Topic: Cricket match prediction discussions - page 77. (Read 598783 times)

These nations does not provide citizenships not even to Arabs from Jordan, Lebanon or Egypt who are living as refugees for decades or even born in the UAE even after a generation. The local Arabs in the UAE does not play Cricket, they only play or watch Football and love their sheesha  . There are many Cricket clubs and every club will have their teams competing against each other and i have personally played in these tournaments and majority are from India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and there are many tournaments round the clock where you will be able to earn money and to be able to play for UAE you need to have a resident Visa and you need to live their for 4 years to get involved in the selection trials that is conducted.

In a hypothetical situation where you force the local Arabs to play the game who gets everything for free from the government, they will choose Football than Cricket.

Normally i am not against the migration of players but at the same time, I'd like to see the organic growth of cricket in specific countries and the fact is most of the time these teams look almost fake (would be much better if they allow India to field 4 teams lol). We hardly see any local players in many teams and in gulf countries, players don't even have a nationality.

The solution is simple, give them nationality or add at least 50% of local. Doesn't matter if any tax heaven countries have a team or not, building an office over there is just good for business.

Why is your hard on of the rule only focused and revolved around Arab countries hope you are aware that there are many other teams that play Cricket, what about teams like Austria, Belgium, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark (some of the players are migrants), Estonia, Eswatini, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Lesotho, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, Norway, Panama, Peru, Portugal, Romania, Seychelles, Singapore, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tanzania, United States, who include Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indian migrants.

So what is your smart move to get rid of teams like UAE (who provides a tax heaven for ICC), Oman and Saudi Arabia, to disband all these associate teams to get rid of these Arab countries  .

Eagerly waiting to hear about this conundrum you were claiming as facts. None of the FIFA presidents in the past 50 years had any links to Football and they all served administrative positions.

BCCI money subsidizes most of the cricketing world (full-status countries) and every associate nation. Drop them out from this group and ICC will die within a week and no one has a backup plan for such a scenario.

They might not be responsible for the popularity but they sure pay the bill for everyone, now it's up to everyone how they look at it.

Cricket is popular in sub-continent and I don't think its popular because of BCCI. Cricket makes it to top popular sports just because its popular in densely populated region of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Afghanistan. Even in countries like Australia and England, cricket is not the only popular sports like subcontinent where whole focus is on cricket alone.   

BCCI is no doubt the most profitable institution and of course the cricket boards are always influenced by the politicians as they control who is the chairman and who are on the big seats of the cricket board.

As far as the popularity of the cricket is concerned it is always been very high in the subcontinent region , both India and Pakistan. I don't think there is any other sport which is as popular as cricket in India. Also since the introduction of T20 cricket and specially the IPL the Indian cricket board has become the most profitable organization.

Gulf region is never been ideal for the cricket, and we all know how things going into this region because mostly top ranked peoples are interested into Soccer and having a good number of clubs in UEFA, so their main target is not cricket because it has never been beneficial for them, and they will never do anything for this game which is having no profit so just because of this ICC is having rule which is allowing them to have all players from other countries instead of having any native country and in soccer they have all native teams which is the biggest change.

ICC having some off the field benefits so just because of this we have teams from this region, and they are also taking good funds as well which are completely unfair with teams like Nepal and Kenya even they also need to improve quality, but things are not going as these needed to be done.

LOL.. how is BCCI responsible for the popularity of cricket in the sub-continent (nowhere else in the world, it is a no.1 sport)? Cricket was always the no.1 sport in India and the popularity experienced a significant surge after the national team won ODI World Cup under Kapil Dev in 1983. The BCCI has gained from the popularity of cricket, as it was made possible to employ various politicians to different posts within the BCCI and the state associations. Even now, 80% of the BCCI officials are either politicians or businessmen with no link to cricket.

Their actions don't really help much since it's just one corrupt person filling in for another corrupt person which is an endless cycle. Accused individuals in Cricket aren't always spared.

Best example here is how Chetan Sharma got screwed recently who was one of the top selectors thanks to a sting operation.

BCCI is corrupt for sure, but they also are the primary reason why Cricket is so popular globally which is why their huge influence over the ICC makes complete sense if you think about it.

This is the most idiotic argument that I have ever came across in this forum. United Arab Emirates, Oman and Saudi Arabia have been playing with Indian and Pakistani players since time immemorial. And how did that helped to grow the sport in that region? For the last two decades, I haven't seen a single Arab in any of these teams (before that there were a few, such as Sultan Zarawani and Saeed-Al-Saffar). If teams need to disband, then let it be. Why there should be a team from UAE, when none of the natives are interested in cricket?

I am a bit confused, are you saying that the Soccer Federation in USA is contributing major share to FIFA. how come that is even possible as Football is not that popular in USA and nowhere near NFL or NBA or even Baseball. If your claim is that companies from USA is contributing as part of broadcasting rights and sponsorships, then it is a different story altogether.

