Back in 2022, I was at the University of Iowa finishing my PhD when I noticed a force quietly taking over campus: Caitlin Clark.
Over the next couple of years, Clark reshaped women’s college basketball: Viewership exploded with her jaw-dropping 3 pointers, every game was sold out (unfortunately before I could get a ticket), and Iowa reached the Final Four one season and finished as NCAA championship runners-up the next.
After graduation, she was picked up by the WNBA for a whopping…$78,000, far below the value she brought to the league.
Women’s cricket is entering a similar era. India’s World Cup victory has sparked excitement and optimism that the sport may finally see professional growth and meaningful investment.
But as momentum builds, the finances become increasingly important. In my previous article on The Economics of Women’s Cricket, we explored how each cricketing nation is investing in the women’s cricket. In this article, we broaden the scope and ask:
How wide is the gender pay gap across major sports?
Where does cricket sit within that debate?
And most importantly: are women cricketers earning a livable wage that supports a basic standard of living in their countries?
Will the Clark effect translate to cricket? Let’s find out.
Key Takeaways
Nat Sciver-Brunt earns an estimated $931,978 per year, one of the highest for a women’s cricketer (without sponsorships). However, that is less than the highest paid women in tennis, golf, and other sports where players are making $4-10 million annually.
Rishabh Pant and Pat Cummins (~$4-4.5 Million) are among the highest paid cricketers, but their annual salaries are not as competitive as Stephen Curry ($59.6M) or Shohei Ohtani ($70M).
The average international women’s cricketer in Australia, India, England, and New Zealand earns about $100,000-$200,000 a year, while players in Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Zimbabwe earn between $2,000-$12,000 per year.
Tennis was the pioneer in pushing for pay parity with the US Open offering equal prize money for both men & women in 1973.
When the gender pay debate comes up, there are usually two sides of the debate.
Revenue-proportional pay: Athletes should earn proportional to the amount of money they generate for the league.
Investment-driven growth: Paying athletes fairly strengthens the league, improves quality, and drives revenue over time.
To understand pay in women’s cricket, I’ll compare league revenue, player salaries, and recent investments across team sports like basketball and soccer, and individual sports like tennis and golf.
We also look at Gross National Income (GNI) per capita with Atlas method, a social marker that determines the average income based on GDP, currency exchange rates, inflation, etc. (including income earned outside of the country).
For example, we will be looking at several leagues in the US. It’s good to keep in mind that the GNI of the United States is $83,660 (2024) so we can see how athletes salaries fare in comparison.
League by League Revenue and Salary Breakdown
I read over 110 articles to bring you salary and revenue information from different sports all in one sports.
*Note: Although the NFL is the most profitable league in the US sports market ($20.24 billion), we do not consider it in our analysis since there is no women equivalent of the NFL.
1. Basketball
Pay Disparity:Extremely High
NBA: National Basketball Association, WNBA: Women’s National Basketball Association
The average NBA salary ($11.9M) is over 116 times higher than the average WNBA salary ($102,249).
Even the lowest-paid NBA player makes more than 4 times the highest paid WNBA athlete.
The NBA generates approximately $28.9 million per player, while the WNBA revenue player generates $1.22 million per player.
NBA vs WNBA at a Glance
Category
NBA
WNBA
Founded
1946
1996
Estimated Salary Range
$1.16-$55.76 Million
$66,000-$250,000
Average Salary
$11.9 Million
$102,249
League Revenue
$13 billion (2024)
$180-200 Million (2023)
Salary as % of League Revenue
0.09% (11.9M/13B)
0.05% ($102K/190M)
Number of Teams
30
13
Number of Games/Team
82
34
Average Attendance
18,834/match 22.2 million (total)
10,986/match 3.14 million (total)
Highest Paid Athlete (Men): $59.6 million (Stephen Curry), $304 Million (Jaylen Brown for 5-year contract)
Highest Paid Athlete (Women): $252,450 (Jackie Young on contract extension), $249,244 (Kelsey Mitchell)
The WNBA has secured a $2.2 billion deal for the next 11 years, averaging $200 million/year, up from the current deal of $60 million/year.
According to Sportico, the NBA is projected to hit $14.3 billion revenue in the 2025/26 season.
Revenue Per Player:
NBA: $28.9 million = ($13 billion league revenue)/(30 teams x 15 players per standard roster
WNBA: $1.22 million = ($190 million)/(13 x 15)
Bottom Line: While salaries remain far below NBA levels, rising media deals and growing brand valuation suggest the WNBA’s momenum may finally be shifting.
In 2022, the US Women’s team won a historic equal-pay settlement of $22 million in 2022, divided among 30 players on the USWNT roster (~$733,333 per player).
