Former Captain Says India Deserves Even More of ICC’s Revenue

“I would want more [for India]. Because half the money—most of the money—that’s generated comes from India.

By DTD- On Jun 22, 2025

MUMBAI: In a year where cricket’s global economics are under sharper scrutiny than ever, Ravi Shastri has added his weight behind the controversial ICC revenue-sharing model that heavily favors the sport’s wealthiest board—the BCCI.

Speaking on the Wisden Cricket Weekly Podcast, Ravi Shastri, the former India head coach and current broadcaster defended India’s substantial cut from the International Cricket Council’s (ICC) revenue pot, saying:

“I would want more [for India]. Because half the money—most of the money—that’s generated comes from India. So it’s only fair that they get their share of… pound of flesh. And it’s relative, you know, it’s economies,” Ravi Shastri said.

India currently takes home about 38.5% of the ICC’s projected USD 600 million revenue from the 2024-27 cycle—by far the largest share of any Full Member. The ‘Big Three’ of India, England, and Australia together receive 48.2% of the overall pot, leaving a significantly smaller cut for the remaining nine Test nations.

“Tomorrow there might be another economy that’s stronger. Money might come from there like it did in the seventies, eighties. And the chunk of the money went to… you know, went somewhere else. So I think it’s only fair and it just shows in the revenues. When India travel, look at the television rights, look at the television income that comes for an India series. So it’s only fair that they get whatever they’re getting now, if not more,” Ravi Shastri added.

Ravi Shastri’s remarks come as debate intensifies over whether global cricket is drifting toward a club of commercially dominant nations at the expense of a more inclusive, balanced international calendar. There are already proposals for other nations to play 4-day Tests while Australia, India, and England get to keep their five-day and five-match series alive from 2029 onwards, which only highlights the growing influence these three boards hold.

The allocation has drawn criticism from smaller boards and independent observers for widening financial inequality in the game. Yet, some voices from within the Big Three have echoed sentiments similar to Ravi Shastri’s, insisting that India’s massive contribution to cricket’s commercial ecosystem justifies their windfall.

There is no denying the BCCI and India’s influence on the modern game, but if cricket is to have some semblance of neutrality, the need for parity between nations must be discussed sooner rather than later.