If a non profit sports body is able to generate 80% of its total income from a specific country, don't you think there is an aspect called fair share, no one is making any obstacles to generate the same income from other countries but they are not getting the same revenue from other countries, after all its business at the end of the day.

There is a major difference between Football and Cricket and how that game is played globaly.

Consider teams like China, Russia and all the associate teams comes together and then start creating new rules simply because they have voting rights. Only teams that play proper Cricket gets the voting rights and what is wrong in that.

 Remember 2007 World Cup 16 teams and it was the boring tournament till date, it was an experiment to include more teams and it failed miserably.

 You have a problem with restricting teams in World events and if strict rules are observed, then some of the teams will be disband. They allow these loopholes hoping that the sport would grow in that specific region.

 Mostly exaggerated and explained about the fair share model.
 
 No idea what you are talking about, name one ex Football player who was the president of FIFA in the past 50 years or even played for their school.

The fact is no system is transparent there is always some corruption in system either its less or more , but obviously I'd you are talking about fifa who's the largest organisation right now dealing with 48 countries there will be massive problems and corruption. ICC in comparison is very small and limited but still there are uncertainty and chaos but main factor with icc is with BCCI influence and involvement in all matters.

I have heard about this (2015 FIFA corruption case). In the end, most of the parties involved were indicted and Sepp Blatter was removed from office. Most of the accused entered in to guilty pleas, and only a few (Juan Ángel Napout, Carlos Chávez Landivar.etc) decided to fight their case. But the thing to remember here is that FIFA took strong action against these people. If the same happened in cricket, the accused individuals will most probably continue to hold their office. Anyway, if I want to look for a sports body that has taken strong action against corruption, I understand that FIFA is not the perfect choice.

First of all, I agree with @Sithara007 that ICC is very corrupt. And BCCI is corrupt as well. But if we think about it, there had been times when the BCCI was the one who was basically oppressed by CA and other boards. So now it's their time. Why should they feel pity upon the others?

@Haunebu I am actually not going to get into the conversation of who is more corrupt. I think both ICC and FIFA are corrupt and the paradigm is almost similar to their corruption. I said that because ICC is not as big as FIFA. So there are a lot of chances of corruption in FIFA. ICC is certainly not as big as FIFA but it is still very corrupt.

I agree with all the points that you stated and it's true that FIFA is better than ICC in several ways, but they are also a lot worse in several ways. One of them is corruption. FIFA is 100% more corrupt than the ICC.

https://www.britannica.com/event/2015-FIFA-corruption-scandal

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/06/sports/soccer/qatar-and-russia-bribery-world-cup-fifa.html

These are just a couple of examples to prove my statements. ICC can't hold a candle against FIFA in the corruption department.

There are major differences between FIFA and the ICC:

1. In FIFA, every member nation has equal voting right. In ICC only 12 full members have voting rights.
2. FIFA expanded the world cup from 32 to 48 teams. ICC reduced the size from 16 teams to 10.
3. FIFA never allows foreigners in national team. ICC allows a team to be made of 100% foreigners.
4. FIFA fund allocation is based on performance. ICC fund allocation is based on member status.
5. FIFA is mostly administered by ex-players. ICC is mostly run by businessmen with no link to cricket.

Rishabh Pant was lucky to escape the car fire unscathed it would be unfair to attribute his success to luck alone. As a talented and hardworking cricketer he has proven himself time and again on the field with great performances in both domestic and international matches. The Indian team's victory in Australia was a result of their resilience and determination rather than the leadership of any one individual. The team came together to overcome the odds and emerge victorious demonstrating their skills and teamwork. The ODI series win further cemented their status as a formidable cricketing force.

I disagree. Baseball is popular in many countries(USA, Japan, Korea etc) and Cricket will always be popular at the international level thanks to the rising popularity levels of the T-10 and T-20 formats primarily.

Both FIFA and ICC have always been corrupt, but that never really caused an impact on the popularity of the sports themselves and I am confident that none of this will ever change in the future.

Rich boards will keep getting richer while the poor boards will perish basically.

FIFA and its member confederations d organize a number of tournaments. And the latest addition is FIFA Club World Cup, which is going to be expanded to 32 teams from the current 7-team setup. Once again, I don't think that the economic status of the country or contribution to the overall revenues should be a deciding factor. BCCI is a filthy rich board, and even if they get 90% of the ICC revenues that will comprise only a fraction of their total turnover. The only side effect will be that the other nations will suffer and they will fail to become competitive at international level. In the end, cricket will become a one-nation sport, similar to baseball.

A comparison with FIFA doesn't make sense at all. We have an ICC tournament every freaking year, it's not the case with the former. Then there is full members and associate nations drama.

USA ($25T) and EU ($17T) are developed economies and they contribute more than 50% of FIFA revenues according to you (or maybe at best 60-70%). In comparison, a developing economy like India ($3.5T) contributes 90% of ICC revenue. Stark differences in all indicators, don't you think?