Najam Sethi, the chairman of the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB), has voiced his displeasure with the new funding plan put forth by the International Cricket Council (ICC).
The 20242027 cycle’s new income sharing plan has been suggested by the International Cricket Council (ICC), the sport’s international governing body, and will be voted on at its upcoming board meeting in June.
In an interview given in England, Najam Sethi sought transparency from the ICC and demanded details on how the allocation of shares was decided.
Najam Sethi expressed his displeasure with the suggested financial model and stated categorically that Pakistan will not support the plan unless the specifics are given.
Although Sethi recognised the BCCI’s contribution to the ICC, he emphasised the need for clarity on the process utilised to create the revenue distribution table.
“We ask the ICC to provide the process used to get these data. “We are not happy with the way things are right now,” Najam Sethi said.
It is important to note that the Board of Control for Cricket in India will receive the majority of annual earnings under the new arrangement, making it the highest-earning board.
With a predicted $41 million in annual earnings, England will receive the second-highest share, followed by Australia ($37.53 million) and Pakistan ($34.51 million).
The remaining amount would be split among the 96 associate members of the ICC and the 12 full members, who would receive a combined 88.81% of it.
With a 4.73 percent share, New Zealand is predicted to receive $28.38 million. West Indies, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh will follow with 4.58%, 4.52%, and 4.46%, respectively.
Afghanistan will get 2.80 percent, Ireland will get 3.01 percent, and South Africa will get 4.37 percent. $532.84 million will go to the full members, and $67.16 million will go to the associate members.
Even though all nations will receive more money, Sethi claimed that at least two additional test playing nations were dissatisfied with the model and had requested further information.
The ICC, which took into account things including how well a nation’s men’s and women’s teams performed and how much they contributed to the ICC’s commercial earnings, was not readily accessible for response.