing section of the market in India and even with cable TV/DTH the growth is very healthy. In the end, it depends on the economy as well. Indian economy is growing at a good pace (unlike the case of it's neighbors), and cricket still commands 80% to 90% share of the sports market in India.

[JSRAW]

Yeah, guess i mixed it up with ECB and CA but one of them got the raw deal of 4 years and closed door deal happened because no one was excited about it much so ICC directly approached the broadcasters.

Even if both countries fetched a $500 Million, it's not a good sign and looks undervalued or call it Indian media rights were overvalued. I'm sure it won't sit well with the BCCI-Indian broadcasters and rightly so.

I wouldn't call the valuation for Indian market made by Disney-Star as "overvalued". Looking at the revenue numbers provided by Hotsar, they are justified in spending $1.5 billion for 4 year period (the other $1.5 billion was spent by Zee for the TV rights). OTT is a rapidly growing section of the market in India and even with cable TV/DTH the growth is very healthy. In the end, it depends on the economy as well. Indian economy is growing at a good pace (unlike the case of it's neighbors), and cricket still commands 80% to 90% share of the sports market in India.

They sub-licensed TV rights to Zee later, logical step so nothing wrong with that. I used overvalued argument in the context of Eng+Aus's deal.

But overall it does raise some eyebrows when looking at the complete bidding process of all regions and for subcontinent rights, second/third bids were around $2 Billion so one could argue that Disney-Star missed a trick only because ICC went for closed bidding and not E-auction.

[Juggy777]

Yeah, guess i mixed it up with ECB and CA but one of them got the raw deal of 4 years and closed door deal happened because no one was excited about it much so ICC directly approached the broadcasters.

Even if both countries fetched a $500 Million, it's not a good sign and looks undervalued or call it Indian media rights were overvalued. I'm sure it won't sit well with the BCCI-Indian broadcasters and rightly so.

I wouldn't call the valuation for Indian market made by Disney-Star as "overvalued". Looking at the revenue numbers provided by Hotsar, they are justified in spending $1.5 billion for 4 year period (the other $1.5 billion was spent by Zee for the TV rights). OTT is a rapidly growing section of the market in India and even with cable TV/DTH the growth is very healthy. In the end, it depends on the economy as well. Indian economy is growing at a good pace (unlike the case of it's neighbors), and cricket still commands 80% to 90% share of the sports market in India.

They sub-licensed TV rights to Zee later, logical step so nothing wrong with that. I used overvalued argument in the context of Eng+Aus's deal.

But overall it does raise some eyebrows when looking at the complete bidding process of all regions and for subcontinent rights, second/third bids were around $2 Billion so one could argue that Disney-Star missed a trick only because ICC went for closed bidding and not E-auction.

@JSRAW while on paper we all felt that Hotstar paid too much, but now I start to feel that they took a calculated risk because these days many people are cutting the cord and moving towards OTT platforms like Hotstar. Furthermore Indian’s love watching cricket more than anything, hence down the line I feel that we all will end up saying that Hotstar got a cheap deal  .

[Sithara007]

They sub-licensed TV rights to Zee later, logical step so nothing wrong with that. I used overvalued argument in the context of Eng+Aus's deal.

But overall it does raise some eyebrows when looking at the complete bidding process of all regions and for subcontinent rights, second/third bids were around $2 Billion so one could argue that Disney-Star missed a trick only because ICC went for closed bidding and not E-auction.

Disney-Star still believes that they will make a profit out of the deal. The same can't be said about SKY sports in the United Kingdom. UK is a stagnant market, while India is a rapidly growing one. The deal runs from 2024 to 2027. And by 2027, I expect the OTT market in India to grow manifold. In the end, they can't complain much. ICC set the terms and they have to abide with it now. Previously there were times when Star was favored by the ICC over other providers for media rights. They won bid at times, despite quoting lower prices.

