Indian
Export of Cricket Services Major Finance Source to ICC Members
·
Broadcasting
rights for the latest four-year cycle of global events were sold by the sport’s
governing body, the International Cricket Council (ICC), last year to Disney
Star (now Jio Star) to show in India for more than $3billion (£2.2bn).
·
income
raised by the Indian Premier League (IPL), the franchise competition for
short-form Twenty20 cricket that has become one of the biggest and glitziest
events in any sport in the world, which saw streaming and TV rights for five
years from 2023 attract $6.2bn.
·
India
generate an estimated 80 per cent of the game’s global
revenue and leaves every other cricketing nation — other than the big two of
England and Australia — almost totally reliant on the money they receive from
broadcasting deals when hosting India and in their ICC hand-outs.
[ABS News Service/19.06.2025]
They are cricket’s global superpower both on and,
particularly, off the field and begin their marquee Test series against England
this week in absolute control of the world game.
But India take to the pitch at Headingley on Friday for the first of five Test matches
between the old and new masters of cricket, with questions being asked like
never before over their suitability as guardians of the second biggest sport in
the world. Put simply, do India act in the best interests of cricket, or do
they abuse the power that comes with their vast wealth?
Indian cricket has grown as quickly as the economy of the
most populous country in the world — it is a nation of 1.4 billion people —
with their best players earning huge sums and attracting just as much fanatical
attention as even the biggest superstars of world football and the NFL. Virat
Kohli, who remains India’s biggest star despite retiring from Test cricket
before this series, has 274 million followers on Instagram alone.
His social media reach was cited as a key factor in cricket
being included in the 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles.
Broadcasting rights for the latest four-year cycle of
global events were sold by the sport’s governing body, the International
Cricket Council (ICC), last year to Disney Star (now Jio Star) to show in India
for more than $3billion (£2.2bn).
Even that figure is dwarfed by the income raised by the
Indian Premier League (IPL), the franchise competition for short-form Twenty20
cricket that has become one of the biggest and glitziest events in any sport in
the world, which saw streaming and TV rights for five years from 2023 attract
$6.2bn. To offer some context, there are 74 games in an IPL season.
It is wealth that sees India generate an estimated 80 per
cent of the game’s global revenue and leaves every other cricketing nation —
other than the big two of England and Australia — almost totally reliant on the
money they receive from broadcasting deals when hosting India and in their ICC
hand-outs.

According to the most recently available financials of
cricket’s national governing bodies, the Board of Control for Cricket in
India’s (BCCI) $1.2billion in revenues in 2023-24 were $769m greater, or nearly
triple, that of the next highest-earning body, the England and Wales Cricket
Board (ECB).
The true gulf in revenue is even higher. The BCCI revenues
only include the surplus earned by the board from the IPL, after the
competition’s various costs have been deducted. Including IPL revenues on a
gross basis would push the BCCI’s annual turnover beyond $1.9bn.
The biggest question over cricket’s future comes with the
growing belief that India, who receive almost 40 per cent of all profits
generated by the ICC, are increasingly putting their own interests ahead of
that wider responsibility for the game’s health.
Those concerns came to a head in March when India’s refusal
to play any of their matches in a Champions Trophy 50-over world tournament,
staged on the home soil of political rivals Pakistan, led to them being allowed
to hold all their games in Dubai.
That, in turn, created the ludicrous situation where all
four semi-finalists found themselves in the
United Arab Emirates — India and New Zealand playing their final group game
having qualified for the last four, while South Africa and Australia were
waiting to see who would stay in Dubai.
South Africa, having beaten England in Karachi on the
Saturday, flew to Dubai on Sunday, but then returned to Pakistan on Monday for
their semi-final against New Zealand two days later. Quite apart from the
effects on cricket’s carbon footprint, the farce did nothing for their
preparations. India, the only team to remain in one venue throughout the
tournament, ended up winning the final comfortably.
Yet woe betide any of the sport’s experts who dare to
suggest the dice may be even slightly loaded in India’s favour.
Former England captains Nasser Hussain and Mike Atherton
remain two of the best and most balanced pundits in the game, but they
attracted the ire of their fellow commentator and Indian great Sunil Gavaskar
for suggesting India had been handed an advantage by playing all their trophy
games in one, neutral venue.
“They are always moaning,” Gavaskar, who is never shy in
putting India’s case for them, said in his column in Indian media outlet Sportstar. “They just cannot seem to understand where India
stand in international cricket in terms of quality,
income, talent and, more importantly, in generating revenue.
“India’s contribution to global cricket through TV rights
and media revenue plays a massive role. They need to understand that their
salaries also come from what India brings to the world of cricket.”