The USWNT, USMNT (Men’s National Team) CBA came to an agreement to pool FIFA prize money and split it equally (after 10% to US soccer for youth programs). The US Women’s Team has won 4 FIFA World Cups and 5 Olympic golds, while the men have not made it past the quarter-finals in recent history.
According to Forbes, top USWNT players like Alex Morgan and Megan Rapinoe earned around $7 million in 2023, combining on-field and off-field earnings. In contrast, the top male players like Kylian Mbappe, Cristiano Ronaldo, and Lionel Messi earn around $120 million annually.
MLS: $2.86 million = $2.23B/(30 teams x 26 players)
NWSL: $223,000 = $75M/(14 x 24)
Note: MLS has 20 players on the roster with up to 10 supplemental players. Similarly, NWSL has 22 minimum players with up to 4 supplemental players.
Bottom Line: Although NWSL salaries are lower than MLS salaries, the disparity in league salary is nowhere near as extreme as basketball. Culturally, women’s soccer is more popular and the US women’s national team has made strides in pay parity (though other national soccer teams may still face wide gaps).
ATP: Association of Tennis Professionals, WTA: Women’s Tennis Associations
The median earnings for male professional tennis players ($22,362) is lower than for female players ($75,888). This is due to over 1000 professional men players compared to about 550 women.
The prize money for Grand Slams and other tournaments are largely equal.
Highest Paid Athlete (Men): $20.3 million (Jannik Sinner, $47.3 million total with off-court earnings), $13.3 million (Carlos Alcaraz, $48.3 million with off-court earnings)
Highest Paid Athlete (Women): $12.4 million (Aryna Sabalenka, $15 million with off-court), $12.2 million (Coco Gauff, $25 million with off-court)
Prize money for this year’s Roland-Garros will total EUR 49.6m, up 12.3 per cent on 2022. With the aim of ensuring a more even distribution between players, the tournament organisers have significantly increased the prize money for first-round losers in the women’s and men’s… pic.twitter.com/3HC75KlnIP
In 1973, the US Open became the first Grand Slam to offer equal prize money for both men & women ($25,000 then) after movement driven by Billie Jean King. The other Grand Slams would take a quarter of a century to make the same move: 2001 (Australian Open), 2006 (French Open), 2007 (Wimbledon).
Australian Open offered equal pay in 1984 and reverted to paying the men more in 1996 before going back in 2001.
In 2024, 28 men & 15 women earned at least $2 million. In his career, Novak Djokovic has won more than $190.2 million in prize money alone. Roger Federer is said to have breached the $1 billion mark.
2023 French Open total prize money was $56.8 million (€ 49.6 million). The winner of a Grand Slam, like the US open is about $2.5 million whereas even a first-round loss can yield $100,000.
According to Forbes, the world’s top ten highest paid tennis players made an estimated $285 million (the record was $343 million during the height of Federer-Nadal-Djokovic-Serena Williams).
The US Open’s revenue in 2024 was about $559.6 million. About 3.2 million fans attended the Grand Slams in 2025 (1.1 million – US, 1 million – Australian, 650,000 – French, 550,000 – Wimbledon)
Bottom Line: Prize money in professional tennis is far more balanced than most other sports. While off-court earnings still have large gaps, equal Grand Slam payouts show that both men & women have more equitable financial opportunities for this individual sport.
The average PGA salary (~$1.48M) is nearly seven times the median LPGA salary (~$213K).
Although women golfers are earning up to $6M in recent times, the highest paid male golfers are earning between $60-90M.
PGA vs LPGA at a Glance
Category
PGA
LPGA
Founded
1929
1950
Estimated Salary Range
$6,000-$92 million
$2,300-$6 Million
Average Salary
$1.48 million (2021)
$213,159 (Median 2024)
Winning Prize Money
$4.3 million (US Open) $3.6 million (The Masters) $3.3 million (PGA Championship) $3.1 million (Open Championship)
$2.4 Million (US Open) $487,500 (The Annika)
Highest Paid Athlete (Men): $92 million (Jon Rahm, $102 million including off-course earnings), $67 million (Scottie Scheffler)
Highest Paid Athlete (Women): $4.5 million (Nelly Korda, $12.5 million with off-course)
Growth Trend and Recent Landmark Changes
Tiger Woods’ career earnings total about $120 million with Rory McIlroy closing in at $108 million.
According to Reuters, LIV golf, backed by Saudi funding, has invested about $5 billion over the last couple of years. The organization reportedly offered players like Jon Rahm $300 million to defect from the PGA Tour.
PGA, in response, upped the 2025 season prize money to $366.9 million. Combined with other tournaments, PGA golfers have an opportunity to play for $700 million in a year.
The total prize money for the ladies’ US Open was a $12 million purse and the Memorial PGA tournament was about $20 million. Other tournaments like the Chevron Championship, Evian Championship, and the AIG Women’s Open had a total purse around $8-10 million.
