Here's the podcast in question:
Link
Graves is on from ~57 mins to 1hr 10. It's part of a longer interview, the fruits of which will appear in a forthcoming Wisden Cricket Monthly. I wondered if the conspiracy take was a sensationalist headline but he pretty much does say that. Unfortunately, the interviewer lets it pass and the rest of the discussion hardly bears out the claim. It's really just a question of self-interest.
Since March the BCCI has been lobbying other boards to accept a new financial model, notionally drawn up by the ICC. But the ICC has no independent power, it is only a collective: a dozen full member nations plus 94 associates. Which really means the ICC takes instruction from India as the game’s lone financial superpower. The BCCI plan is that out of those 106 nations, India should receive 38.5% of all revenue. England, Australia and Pakistan would get around 6%, other full members 2% to 5%, while every associate nation between them – countries by definition “where cricket is firmly established and organised” – would get 11%.
Thanks to the overall broadcast rights increasing, most countries will still get a pay rise compared to their previous allocation, even as their proportion of the whole declines. That is why there won’t be much inclination to resist when the national representatives on the ICC board hold a vote on the proposal at their next meeting in June. More money is more money, and fighting the most powerful board is not in anyone’s interest.
Like most simplistic self-service, the BCCI’s argument makes sense at a glance. The recent broadcast sale was split across global regions, with most of the value coming from the Indian rights. If most income flows from India, shouldn’t most profit return the same way? But the BCCI is not India. It is a cabal of wealthy men who enjoy the influence and glory of being close to cricket. A board runs a team, not a country. The organisation has contributed long term to building cricket’s popularity, but the value of India’s broadcast market is fundamentally down to a huge population and a growing economy – not things for which a board deserves credit.
In any case, despite its corporate termite infestation, international sport is not a system of investors and dividends. It is symbolism and inspiration. It has commercial imperatives, but the bodies that organise it are at their foundation supposed to be altruistic. The point of sport is enjoyment and renewal of enjoyment. Their mission is first the care and then the growth of the game, a virtuous cycle of making it available to players who it might serve well and who might serve it in turn.
Dividing collective income should not be about desserts but a doctrine of need. Where is an amount of funding going to be most useful? Bear in mind that the $3bn ICC deal is only for World Cups and other global events. The BCCI is expecting another $3bn soon for its next set of bilateral broadcast rights, covering series against visiting teams that come to play India, and it recently sealed $6bn in rights for its domestic Indian Premier League.
On projection, the new ICC division would mean $231m a year for the BCCI, compared to $37m for CA, $26m for the Bangladesh board, $18m for Cricket Ireland, and $67m for the 96 associate nations in their entirety – on average $714,000 each. A few extra million to Ireland, for instance, could revolutionise its cricket existence. Subsidise Test series. Fund contracts to keep talented players. Invest in local leagues to keep lifting standards at home.
For India, even that huge allocation means little in the scheme of its wealth. It does have more constituents than anyone else, but little chance they will benefit. It has a board that loves making money and hates spending it. Its top national contracts are still lower than Australia’s or England’s. The IPL salary cap is one tenth of its broadcast deal. Domestic player pay remains paltry. Dire stadium conditions and ticketing treat spectators as worthless. Where the spending flows is luxury travel and accommodation for the suits that follow the team, staging dinners, gladhanding politicians, basking in the field’s reflected glow.
Link
As the article states, this deal only disburses the monies accruing from ICC's global rights' deals, mainly the World Cups and Champions Trophy. The bigger national boards like the ECB and ACB make most of their money from the sale of their own domestic rights. ECB's deal with Sky alone is said to be worth upto £250 million a year. In fact, it's this money, not the ICC's, that Graves seems more interested in - he wants touring teams to receive a larger cut of these domestic revenues.
