BCCI Taking Nearly 40%? Klaasen’s Retirement Sparks Alarming Questions About ICC’s Revenue Model
Heinrich Klaasen’s shock retirement from international cricket at just 33 has triggered deep concern across the cricketing world. And beneath the surface lies a question cricket’s governing body must confront: Is the ICC’s India-skewed revenue model killing global cricket?
Klaasen’s Case: More Than Just Retirement
This wasn’t about injury, form, or waning passion. Klaasen, one of the most explosive finishers in modern cricket, was left out of Cricket South Africa’s central contracts — not for lack of performance, but because CSA simply couldn’t afford him. Despite a stellar strike rate of 151.12 across 247 T20s, his growing commitments to T20 leagues clashed with international schedules.
Rather than support a top performer, CSA essentially nudged him into early retirement.
Who’s to Blame? Look at the Numbers
Under the ICC’s 2024–27 revenue distribution model, the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) receives a whopping 38.5% of the ICC’s annual revenues — about ₹1,935 crores out of ₹5,050 crores. The remaining cricketing world? Left to scramble for what’s left:
- England: 6.89% (₹348 crores)
- Australia: 6.25% (₹316 crores)
- Pakistan: 5.75%
- 90+ Associate Members: Just ₹568 crores combined
This isn’t just disproportionate — it’s destabilizing. Why is one board absorbing nearly 40% of global funds while others struggle to retain talent?
Smaller Boards Are Bleeding Talent
Compare salaries:
- India’s top players: ₹7 crores/year
- South Africa’s captain (Temba Bavuma): ~₹2.35 crores
- Pakistan’s top earners: ~₹1.36 crores
- New Zealand Cricket’s total revenue in 2025? A mere ₹76 crores
These boards cannot compete with what T20 leagues offer. Klaasen earns crores playing franchise cricket around the world — a far more lucrative, secure, and professionally run alternative.
Just like Trent Boult and Martin Guptill in New Zealand, or Andre Russell and Sunil Narine in the West Indies, Klaasen prioritized leagues not because he wanted to, but because he had to.
Franchise Cricket vs National Duty: The Inevitable Choice
The IPL alone generates ₹50,500+ crores annually. Top players command over ₹25 crores per season — often more than what most international cricketers earn in their entire national careers.
In such a climate, what incentive do elite players from underfunded boards have to play for their country?
Is Cricket Becoming a One-Nation Game?
The BCCI undeniably fuels cricket’s global economy. But does that give it the right to monopolize global funding?
Former ICC officials have warned: this imbalance is unsustainable. Cricket risks splitting into two realities — India (rich, resourceful, talent-heavy) and the rest (struggling, talent-drained, dependent).
If left unchecked, Klaasen’s retirement could be the beginning of a wave. More players will choose league money over national pride — not because they want to, but because the system gives them no choice.
What Next?
The ICC faces a defining moment. Will it reassess revenue distribution and protect the global competitiveness of cricket? Or will it continue allowing smaller boards to fade into irrelevance, one star at a time?
The warning signs are loud and clear.