CBS and NBC renewed a 9-year media rights contract in 2022 for about $700 million.
The LPGA is currently in negotiations for a media deal that will put all North American golf matches live on TV. More investment like the ones with FM, U-NEXT deal in Japan is around the corner.
Bottom Line: Despite being around since the 1950s, the gap between top male and female golfers remain among the widest in professional sports.
National Professional Fastpitch (also known as the Women’s Pro Softball League) ran from 2004-2021. The average season salaries were around $3,000.
Although MLB players earn high average salary ($4.66M), they also play the most games (162), which brings their amount per match down to about $28,800.
Bottom Line: Softball players earn a fraction of their MLB counterparts, but the landscape is improving. AUSL is a major upgrade from the now defunct National Professional Fastpitch in terms of investment and support. Meanwhile, the men still have the potential to earn substantial amounts of money both on and off the field.
The NHL and Rogers Communications announced a $11 billion media rights deal in Canada. The NHL also has 7-year deals with Disney & Turner Sports around $200-400 million.
The PWHL signed deals with Fox, Paramount, and other networks.
Premier Hockey Federation, the precursor to the PWHL, paid its players an average of $45,000-$60,000 with top salaries reaching $80,000.
Bottom Line: The pay disparity may look extreme, but PWHL is a new league and is growing rapidly. Only time will tell if it succeeds, but it will take a lot to match a 100-year old NHL league.
UFC fighter Rousey said in 2019, “How much you get paid should have something to do with how much money you bring in. I am the highest paid fighter not because Dana or Lorenzo wanted to do something nice for the ladies. They do it because I bring in the highest numbers. They do it because I make them the most money. I think the money that they make should be proportionate to the money they bring in.”
College Sports, Law Suits, and Miscellaneous
College sports in the US is a separate altogether, but with NIL (Name, Image, and Likeness), college athletes have started to get paid. However, now we are seeing disparity in college pay as well. Men’s basketball players earned an average of $171,272, while the women earned about $16,222 in 2024.
After tennis in 1972, several other individual sports followed equal prize money. By 2004, volleyball and skating offered equal prize money. By 2019, skiing, snowboarding, biking, and even the World Surf League announced equal prize money for both female & men competitors.
IPL: Indian Premier League, WPL: Women Premier League
The average IPL salary (~$460K) is higher than the highest-paid WPL player ($415K) with IPL players earning on average 5.5 times more than their WPL counterparts.
The revenue per player is approximately $2.7-$3.8 million in the IPL compared to about $816K in the WPL.
Even in the lower-tier cricket nations (Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe), where salaries are lower, player earnings are still significantly above their countries’ GNI.
Category
IPL
WPL
Founded
2008
2023
Salary Range
$24,000-$3.2 Million
$12,000-$415,000
Average Salary
$459,743 (2023)
$82,522 (2023)
League Revenue
$691.3 Million (5761 Crore INR)
$71.86 Million (637 Crore INR)
Salary as % of League Revenue
0.067%
0.11%
Number of Teams
10
5
Number of Games/Team
14
8
Average Attendance
26,000/match
9,000-13,000/match
Highest Paid Athlete (IPL): $3.21 Million (Rishabh Pant)
The average salary for a WBBL player is $30,812 while the average BBL salary is $110,312. The Women’s Hundred pays around $38,077, while the men’s Hundred pays around $75,440 on average.
Men’s vs Women’s Salaries in Cricket (Country By Country Breakdown)
Australia, England, New Zealand, and India now have equal match fees for both men & women. West Indies has signed a MOU to create a pathway for equal match fees by 2027.
Note that match fees is not the same as equal salary, but it is still a step in the right direction. Match fees is how much a player is paid per match. However, women cricketers do not play as much volume of cricket (for example, NZ have equal match fees for Test cricket but the White Ferns have not played a Test in ages).
Bottom Line: Since 2017, women’s cricket has gained momentum through increased visibility, equal match fees, and the emergency of women’s franchise leagues, important steps toward professionalizing the sport. However, more needs to be done in the lower-tiered country to diminish the gap within women’s cricket. Finally, even though men’s cricketers earn high salaries, it is nowhere in comparison to the MLB or the NBA.
For the highest paid cricketers, we looked at franchise league earnings along with match fees and central contracts. Here is an example of how we calculated Pooran and Klaasen’s earnings.