[JSRAW]

They sub-licensed TV rights to Zee later, logical step so nothing wrong with that. I used overvalued argument in the context of Eng+Aus's deal.

But overall it does raise some eyebrows when looking at the complete bidding process of all regions and for subcontinent rights, second/third bids were around $2 Billion so one could argue that Disney-Star missed a trick only because ICC went for closed bidding and not E-auction.

Disney-Star still believes that they will make a profit out of the deal. The same can't be said about SKY sports in the United Kingdom. UK is a stagnant market, while India is a rapidly growing one. The deal runs from 2024 to 2027. And by 2027, I expect the OTT market in India to grow manifold. In the end, they can't complain much. ICC set the terms and they have to abide with it now. Previously there were times when Star was favored by the ICC over other providers for media rights. They won bid at times, despite quoting lower prices.

My overall point is not about if any broadcaster making money or not but my emphasis is more on the process itself, which wasn't transparent.

In comparison to this, look at the IPL auction and the broadcasters loved it, that's why Indian broadcasters were not happy with the ICC. It reflected on bidding as we already know that second/third bids were way too low. The next cycle could be different.

[Sithara007]

My overall point is not about if any broadcaster making money or not but my emphasis is more on the process itself, which wasn't transparent.

In comparison to this, look at the IPL auction and the broadcasters loved it, that's why Indian broadcasters were not happy with the ICC. It reflected on bidding as we already know that second/third bids were way too low. The next cycle could be different.

In the end, the ICC benefited from the bidding process. If it was e-auction, then in all probability they would have received around $1 billion less. And they may continue the same system for the next cycle (2028-2031). A lot will depend on how much money Disney-Star (as well as ZEE) will make during the current cycle). E-auction system has its own benefits and disadvantages. The disadvantage is that since there are only 2-3 serious bidders, it is easy for them to enter into some sort of a backend deal and lower the auction amount. E-auction works when there are at least half a dozen active bidders. That was not the case during last time.

[JSRAW]

My overall point is not about if any broadcaster making money or not but my emphasis is more on the process itself, which wasn't transparent.

In comparison to this, look at the IPL auction and the broadcasters loved it, that's why Indian broadcasters were not happy with the ICC. It reflected on bidding as we already know that second/third bids were way too low. The next cycle could be different.

In the end, the ICC benefited from the bidding process. If it was e-auction, then in all probability they would have received around $1 billion less. And they may continue the same system for the next cycle (2028-2031). A lot will depend on how much money Disney-Star (as well as ZEE) will make during the current cycle). E-auction system has its own benefits and disadvantages. The disadvantage is that since there are only 2-3 serious bidders, it is easy for them to enter into some sort of a backend deal and lower the auction amount. E-auction works when there are at least half a dozen active bidders. That was not the case during last time.

Yeah, and still that amount would have doubled as we know the previous cycle was for 8 years.

Little more clarity on the UK (SKY deal), they paid $260 Million for 8 years period so it's fair to guess that the Australian deal might be around $100-150 Million as their contract is for 4 years only. 

Check the latter bold part (I predicted this last year when ICC cleared the $3 billion deal for Indian market), BCCI will now stir the pot as they are bringing 90% of revenue. 

A new revenue distribution model
The F&CA will begin discussions on a new model to divvy up the ICC's broadcast money (and commercial earnings) over the next rights cycle. It is not going to be a simple discussion - it wasn't for the current cycle, where the rights were sold in 2014 for eight years as one bundle to one broadcaster, for approximately USD 2.1 billion.

This time round, the ICC is selling rights separately in different regional markets, as well as unbundling them into different packages - one for TV only, one for digital only, one for both, over four and eight years - and men's and women's events treated separately. That has already brought a much greater value than the last cycle, even accounting for there being more events. Last August, Disney Star* secured the rights to broadcast ICC events in India for four years from 2024 to 2027. That deal is said to be worth just north of USD 3 billion. The ICC has also recently sold rights in the UK market to Sky Sports for eight years, in a deal worth around USD 260 million. On Friday, the ICC announced the US rights going to Willow, leaving the subcontinent rights (excluding India) to go.