The Wisden Cricketers Almanack remains the traditional
voice of the game. In a modern world of social media and sound-bites, the views
of the editor of a 1,600-page heavyweight book, with its trademark yellow
cover, still hold sway.
So this year, it was significant that long-serving Wisden
editor Lawrence Booth chose to highlight the appointment of BCCI honorary
secretary Jay Shah — son of Amit Shah, one of the most powerful politicians in
India — as ICC chair in his influential notes.
“At 11.59 on the night of November 30, Jay Shah was still
honorary secretary of the Board of Control for Cricket in India, who were
refusing to send a team to Pakistan in February for the ICC’s Champions
Trophy,” wrote Booth.
“And when the clock struck midnight, he was transformed
into the chair of the ICC, who had been frantically trying to resolve the
problem caused by the BCCI. A few weeks earlier, when India confirmed their
no-show, a meme on social media depicted a man holding two phones, one to each
ear. ‘Jay Shah (BCCI) informing Jay Shah (ICC)’. Cricket administration, seldom
a laughing matter, was now supplying the punchlines.”
Not that the powers at the ECB are laughing.
Where once the ECB held a hostile view towards the growth
of Indian cricket, and the IPL in particular, now they are working more closely
with their Indian counterparts than ever before.

Richard Thompson is the chair of the ECB. Having led the
growth of English cricket’s county superpower in Surrey, he has brought his
business acumen and modern thinking to the top of the English game, notably in
forging strong ties with India.
Last year, Thompson strengthened those ties further when he
masterminded the sale of large stakes in teams created by the Hundred, English
cricket’s answer to the IPL, with four of the eight franchises going to IPL
owners for a combined $700m, unimagined riches for the English domestic game.
“Our relationship with India is very important,” Thompson
tells The Athletic. “England, India and Australia are seen as the big
three and we work very closely together. We’ve got as close a relationship with
India as we’ve ever had. There’s real co-operation with the IPL now, which
there wasn’t in the past, and there’s real co-operation on the volume of
bilateral international cricket and the commitment to women’s cricket.
“It’s an old cliche, but India recognise
that what comes with great power comes great responsibility. They’re not
bullies. They understand the game’s needs.
“Test cricket is a great example. India go
to places like Zimbabwe and New Zealand. They come to us for five Tests. I’ve
been chair of the ECB for five years and got to know Jay Shah very well and our
relationship has been very collaborative. We want the same things.
“India generate the bulk of the
game’s wealth and they would be entitled to take more revenue than they do.
They take probably 10 per cent less than they justifiably could.”
Those are views echoed by Johnny Grave, the CEO of West
Indies Cricket for seven years until 2024 and a man acutely aware of his
region’s financial dependence on India.
“My priority was to secure as many tours by India as I
could in a congested calendar,” says English-born Grave. “You could say India
are responsible for 75 per cent of West Indies’ revenue. Twenty-five per cent
comes from the bilateral cricket India play in the
Caribbean, and the vast majority of the 50 per cent that comes from the ICC is
driven by the Indian TV market supporting and funding World Cups.
“India get a lot of criticism, but
the way they continue to play almost non-stop cricket and ensure they take Team
India around the smaller nations has been second to none. We were lucky India
toured four times during my spell with West Indies and that made a huge
difference to our financial wellbeing.”
Rod Bransgrove has been at the
forefront of the sweeping changes in the game, last year selling his majority
stake in English county Hampshire to GMR Group, co-owners of the IPL’s Delhi
Capitals. He believes English and world cricket have to embrace that change.
“The genie is out of the bottle and it’s a case of being
broad-minded and going with it,” says Bransgrove.
“Then recognise world domination can’t be the objective for India because there
will be no one for them to play. They need strong cricket elsewhere.
“I’m sorry India are still keen to extend the IPL (it lasts
for two months and 74 matches and there is a proposal to extend it by 20
matches a season) because that’s where they’re starting to go wrong. They
should consolidate on what they’ve got because they should be wary of overkill.
But their wealth has to be good for the game.”
It is difficult to contemplate the significance of playing
cricket for India.
Deep Dasgupta represented his country in eight Tests and
five one-day internationals as a wicketkeeper between 2001 and 2006 and now
watches the rise of India as a TV and radio commentator.
“The interest in cricket and in you when you’re an Indian
Test cricketer is humungous,” Dasgupta tells The Athletic. “If you’ve
never seen a cricket game in India, you can’t appreciate how big it is. When
people say cricket is a religion in India, it’s literally that.