Country
Men
Women
Australia
$3.6-$4.5 Million (Pat Cummins)
$831,951 (Ash Gardner)
England
$3.5-$3.85 Million (Jos Buttler)
$931,978 (Nat Sciver Brunt)
New Zealand
~$2.29 Million (Daryl Mitchell)
$435,755 (Amelia Kerr)
India
$4-$4.4 Million (Rishabh Pant)
$757,420 (Smriti Mandhana)
West Indies
$3.1-$4.1 Million (Nicholas Pooran)
$269,200 (Deandre Dottin)
South Africa
$3.5-$3.9 Million (Heinrich Klaasen)
$400,000-$480,000 (Marizanne Kapp)
Sri Lanka
$1.6-$1.8 Million (Matheesha Pathirana)
$226,741 (Chamari Athapaththu)
Pakistan
~$750,000 (Babar Azam)
N/A
Bangladesh
$390,000-$410,000 (Mustafizur Rahman)
$17,000-$20,000 (Nigar Sultana)
Ireland
$600,000-$800,000 (Josh Little)
$60,000-$100,000 (Gaby Lewis)
Zimbabwe
$122,000-$516,000 (Sikandar Raza)
N/A
Afghanistan
$2.2-$3.36 million (Rashid Khan)
N/A
Final Thoughts
Women in sports continue to earn far less than their male counterparts, but times are changing. Investment and visibility towards women’s sport is increasing, and so are their salaries.
Caitlin Clark may not get a paycheck close to Steph Curry’s at the moment, but the impact of athletes like Caitlin Clark & Angel Reese, Billie Jean King & Serena Williams, and of course, Harmanpreet Kaur leading India to victory is reshaping the landscape and pushing world sports closer to fair pay.
Zimbabwe had South Africa in trouble at 55/4 when debutant Lhuan-dre Pretorious inside-edged to the keeper. The fielding side went up. The umpire and Pretorious stayed still.
Zimbabwe has made an impressive financial comeback, turning their $19 million deficit into stability. As a result, they now have the funds to host 8 Tests, a major win for a small cricketing nation.
But 8 Tests mean up to 40 days of cricket. Even at the minimum rate, implementing DRS for that many days would cost them at least $480,000, and potentially well into the millions.
So, the trade-off is clear: Zimbabwe can either afford to hosts more Tests or implement DRS, but not both.
For those wondering about DRS costs due to the ongoing #SAvZim match,
DRS costs about $60,000-$100,000 a day
For a 2-Test (5 day) series, the costs will rise an extra $600,000 to $2 million
— Broken Cricket Dreams Cricket Blog (@cricket_broken) June 28, 2025
As many have suggested on social media, the more interesting question is: Can the ICC subsidize the cost of DRS around the world?
Taking a Look at ICC’s Financials
Key Takeaways
According to their 2024 Financial Report, the ICC recorded $474 million surplus in 2024, a slight drop from $596 million in 2023.
ODI World Cup years remain the most profitable for ICC, but revenues from T20 World Cups are closing the gap. Notably, 2018 was the only non-pandemic year where ICC recorded a loss ($46 million), incidentally the last time there was no men’s ICC event.
The Bottom Line: Funding DRS across all Test matches would cost the ICC less than 5.1% of the their annual operating costs and about 2.3% of their reserve balance.
ICC Revenues, Costs, Total Surplus
Revenues from ICC Events
Costs from ICC Events
Other Revenues/Costs*
Total Comprehensive Income
2024
+$728,474,000
-$231,674,000
-$22,762,000
+$474,038,000
2023
+$839,147,000
-$246,489,000
+$3,356,000
+$596,014,000
2022
+$412,862,000
-$168,000,000
-$36,487,000
+$208,375,000
2021
+$432,146,000
-$96,510,000
-$10,029,000
+$325,607,000
2020
+$34,771,000
-$34,387,000
-$18,800,000
-$18,416,000
2019
+$602,908,000
-$184,565,000
-$25,683,000
+$392,660,000
2018
+$34,337,000
-$49,501,000
-$31,238,000
-$46,402,000
*Other revenues/cost include interest and investment income, general and administrative expenses, foreign exchange, net gain on financial assets, strategic investments, etc.
In 2017, the ICC restructured its financial model for the 2015-23 period, eliminating the $10-million contribution towards the Test fund. Instead, they agreed to redistribute ICC’s surplus back to the boards after every few years (practically, a bonus). This change actually proved lucrative to the Full Members:
Adjustment of dividend against advance to Members:
2019: -$300,000,000
2023: -$1,418,522,000
“In 2023, these advances have been offset against the surplus distributed to Members with the first tranche of such distribution (i.e. dividends) amounting to USD 300 million declared during the year 2020 and the second/final tranche amount of USD 1,418.5 declared during the year 2023, both with the approval of the Board of Directors.”
“The success of our media rights and commercial programme for our next four-year cycle means we are able to invest more money than ever before into our sport…This is by far the largest level of investment ever to go into cricket. It’s a once-in-a-generation opportunity for our Members to accelerate growth and engage more plays and fans and drive competitiveness.”
