Cricket is simply too reliant on cash-rich India whose affluence and clout can solely be diminished by a revamped International Cricket Council board, in keeping with former ICC president and ex-Pakistan cricket boss Ehsan Mani.

Fears for the worldwide sport’s well being have heightened after ESPNcricinfo reported that India’s governing physique is about to obtain $230 million a yr – or 38.5 per cent – of internet surplus earnings from the ICC’s $3 billion media rights deal for 2024-27.

That’s a major enhance from its 22 per cent share within the present 2015-23 cope with the proposed income distribution mannequin set to be tabled on the ICC’s Annual General Meeting in July in South Africa.

Fellow powerhouse England are nicely behind with 6.89 per cent of income whereas the Associate Members – 94 nations deemed below the 12 prime tiered Full Members who’re granted extra funding and energy – are set to obtain 11.19 per cent, which is about the identical share as within the present mannequin.

All members, nevertheless, will obtain much more remuneration given the ICC’s media rights deal is considerably larger than the $2 billion for the 2015-23 cycle.

But amid continuous uncertainty over worldwide cricket’s future, as nations shun the costly five-day conventional Test format whereas profitable T20 franchise leagues swell the world over, India’s gobbling of the ICC’s coffers once more raises concern over inequality.

India are nonetheless basking in final yr’s mammoth $6 billion broadcast deal for the Indian Premier League, its money-spinning T20 competitors.

“(Proposed revenue distribution model) will be giving the most money to the country that needs it the least, which makes no sense,” Mani, who was ICC president from 2003-06 and stepped down from the Pakistan Cricket Board in 2021, advised me.

“I think it’s very unfortunate. There’s no strategic thinking about the development of the global game. There’s no vision.”

Mani believed cricket should not rely merely on India, regardless of its pulling energy and sheer populace, and wanted to develop the sport past its conventional base.

“It only takes one downturn in an economic cycle for the ICC members to be affected. There is far too much reliance on India,” he stated.

“If the ICC desires a really world sport and diversify its monetary reliance, the nation to develop is the U.S. I might have put $20-30 million into the U.S. You additionally must develop the sport in Africa, that is the longer term.

“I think the global game (Associates) should have been allocated at least 30 per cent (instead of 11 per cent). That’s the only way to globalize the game.”

Mani additionally advocated for monetary parity amongst the 12 Full Members, disregarding some perception that India deserve the lion’s share due to its undisputed heft within the sport.

“You have to give countries enough resources to not only develop their players but to pay them a fair amount, especially with the IPL and other T20 leagues targeting players,” stated Mani, who was an architect of the ICC’s media rights deal when he was chair of the finance and industrial affairs committee.

“The Indian market brings in a lot of money…it’s not the BCCI (India’s governing body). There are benefits to the Indian companies to advertise in the ICC events and worldwide. India are not playing on its own, they are playing against other members. It’s a two-way street.”

Eyebrows had been raised from some insiders over final November’s ICC chair election, the place amid the same old politicking resulted in Jay Shah – India’s highly effective cricket boss – changing into the chair of the all-important finance and industrial affairs committee on this pivotal juncture.

There has been so much revamped India’s obvious outsized affect on the ICC board made up of the 12 Full Members, three Associate administrators, impartial feminine director Indra Nooyi, the ex-PepsiCoPEP boss, and chair Greg Barclay.

Given its monumental wealth, India seemingly can rule with an iron fist though Mani believed a reshaped board may doubtlessly loosen its stranglehold.

“Unfortunately there’s no appetite for countries to stand up to India,” Mani stated. “The governance evaluate, which was mentioned after I was on the board, has gone quiet. I do not suppose there ought to be greater than 12 board members and at the very least seven of them ought to be impartial administrators.

“The directors of the ICC need to stand up and look at where they are taking this game,” he added. “They are guardians of the international game. They don’t act like that sometimes.”

Follow me on Twitter.