“There is a lot of diversity (religious) in India and
cricket is one of the major things that keeps the country together. It’s an
extremely important glue for society.
“There is a lot of pressure, there’s no two ways about it.
The spotlight is on you and everyone has a view on cricket, but the
understanding of the game is there as well. And it has grown so much even since
I stopped playing.”
No one has followed the transformation of Indian cricket
more closely than veteran commentator Harsha Bhogle, the voice of the Indian
game worldwide since he first toured England in 1990.
“India’s economy opened between 1993 and 1996 and a lot of
foreign investment came into the country,” says Bhogle. “Indian businesses
grew, the Indian market grew and that changed India more than I could ever have
imagined. Cricket just rode the wave.
“In the 1970s, when Indian players went to England, they
carried maybe two or three cricket bats with them, and only then if
Gray-Nicolls gave them a bat. It was something to be very grateful
about and there was a sense of awe about visiting England.
“This time, I wouldn’t be surprised if some of them take
their own chef. Some will hire a private plane to go from one city to another.
“This has also led to a change in confidence. There’s a
swagger about Indian players now, whereas before they tended to be a little
meek and accepting. They are demanding things on the world stage and getting
them and not everyone is happy about that.
“It has changed from being a simple, laid-back
maharaja-driven sport in India to a sport with massive wealth, cheerleaders and
whatever. I could never imagine this happening when I first started working in
the game.”
Bhogle, 63, refutes the suggestion that India misuses its
power. “It’s the same as the United States holding power in the world’s
economy. Some people don’t like it, but it’s the reality. My generation has seen the other side; to
be looked down upon when you travelled. Suddenly, we are all looked at
differently.
“India more than play their part in the health of the world
game. They play against countries like Zimbabwe, Bangladesh and the West Indies
almost more than anyone else. They are aware that, wherever they go, it allows
that country to flourish because they bring bigger broadcasting deals with
them.
“There is a lot of talk about why India should get so much
of what ICC earns. I remember Ramiz Raja (the former Pakistan captain) making a
speech in Pakistan saying: ‘I know this is hard to hear, but we are living off
Indian corporate income’. All the ICC handouts are coming from one market. That
is the reality of our times and it shows no signs of stopping.”
It is a reality not every India expert welcomes.
Mihir Bose wrote the definitive book The Nine Waves: The
Extraordinary Story of How India Took Over World Cricket in 2019 and disagrees
with the wisdom of that Indian takeover.
“I don’t think India are using their power wisely,” the
Indian-born British writer and broadcaster tells The Athletic. “They’re
behaving worse than the colonial powers. It’s like they are saying: ‘You
treated us badly all those years, so now you can take our medicine. What are
you going to do about it?’.
“Look at what they’re getting away with. There has recently
been the Champions Trophy in Pakistan. India have cut off relations with
Pakistan for political reasons, so what do they do? Refuse to go to Pakistan
and are allowed to play all their games in Dubai.
“Imagine that happening in football. There’s a World Cup in
England, but Germany say: ‘We’re not playing there,
we’re going to play all our games in France’. FIFA would say: ‘Sorry, mate,
this is not on’. But India got away with it because so many cricketing
countries need Indian money to survive. And even though England don’t need the money
as such, it’s very handy to them.
“India is dictating to the world. They are saying: ‘We’ve
got the money. If you want it, it has to be on our terms’. The way they have
treated Pakistan is inexcusable and if the tension between the countries flares
up again, there will be serious ramifications for world cricket.”
For now, at least, cricket is a big sport played in
relatively few major world markets. Bose believes that will change if India get their way.
“The last great frontier for India to have influence over
now is America,” he adds. “There is a whole class of very rich Indians in the
States, particularly on the west coast, who were brought up on cricket. It’s in
their blood and they have the money, as we have seen by some of them buying
into the Hundred.
“They will want to take that power into America. The NFL is
supreme and I’m not saying it will get as big as American football and
baseball, but the sport could easily have a foothold in America. It’s the final
frontier.”
It is a frontier recognised by Grave, who is now CEO of
American Cricket Enterprises and is charged with growing the game in the
world’s biggest economy.
“It’s not a case of if cricket explodes in the
U.S., but when and how much money and how long it will take,” he
says. “It will follow a similar path to what my American friends call ‘soccer’
because the T20 game in particular is perfect for the American market in terms
of how long it takes and the compact nature of all the best bits of cricket
wrapped up in a three-hour game.
“India play a big part in what we
are trying to do.”
Whether India conquer that final frontier remains to be
seen. But, for now, those who run the Indian game and play for their country
are masters of all they survey, whether the rest of the cricket world likes it
or not.