The Math: What Would it Actually Cost to Fund DRS Globally
There are 71 Test matches scheduled in the current World Test Championship (WTC) cycle.
Suppose, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, and Ireland, who are not part of the WTC, play 32 Tests in the next two years. (They are already playing 17 this year, Zimbabwe – 11, Afghanistan – 3, Ireland – 3).
That brings the total to roughly 103 Test matches, or a maximum of 515 days of Test cricket. Recall that DRS costs vary widely based on the setup:
Barebones system: $12,000-$15,000/day
Full-feature DRS: $60,000-$100,000/day
Suppose the ICC negotiates through partnerships, media rights, and pays upfront for the DRS, bringing the costs down to $50,000 per day for a full-functioning system.
At this conservative average,
$50,000/day x 515 days = $25.75 million
Spread over 2 years for the WTC cycle, that’s ~$12.88 million per year
That’s a fraction of ICC’s annual expenses and even less if we consider when you consider the finds available in the reserve pool (And if we really think about it, that’s about the amounts Rishabh Pant ($3.21 million), Shreyas Iyer ($3.18), Venkatesh Iyear ($2.83), Arshdeep Singh ($2.14), and Yuzvendra Chahal ($2.14 million) were paid this year in the IPL. So the money exists in the cricketing world, but the redistribution is the issue).
One alternative approach could be to decouple Snicko and Hawkeye from the DRS package. Snicko alone can cost as little as $3,500/day, while Hawkeye is the most expensive part of the DRS package.
Another idea is for the Big 3 to fund their own DRS (since they have deals with media companies) and for ICC to subsidize DRS outside the Big 3.
Should the ICC Bear the Cost of DRS?
Can the ICC bear the Cost of DRS? Yes.
But should they? That’s less straightforward.
If the ICC uses reserve funds to cover DRS, it may come at the cost of other priorities: Associate cricket development programs, women’s cricket, and grassroots infrastructure. $12-15 million is not a small amount.
Even if those areas are not directly impacted, protecting the surplus might push the ICC further down its current trajectory: expanding media rights, but at the cost of a competitive balance.
The trade-offs?
India-Pakistan forced together in group stages again
ODI World Cup limited to 10-14 teams
Champions Trophy kept alive with little purpose beyond revenue
Back-to-back T20 World Cups, reducing space in the cricket calendar
So yes, the ICC can pay for the DRS, but doing so means reconsidering what they value the most: commercial growth of the game or its fairness.
What would you choose? Risk losing hundreds of thousands of dollars for one inside edge decision or let a single moment swing the course of a match?
****
Thank you all for reading. Please subscribe here and check out other financial and research articles below.
If you Enjoy Reading these Financial Cricket Articles, you may also like:
India’s $923 million in reserves is greater than the financial balance of the other 11 Test nations combined (~ $734 Million). India has been profitable in at least each of the last 10 years.
For financially strong boards like India and England, ICC distributions make up only around 10% of their total revenue. In contrast, boards such as Zimbabwe (~85%) and others like Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, and New Zealand (each around 48%) remain heavily reliant on ICC funding.
Some of the more surprising outcomes include Australia currently operating at a loss, and Bangladesh and Pakistan ranking unexpectedly high. On a positive note, South Africa, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, West Indies, and Zimbabwe have all recovered from COVID-era setbacks and now maintain at least some level of reserve capital.
How I Evaluated the Financial Health of Cricket Boards
To assess the financial strength of cricket boards, I reviewed the official financial statements of all 12 Full Member nations. Based on this analysis, each country is assigned a category reflecting its overall financial health.
🟢 Financially Strong: India, Bangladesh, England, Pakistan, South Africa, New Zealand, Sri Lanka
🟡 Stable: West Indies, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan
🔴 Financially Vulnerable: Australia, Ireland
The classification is based primarily on each board’s most recently reported reserves, but also considers long-term trends in profitability, revenue, expenditure, and annual surplus or deficit over the past 5-10 years, wherever data was available.
In a previous analysis, I estimated that hosting a Test match can cost between $350,000-$1.4 million. This benchmark, combined with each board’s current reserves and cash flow, helps assess whether they can sustainably host Test cricket. To host 5 home Tests per year as part of a 10-Test calendar, a cricket board would need at least $1.7 to $7 million in available cashflow and reserves.
BCCI earned a profit of 5,761.01 Crore INR from the IPL in 2023-24. contributing to 59.14% of their total revenue. The WPL resulted in a surplus of 377.50 Crore INR.
For the 2023 ODI World Cup, BCCI received Rs. 324.95 Crore INR, while the expenses were 276.15 Crore INR.
The 2023-24 ICC distribution was 1042.35 Crore INR ($115,496,100).
Financial Health: 🟢 Strong (on paper) 6-Year Financial Trend: Balance rose from $82M (2022) to $427M (2023), mostly via assets
COVID Recovery: ✅ Fully recovered.
