[ad_1]
MUMBAI: The BCCI has just sounded the bugle for what is going to be cricket industry’s biggest war-cry over the next six months – sale of Indian Premier League (IPL) media rights.
In a statement late Tuesday, the Cricket Board said: “IPL media rights tender for the cycle 2023-27 will be released immediately after the appointment of two new IPL teams”.
The two new teams will be finalized on October 25 and therefore, expect the BCCI to bring out the Invitation To Tender (ITT) for IPL’s next media rights cycle by the time October spills into November.
Here are some basics at play: A) Rights will be sold through an e-auction as mandated by the Supreme Court in 2017; B) Rights will be sold for a period of five years (BCCI discussed possibility of a three-year cycle but rightfully decided against it); C) Rights will be bucketed for territories and platforms – Indian sub-continent / global / television / digital – and participants will be encouraged to bid for a combination of all four in sum or parts; D) Existing value of Rs 54.5 crore per IPL match (that Star currently pays BCCI) could be the base price but there’s no final word yet.
This sudden announcement on part of the BCCI is also, in some ways, its attempt to kill multiple birds with a stone. By making the announcement early, BCCI has done the following: 1) Rekindled interest among bidders eyeing new franchises, knowing the industry is busy pegging media rights value in excess of US$4b; 2) Given potential bidders time to plan their pre-bid, post-bid affiliations; 3) Allowed big-ticket companies like Disney and Sony – who have major operational controls in Indian markets but depend on their boards in US for sanctioning of budgets – space and time to get their spending purses sanctioned; 4) Pipped ICC to the media rights race as the game’s global governing body gets ready to bring out its own ITT for the next eight-year rights cycle very soon.
The fourth point remains most important in the present context, and it has to do with ICC’s vision for the next eight years, one that was conceived by its former CEO Manu Sawhney under the chairmanship of Shashank Manohar.
ICC has a board meeting scheduled on November 16, one that specifically aims to sanction the floating of its media rights tender. BCCI is aware of it and has already notified its president Sourav Ganguly to vote against the idea,” say those tracking developments.
Why?
BCCI strongly believes ICC executives stand mistaken in bringing out the ITT for their eight-year cycle almost 28 months in advance to the actual commencement of the said cycle. IPL tender document, BCCI believes, must come out first considering IPL’s new media rights cycle will begin at the start of 2023 while ICC’s new media rights cycle will begin only in 2024.
“The 50-over World Cup is scheduled in October-November of 2023. That means, technically, until the end of 2023, ICC’s new cycle doesn’t begin. So, what’s the hurry unless ICC deliberately wants to target IPL and eye potential disruption?” say those in the know. “Why would any federation float its media rights tender 27 to 28 months in advance, especially in an industry where technology is forcing quick, unforeseeable changes every six months?”
BCCI, also wary of forces that have singularly acted against its interests in the past, is justified in its hurriedness.
Here is a gamut of reasons why the ICC move is seen as “unjustified”. A) ICC is yet to freeze host countries for its next eight-year rights cycle. While it did call for requests for proposals from full and associate member boards, no final call has been taken on event-allotment; B) ICC is yet to work out tax issues with member boards, particularly India. The tax liability stands at 42.3% and no country, let alone Indian government, is in a position to guarantee exemptions three years in advance; C) ICC hasn’t yet worked out how bids will even be comparable if net-of-taxes have to be applied, which in itself is a complicated process; D) The aspect mentioned earlier – ICC’s new rights cycle doesn’t begin until 2024 so why the hurry?
“Of course, the ICC sees positives in this move and to list a few: A) It’s a nice hedging strategy where ICC knows only one broadcaster will win IPL and others will ride the fear of getting locked out of cricket; B) ICC might even be thinking bidders won’t keep IPL as sole priority and therefore it can milk higher value in a competitive market; C) ICC can justify this move by saying media rights revenue from the eight-year cycle will give boards outside of India, England and Australia a sustained revenue stream and therefore drawing top-dollar is essential; D) There is even an argument that bilateral cricket can be planned better around ICC events.
“But all these aspects put together still don’t justify the hurry to make a pitch alongside or ahead of IPL. Unless of course the big picture at play is not minding another stand-off with Indian cricket. The ICC is justified in bringing the ITT but not necessarily because there’s proven science to it,” say those tracking these developments.