So, much more money, but also more challenges in distributing it. The F&CA is headed by the BCCI secretary Jay Shah and given that the India market now has a tangible separate value, it will only strengthen the longstanding BCCI belief that they should receive a lion's share of it. Smaller members are also wanting enhanced shares, especially as they ended up with less than the expected amounts from the last cycle after ICC projections fell slightly short.

The battles over the financial model last time round were epic, not least because of the tumult caused by the Big Three takeover and then eventual rollback. The BCCI, ultimately, wasn't happy with its share. The global calendar is more fractured and complicated now, only adding to the difficulties in navigating this. The discussions will start this weekend but the expectation is to not expect a new model anytime soon.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/icc-board-meeting-set-to-discuss-india-pakistan-situation-and-the-afghanistan-question-1363981

[Sithara007]

Yeah, and still that amount would have doubled as we know the previous cycle was for 8 years.

Little more clarity on the UK (SKY deal), they paid $260 Million for 8 years period so it's fair to guess that the Australian deal might be around $100-150 Million as their contract is for 4 years only. 

Check the latter bold part (I predicted this last year when ICC cleared the $3 billion deal for Indian market), BCCI will now stir the pot as they are bringing 90% of revenue. 

$260 million for 8 years would translate to $130 million for 4 years. And I am sure that the Australian deal will be much less, and it will be $100 million at the most. So let me make the calculations:

India and rest of sub-continent: $3,040 million
England: $130 million
Australia: $100 million
Rest of the world: $80 million (approx)

Total media rights: $3,350 million ($1,010 million for 4-years period in 2019-23). Despite the low numbers from outside the sub-continent, the media rights revenue shows more than 3x appreciation. On top of that, there is revenue from sponsorship and other sources. It worked out to $350 million for the 2019-23 cycle. I would guess that this amount would increase to at least $650 million for this cycle, which will increase the total ICC revenues to $4 billion.

Now for the revenue sharing, ICC subtracts the administrative costs ($463 million for 2019-23 cycle). Let's assume that the administrative costs amount to $1 billion this time. It will leave ICC with $3 billion to distribute among the member boards. Previously this amount was $887 million (2019-23). So the amount that is available for distribution has increased by more than 3x.

[JSRAW]

Yeah, and still that amount would have doubled as we know the previous cycle was for 8 years.

Little more clarity on the UK (SKY deal), they paid $260 Million for 8 years period so it's fair to guess that the Australian deal might be around $100-150 Million as their contract is for 4 years only.  

Check the latter bold part (I predicted this last year when ICC cleared the $3 billion deal for Indian market), BCCI will now stir the pot as they are bringing 90% of revenue.  

$260 million for 8 years would translate to $130 million for 4 years. And I am sure that the Australian deal will be much less, and it will be $100 million at the most. So let me make the calculations:

India and rest of sub-continent: $3,040 million
England: $130 million
Australia: $100 million
Rest of the world: $80 million (approx)

Total media rights: $3,350 million ($1,010 million for 4-years period in 2019-23). Despite the low numbers from outside the sub-continent, the media rights revenue shows more than 3x appreciation. On top of that, there is revenue from sponsorship and other sources. It worked out to $350 million for the 2019-23 cycle. I would guess that this amount would increase to at least $650 million for this cycle, which will increase the total ICC revenues to $4 billion.

Now for the revenue sharing, ICC subtracts the administrative costs ($463 million for 2019-23 cycle). Let's assume that the administrative costs amount to $1 billion this time. It will leave ICC with $3 billion to distribute among the member boards. Previously this amount was $887 million (2019-23). So the amount that is available for distribution has increased by more than 3x.

