4 Comments

Summary:

When the Indian Premier League was launched, the Board of Control for Cricket in India, the game’s top administrative body, saw it as an add…

IPL Cheerleaders
photo: AP Images

When the Indian Premier League was launched, the Board of Control for Cricket in India, the game’s top administrative body, saw it as an additional revenue stream at best and a minor misadventure at worst. Two seasons later, it seems like the overwhelming popularity of the 20-over format of tournaments such as the IPL and Champions League T20, is eating into BCCI’s mainstay revenues.

Mumbai’s Nimbus Communications has won the broadcast rights to BCCI’s games (one day international and test matches) played in India till April 2014 (via TOI). The company had won the same contract in 2006 as well, and holds the telecast rights till March 2010. In 2006, the company paid $612 million (Rs2,722 crore then) for the deal. This time, however, the company is only paying $425 million (Rs1,960 crore), according to the TOI story. This is despite the fact that overall, ad rates as well as ad spends are expected to go up during the four years from 2010.

Sale of media rights is the single biggest source of BCCI’s revenues, so the deal must come as a dampner to India’s richest sports body.

In September, Hindustan Times carried a prescient story about the decline in ratings of one-day cricket.

The story said that even the big India-Pakistan game, which has in the past unfailingly set ratings on fire, clocked a TRP of just 2.6, while India’s games at the Twenty20 World Cup in June averaged a TRP of 4.

In 2008, Set Max reportedly signed a $1.026 billion deal for IPL TV rights for ten years.

You’re subscribed! If you like, you can update your settings

  1. Thank you for your sharing. Supposed to attack these head-on and you will find a deep sense of gratification that will fuel your happiness.
    <a href="http://www.christianlouboutinshoesmart.com/">Christian Louboutin shoes</a>

  2. Your analysis doesn't really hold. You may want to check some of the following facts:
    1) BCCI had renegotiated the deal withNimbus last year at a lower price
    2) The deal was renegotiated because Nimbus was forced to share feeds with DD and hence, it's lost exclusivity
    3) Whereas IPL is exclusive to Sony
    4) The decline in price of BCCI matches is because of the loss of exclusivity, not the popularity of IPL over BCCI matches
    5) MOST IMPORTANTLY, Nimbus deal is for four years, IPL is for 10 years. So the comparison is actually NO comparison
    6) Lastly, you may want to check BCCI's latest financials. revenues from IPL were a pittance in comparison with BCCI matches

  3. Dear anonymous:

    1) loss of exclusivity is not new. The SC order that all India games must be shared with the public broadcaster goes back at least as back as 2004 and iirc, the first order was even before that.

    2) My point is precisely that IPL makes much less in media rights compared with ODIs for BCCI so the gain from that doesn't offset the loss of rev from the longer formats. All the more why they would be concerned.

    >>MOST IMPORTANTLY, Nimbus deal is for four years, IPL is for 10 years.

    Kind of strengthens my point.

    Also, it'd be nice if you can comment with your real name. It's optional, of course, but it'd be nice. :)

  4. Mr Real Name,
    Your responses again are half-baked…
    1) true, loss of exclusivity is not new. but broadcasters kept fighting for long in the hope they may get repreive against it. the deal with nimbus was renegotiated mainly because of the loss of exclusivity, you may check it with them.
    2) where did you make this precise point in your article? you actually said 20-20 format's popularity is eating into BCCI's mainstay
    3) also fyi, whether prices go up or down, BCCI will not make any losses, it will only make lesser profits…you may want to check their investments in the games!
    4) giving away the name only because you think it would be nice, isn't a good enough reason…it's optional, so please respect that right (there is no malicisous reason behind witholding the name, just that limelight is best avoided)

Comments have been disabled for this post