BCCI, normally a federation that doesn’t mind ‘procrastinating’, is certainly not taking this one lightly.
In a statement late Tuesday, the Cricket Board said: “IPL media rights tender for the cycle 2023-27 will be released immediately after the appointment of two new IPL teams”.
The two new teams will be finalized on October 25 and therefore, expect the BCCI to bring out the Invitation To Tender (ITT) for IPL’s next media rights cycle by the time October spills into November.
Here are some basics at play: A) Rights will be sold through an e-auction as mandated by the Supreme Court in 2017; B) Rights will be sold for a period of five years (BCCI discussed possibility of a three-year cycle but rightfully decided against it); C) Rights will be bucketed for territories and platforms – Indian sub-continent / global / television / digital – and participants will be encouraged to bid for a combination of all four in sum or parts; D) Existing value of Rs 54.5 crore per IPL match (that Star currently pays BCCI) could be the base price but there’s no final word yet.
This sudden announcement on part of the BCCI is also, in some ways, its attempt to kill multiple birds with a stone. By making the announcement early, BCCI has done the following: 1) Rekindled interest among bidders eyeing new franchises, knowing the industry is busy pegging media rights value in excess of US$4b; 2) Given potential bidders time to plan their pre-bid, post-bid affiliations; 3) Allowed big-ticket companies like Disney and Sony – who have major operational controls in Indian markets but depend on their boards in US for sanctioning of budgets – space and time to get their spending purses sanctioned; 4) Pipped ICC to the media rights race as the game’s global governing body gets ready to bring out its own ITT for the next eight-year rights cycle very soon.
The fourth point remains most important in the present context, and it has to do with ICC’s vision for the next eight years, one that was conceived by its former CEO Manu Sawhney under the chairmanship of Shashank Manohar.
ICC has a board meeting scheduled on November 16, one that specifically aims to sanction the floating of its media rights tender. BCCI is aware of it and has already notified its president Sourav Ganguly to vote against the idea,” say those tracking developments.
Why?
BCCI strongly believes ICC executives stand mistaken in bringing out the ITT for their eight-year cycle almost 28 months in advance to the actual commencement of the said cycle. IPL tender document, BCCI believes, must come out first considering IPL’s new media rights cycle will begin at the start of 2023 while ICC’s new media rights cycle will begin only in 2024.
“The 50-over World Cup is scheduled in October-November of 2023. That means, technically, until the end of 2023, ICC’s new cycle doesn’t begin. So, what’s the hurry unless ICC deliberately wants to target IPL and eye potential disruption?” say those in the know. “Why would any federation float its media rights tender 27 to 28 months in advance, especially in an industry where technology is forcing quick, unforeseeable changes every six months?”
BCCI, also wary of forces that have singularly acted against its interests in the past, is justified in its hurriedness.
Here is a gamut of reasons why the ICC move is seen as “unjustified”. A) ICC is yet to freeze host countries for its next eight-year rights cycle. While it did call for requests for proposals from full and associate member boards, no final call has been taken on event-allotment; B) ICC is yet to work out tax issues with member boards, particularly India. The tax liability stands at 42.3% and no country, let alone Indian government, is in a position to guarantee exemptions three years in advance; C) ICC hasn’t yet worked out how bids will even be comparable if net-of-taxes have to be applied, which in itself is a complicated process; D) The aspect mentioned earlier – ICC’s new rights cycle doesn’t begin until 2024 so why the hurry?
“Of course, the ICC sees positives in this move and to list a few: A) It’s a nice hedging strategy where ICC knows only one broadcaster will win IPL and others will ride the fear of getting locked out of cricket; B) ICC might even be thinking bidders won’t keep IPL as sole priority and therefore it can milk higher value in a competitive market; C) ICC can justify this move by saying media rights revenue from the eight-year cycle will give boards outside of India, England and Australia a sustained revenue stream and therefore drawing top-dollar is essential; D) There is even an argument that bilateral cricket can be planned better around ICC events.
“But all these aspects put together still don’t justify the hurry to make a pitch alongside or ahead of IPL. Unless of course the big picture at play is not minding another stand-off with Indian cricket. The ICC is justified in bringing the ITT but not necessarily because there’s proven science to it,” say those tracking these developments.
BCCI, normally a federation that doesn’t mind ‘procrastinating’, is certainly not taking this one lightly.
[ad_2]
Source link