Can They Afford to Host Tests? ✅ Yes, but long series may strain resources. They currently have $16.99 million in cash flow, which should be good enough for them to host 5 Test series in a season.
India Tour Dependency:Low. India toured Bangladesh in 2019/20, 2022/23 (+3 ODIs), and 2024/25 for 2 Test. There was not a meaningful enough changes in the finances in India tours.
ICC Income: $16 million (34.12% of annual revenue)
Bottom Line: Growth is real, but heavily skewed by asset gains. Still reliant on consistent tours and ICC support.
*Note: BCB had 2017-20 annual report and 2022-23 but not one for 2020-21 period.
Additional Notes:
The gain of assets took BCB’s balance from 10,654,580,032 BDT ($87 Million) to 46,205,040,900 BDT ($377.31 Million).
Quote from Annual Report
“The BCB finances have been boosted by proactive steps taken by the Board since 2017. This is evident in the figures. In the six years between 2011 and 2016 the Board had earned US $33.32 million in media, team sponsor and other rights while in just three years from 2017 to 2020, the BCB’s earnings stood at approximately US $29 million from the same sources.
Financial Health: 🟢 Exceptionally Strong 10-Year Financial Trend: Reserves grew from a low of $2.2 million (2021) to $69.29 million (2025), but incurred a small operating loss for the 2024-25 financial year.
COVID Recovery: ✅ Fully recovered. Suffered a loss of £14.875 million in 2020. They then had three consecutive years of profits between 2022-2024.
Can They Afford to Host Tests? ✅ Enough reserves and cash flow to host marquee Test series.
India Tour Dependency:Moderate. Can survive without India and Ashes for a couple of seasons, but because of their high administrative expenses, they need these tours often. 2019 (Ashes + WC), 2023 (Ashes), and 2022 (India tour) all resulted in profits.
ICC Income: $41.33 Million (10.35% of annual revenue)
Bottom Line: Large revenues but also large administrative expenses. Ashes and India tours drive profitability.
ECB Reserves (2015-2025)
2015: +£ 70,039,000($111.17 Million) – @ £0.63 per USD
2016: +£ 73,106,000($104.44 Million) – @ £0.70 per USD
2017: +£ 35,747,000($44.68 Million) – @ £0.80 per USD
2018: +£ 8,580,000($12.08 Million) – @ £0.71 per USD
2019: +£ 11,248,000($14.80 Million) – @ £0.76 per USD
2020: +£ 17,097,000($22.20 Million) – @ £0.77 per USD
2021: +£ 2,222,000($3.04 Million) – @ £0.73 per USD
2022: +£ 22,973,000($30.63 Million) – @ £0.75 per USD
2023: +£ 35,392,000($43.69 Million) – @ £0.81 per USD
2024: +£ 58,246,000($73.73 Million) – @ £0.79 per USD
2025: +£ 55,431,000 ($69.29 Million) – @ £0.80 per USD
2025 Cash Flow: £263,343,000 ($329.18 Million)
*Even though there is a great deal of cash at hand, the amounts falling due within one year to creditors is £258,225,000.
ECB Turnover and Expenses
*Year Ended 31 January, 2025
Year
Turnover
Administrative Expenses
Other Gains/Charges*
Total Comprehensive Income
2016
+£133,967,000
–£114,186,000
–£16,714,000
+£3,067,000
2017
+£118,886,000
–£137,166,000
–£19,079,000
-£37,359,000
2018
+£125,465,000
–£137,761,000
–£14,871,000
–£27,167,000
2019
+£172,319,000
–£142,376,000
–£27,275,000
+£2,668,000
2020
+£227,993,000
-£164,182,000
–£57,962,000
+£5,849,000
2021
+£207,112,000
-£191,097,000
–£30,890,000
–£14,875,000
2022
+£302,504,000
–£226,171,000
–£55,582,000
+£20,751,000
2023
+£334,019,000
–£248,676,000
–£72,924,000
+£12,419,000
2024
+£336,066,000
–£248,540,000
–£64,672,000
+£22,854,000
2025
+£319,558,000 (+$399,447,500)
–£259,305,000 (-$324,131,250)
–£63,068,000 (-$78,835,000)
–£2,815,000 (-$3,518,750)
*Other gains and charges include Cost of Sales, other operating income, tax on profit, and effective portion of changes in fair value of cash flow hedges.
Quote from Annual Reports
“In 2017, ECB continued with high levels of contributions to our cricket network and stakeholders. A special fee distribution of +£1.3m was paid to each First Class County in each 2016 or 2017, relating to the 2018 home India series broadcast revenue. A further special distribution of +£1m is scheduled to be paid to each First Class County in either 2018 or 2019, relating to Cricket World Cup 2019 revenue. These previously unprecedented contributions, coupled with continued significant investment in strategic Participation and Growth initiatives, including the expansion of our first nationwide entry-level programme, resulted in a loss for the financial year of – £ 30.2 m (2016: – £ 37.3m).”
