CWI recently secured a loan for several $M, and it seems they have burned through several $M over the past 3 years. During that period, we have had at least 2 home series per year. I agree that people don't care about the game the way past generations did, and therefore don't attend games at the same levels.

So, I will ask why games are held in countries (territories) where crowds are historically very sparse. At almost all professional sporting events worldwide, the event summary includes attendance numbers, except CWI events. Why? How do we know what % of the crowd are paying patrons? Transparency is important, so can CWI start here? How can CWI repay the loan?

Can someone shed any light on my inquiries? 

@Varsity

The Transparency Deficit: Unmasking CWI's Broken Business Model

Cricket West Indies (CWI) is navigating an acute liquidity crisis that exposes deep flaws in its regional operational model. The board recently secured a US$12.82 million bridge loan from the ICC to stave off technical insolvency. This emergency financing follows a staggering $28.5 million net loss for the fiscal year ending September 2025, with an additional $26 million deficit projected for the 2026 cycle. In just 24 months, CWI’s cash reserves plummeted from $17.5 million to a precarious $1.7 million, forcing a critical re-examination of its match-hosting policies and financial transparency.

A frequent point of public criticism is CWI's decision to host premium international fixtures in territories with historically sparse stadium attendance. From an analytical perspective, this is a calculated choice driven by operational cost-shifting rather than ticket-yield optimization. Inter-island logistics make West Indies tours uniquely expensive. To mitigate these overheads, CWI relies heavily on regional government concessions. Territories that offer complete tax waivers, absorbed stadium costs, or direct tourism subsidies frequently secure matches. Furthermore, as a collective entity representing independent nations, CWI faces geopolitical mandates to distribute fixtures broadly, preventing them from consolidating games exclusively in high-yield hubs like Guyana or Barbados.

This dependence on external subsidies links directly to CWI's systemic lack of gate transparency. Unlike professional sporting bodies in Europe or North America, CWI routinely omits precise attendance figures and paying-patron ratios from match summaries. Because modern cricket revenues are overwhelmingly dominated by global broadcast rights and ICC distributions, physical gate receipts represent a shrinking percentage of top-line revenue. However, regional economists have given CWI’s financial reporting a failing grade, citing a reliance on "aggregated data" that obscures the actual profitability of individual tours. Without granular data separating paying spectators from complimentary or promotional entries, assessing true market demand remains impossible.

To service its debt obligations and achieve fiscal stability, CWI is implementing aggressive structural adjustments. The board has initiated severe cost-cutting measures, including scrapping regional Under-17 tournaments and downscaling domestic development squads. This austerity strategy is a desperate bridge across cricket’s highly cyclical four-year financial model. CWI expects to absorb heavy losses through 2026, aiming for a return to net profitability in 2027 when the next major cycle of global ICC media rights payouts are distributed. However, long-term solvency will require more than waiting for the next ICC windfall; it demands a shift toward rigorous, venue-by-venue financial accountability.

Sarge

@Varsity

So, I will ask why games are held in countries (territories) where crowds are historically very sparse.

Please identify the territories where crowds for ODI’s and Test matches are consistently abundant.

I can only think of one in recent times and that’s Dominica. I struggle to identify others.

Of course, you have the odd ones like England tours where Kensington Oval is packed. Mainly because locals there sell their ticket allocation to the traveling British supporters and the venue becomes a de facto home ground for the English.

Antigua and St Lucia are similar when it comes to the England tourists but much less so.

The English dictate where in the West Indies they play anyway. CWI neither has nor wants any control over that.

@imusic

St.Vincent and the Grenadines would pull a big crowd as I have watched some local games and the stands are full. CPL turnout will be interesting to see as Vincy does not have a team. I know it's T20 so crowd turnout is a given.

English has a strong following but that too may have seen some drop in numbers as traditionally our home season used to coincide with the English Winter and Easter season but IPL changed that. Still the Barmy army find their way whenever the game is in the Caribbean.

Question i believe the author is pointing at is accountability and how can we increase our revenue earning capacity at the various venues to reduce our over-reliance on Tv revenues and ICC loans. What about merchandising? What about another T20 league that is Island vs Island eg . Stanford cricket.

Thanks for providing some insight into the behind-the-scenes (geopolitical) activity that is generally concealed from the public. It has been very informative.

I am still shocked that CWI relies almost exclusively on ICC revenue (broadcast, etc.) to run the operation.

Does the ICC also provide guidelines into the product (who is selected) that they put on the field?

Some of the selections are questionable.

@voiceofreason

What about another T20 league that is Island vs Island eg . Stanford cricket.

We had that already. The “problem” for the board at the time was one team dominated the tournament year after year. They invited “foreign guest club teams” to try and stop that dominance to no avail.

Finally in 2012 WICB President Julian Hunte and his side kick Ernest Hilaire decided to sell the rights to T20 cricket in the region to a private entity for 20 years initially, with an option to renew for a further 30 years.

They had no foresight and even less organizational competence to see that the T20 game would finance the rest of the formats worldwide.

They practically and literally gave away the benefits and the owners of CPL laughing all the way to the bank as a result.

@voiceofreason

Island vs Island thing is a must, agree fully!