Few add ons for context, India and rest of the sub-continent: $3,040 million ( 99% is for the Indian market) and also not sure if Rest of the world fetched $80 million but overall it's fair assumption.

The revenue sharing meeting is going to be really fun tho lol. Everyone would want a bigger pie so grab popcorn for drama. IMO now the situation is heading towards only BIG-1 model, instead of BIG-3.

[Sithara007]

Few add ons for context, India and rest of the sub-continent: $3,040 million ( 99% is for the Indian market) and also not sure if Rest of the world fetched $80 million but overall it's fair assumption.

The revenue sharing meeting is going to be really fun tho lol. Everyone would want a bigger pie so grab popcorn for drama. IMO now the situation is heading towards only BIG-1 model, instead of BIG-3.

Their meeting is scheduled for this Saturday, right?

Meanwhile, the Asian Cricket Council (ACC) has finalized their revenue distribution model without much dramatics. Share for Afghanistan has been increased from 6% of the revenues to 15%, and that means that 75% (15% each) of the revenue will go towards the five full members and the remaining 25% will go towards the associate members. For Afghanistan, the ICC funding is currently on hold, and this increased contribution from ACC may help them to honor the contracts with the players and the supporting staff. 

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/afghanistan-news-acc-increases-their-share-in-revised-financial-distribution-1357464

[WatChe]

Their meeting is scheduled for this Saturday, right?

Meanwhile, the Asian Cricket Council (ACC) has finalized their revenue distribution model without much dramatics. Share for Afghanistan has been increased from 6% of the revenues to 15%, and that means that 75% (15% each) of the revenue will go towards the five full members and the remaining 25% will go towards the associate members. For Afghanistan, the ICC funding is currently on hold, and this increased contribution from ACC may help them to honor the contracts with the players and the supporting staff. 

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/afghanistan-news-acc-increases-their-share-in-revised-financial-distribution-1357464

india, Pakistan, Srilanka and Bangladesh will get 15% each and Afghanistan share has been increased to 15%. Rest 25% will got to associate teams. India is richest board in the world and still is getting equal to what Pakistan and Srilanka are getting. Its good to see Afghanistan getting more share since they are performing good in T20 format and this increase in funding will help them grow further.

[JSRAW]

Their meeting is scheduled for this Saturday, right?

Meanwhile, the Asian Cricket Council (ACC) has finalized their revenue distribution model without much dramatics. Share for Afghanistan has been increased from 6% of the revenues to 15%, and that means that 75% (15% each) of the revenue will go towards the five full members and the remaining 25% will go towards the associate members. For Afghanistan, the ICC funding is currently on hold, and this increased contribution from ACC may help them to honor the contracts with the players and the supporting staff. 

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/afghanistan-news-acc-increases-their-share-in-revised-financial-distribution-1357464

india, Pakistan, Srilanka and Bangladesh will get 15% each and Afghanistan share has been increased to 15%. Rest 25% will got to associate teams. India is richest board in the world and still is getting equal to what Pakistan and Srilanka are getting. Its good to see Afghanistan getting more share since they are performing good in T20 format and this increase in funding will help them grow further.

A slight correction is needed in the Article.

On paper, BCCI does receive some percentage of the share but in reality, BCCI voluntarily gives up its share of revenue and never takes its share from the ACC fund.

[Sithara007]

A slight correction is needed in the Article.

On paper, BCCI does receive some percentage of the share but in reality, BCCI voluntarily gives up its share of revenue and never takes its share from the ACC fund.

LOL.. Is this true? Very difficult to believe that BCCI has become so generous towards the other boards. In case of Afghanistan, despite becoming a full member in 2017, they always received lower amount of funding compared to the other full members (during Asia Cups of 2018 and 2022). BTW, after Australia pulled out of the series against Afghanistan, the Afghanistan Cricket Board (ACB) organized a bilateral tour with Pakistan (to start by last week of March). It is still tricky how to deal with the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, w.r.t sports.