“Cricket was always going to face a difficult challenge to compete for engagement in 2024. While England Men hosted West Indies and Sri Lanka in a non-Ashes year, a blockbuster sporting summer saw both the Paris Olympics and the men’s football Euros taking place in the same time zone. This was not helped further by poor weather, particularly in the first half of the summer. Despite this, attendance of 2.84m represented our best ever attendance for a non-Ashes or India year. The recreational game saw record highs in terms of participation, driven by an increase of around 10 per cent in women’s and girls’ sections and teams.
Financial Health: 🟢 Stable 10-Year Financial Trend: Surplus increased from $65 million (2015) to $71.83M (2023).
COVID Recovery: ✅ Fully recovered. Had a slight loss in 2021 ($2.9 million loss), but have been above water year after year otherwise.
Can They Afford to Host Tests? ✅ Yes. $62 million of cash in hand, annual profit of $10.9 million last year. Can definitely host a few 3 to 4-match Test series
India Tour Dependency:None. PCB are surviving even without India tours (Indirectly though, the ICC pool grows due to India-Pakistan ICC matches, which increases the amount that ICC pays each board).
ICC Income: $16 million (27.93% of annual revenue)
Bottom Line: Financially solid with recent home series in Pakistan. However, despite nominal growth in reserves, the sharp devaluation of the Pakistan Rupee from 104 PKR per USD in 2017 to 286 in 2023 has significantly eroded the real value of those gains.
PCB Reserves
2015: + 6,694,788,996 PKR ($65,748,316)– @ 101.8 PKR per USD
2016: + 8,283,173,629 PKR ($79,058,370)– @ 104.77 PKR per USD
2017: + 8,434,024,058 PKR ($80,447,198) – @ 104.83 PKR per USD
2018: + 8,283,173,629 PKR ($68,040,457)– @ 121.73 PKR per USD
2019: + 13,263,657,218 PKR ($84,237,003)– @ 157.47 PKR per USD
2020: + 17,099,164,322 PKR ($102,077,260)– @ 167.50 PKR per USD
2021: + 16,262,237,513 PKR ($103,189,088) – @ 157.61 PKR per USD
2022: + 17,304,552,163 PKR ($83,804,720) – @ 206.50 PKR per USD
2023: + 20,393,054,686 PKR ($71,829,749) – @ 286.62 PKR per USD
2023 Cash Flow: PKR 17,978,488,170 ($62,696,229)
PCB Revenues and Expenses
*Year ended June 30, 2023
Year
Revenues (in PKR)
Operating Cost (in PKR)
Other Gains/Charges* (in PKR)
Total Comprehensive Income (in PKR)
2016
+4,143,841,297
–3,299,320,243
+691,161,695
+1,535,682,749
2017
+4,373,244,912
–4,034,088,153
–135,604,446
+203,552,313
2018
+5,131,003,966
-5,136,332,519
-145,521,876
–150,850,429
2019
+11,248,251,959
–5,907,837,843
–359,930,527
+4,980,483,589
2020
+9,334,821,085
–5,030,821,564
–468,492,417
+3,835,507,104
2021
+6,330,842,117
-7,086,927,287
–1,258,277,393
–835,926,809
2022
+9,033,872,425
-7,599,150,590
–393,407,185
+1,041,314,650
2023
+16,424,122,531 (+$57,293,595)
-12,450,222,610 (-$43,446,377)
–885,478,598 (-3,089,210)
+3,088,502,523 (+$10,934,428)
“During this period, PCB hosted England twice after 17 years for two memorable series. Similarly, New Zealand also toured Pakistan twice for the red and white-ball series, and our teams toured Sri Lanka, the Netherland, Sharjah and participated in ICC Men’s T20 World Cup in Australia….In conclusion, PCB’s financial health continues to strengthen with cash reserves reaching its highest level ever.“
Financial Health: 🟢 Recovering 10-Year Financial Trend: Pre-Covid, CSA’s reserve went as high as $85.68 million, but 5 loss-making years between 2017-23 dropped their reserves to $20.02 million. A strong 2024 saw them bounce back to $63.83 million.
COVID Recovery: ✅ Fully recovered.
Can They Afford to Host Tests? ✅ Yes, +$50.97 million cash flow at the end of 2024 financial year.
India Tour Dependency:Very High. India’s 2023/24 tour (2 Tests, 3 ODIs, 3 T20Is) was a massive boost to CSA’s revenues.
ICC Income: R567 million – $30.58 million (37.88%)
Bottom Line: CSA now has both the surplus and cash flow to support Test cricket.
Why are the World Test Champions not hosting Tests in 2025?
South Africa will be going through stadium upgrades as they prepare to host the 2027 ODI Cricket World Cup. Hence, they will not be hosting a home Test, especially the esteemed Boxing Day Test.
In 2026-27, home Tests will be back for South Africa: 3 Tests vs Australia and England and 2 Tests vs Bangladesh. Women Tests vs Australia and India.
In the last 10 years, the Rand has gone from $1 USD = R. 9.65 to $1 USD ~ 18 R.
2013:+R400,011,000 (+$37.96 Million) – @ R10.54 per USD
2014:+R599,421,000 (+$53.95 Million) – @ R11.11 per USD
2015:+R707,095,000 (+$57.72 Million) – @ R12.25 per USD
2016:+R814,254,000 (+$57.07 Million) – @ R14.27 per USD
2017:+R655,444,000 (+$49.07 Million) – @ R13.35 per USD
2018: +R1,056,445,000 (+$85.68 Million) – @ R12.33 per USD
2019: +R856,430,000 (+$59.26 Million) – @ R14.45 per USD
2020: +R906,692,000 (+$48.33 Million) – @ R18.76 per USD
2021: +R685,669,000 (+$47.72 Million) – @ R14.37 per USD
2022: +R487,795,000 (+$30.87 Million) – @ R15.80 per USD
2023: +R368,406,000 (+$20.02 Million) – @ R18.40 per USD
2024: +R1,183,262,000 (+$63.83 Million) – @ R18.54 per USD
2024 Cash Flow: R 945,008,000 ($50.97 Million)
CSA Revenues and Expenses
*Year ending April 30, 2024
Year
Revenues
Operating Cost
Other Gains/Charges*
Total Comprehensive Income
2015
+R765,600,000
-R695,476,000
+R37,550,000
+R 107,674,000
2016
+R822,926,000
-R777,047,000
+R61,280,000
+R 107,159,000
2017
+R674,935,000
-R910,392,000
+R76,647,000
-R 158,810,000
2018
+R1,526,393,000
-R1,219,049,000
+R42,655,000
+R 349,999,000
2019
+R929,492,000
-R1,215,801,000
+R86,294,000
-R 200,015,000
2020
+R1,074,063,000
-R1,193,672,000
+R169,871,000
+R50,262,000
2021
+R512,438,000
-R732,362,000
-R1,099,000
-R 221,023,000
2022
+R778,353,000
-R996,624,000
+R19,397,000
-R 197,874,000
2023
+R700,240,000
-R904,441,000
+R84,812,000
-R 119,389,000
2024
+R1,888,455,000 (+$101,860,909)
-R1,158,812,000 (-$62,480,037)
-R85,213,000 (-$4,596,438)
+R 814,856,000 (+$43,943,740)
Other gains/charges includes investment income, net foreign exchange gains, fair value adjustments, share of loss from associate, share of profit from joint venture, and impairment of investment in associate
Quotes from Annual Reports
“We realised a 170% increase in revenue, reaching R1.89 billion. This increase was anchored by the inbound tour by India, and supported by several initiatives, including the successful hosting of the ICC U19 World Cup 2024.”
“Our financial stability has been reinforced with a net cash inflow of R810 million from operating activities and other strategic investments, including in African Cricket Development, the company behind the SA20 product. …The outcome was a profit before tax of R815 million, reversing the previous year’s loss.”
“I am pleased to present a strong financial performance for the year ending 30 April 2024. The results reflect revenue of R1.89 billion and net profit of R815 million, exceeding expectations and putting CSA in a healthy financial position for the balance of our four-year financial cycle and beyond.”
“Sri Lanka Cricket has stepped into 2024 with financial flexibility, a healthy balance sheet and bottom line, while having remained steadfast in our commitment to the development of the sport locally and in the international arena. In 2023, SLC has committed operational expenditure of 4.3 billion rupees towards international cricket and 2.8 billion rupees towards domestic cricket, providing vital funding to ensure that both structures have the best opportunities to achieve success.”
“The financial results in 2023 yet again demonstrates Sri Lanka Cricket’s prudent management of finances, as we made a revenue of 1,959 million (includes Participation Fee Income-Inbound from ACC, Participation Fee Income-Outbound from ACC, Sponsorships, Ground Hiring Income from Pakistan Cricket Board, Development Grant from ACC), positioning us strongly to invest in cricket and ensure its future growth.”
Financial Health: 🟨 Modest 10-Year Financial Trend: Reserves balanced between $10-20 million since 2016, with minor dip in 2022.
COVID Recovery: ✅ Recovered. 4 out of 5 years in the green from 2020-24.
Can They Afford to Host Tests? ✅ Yes, but usually break-even or slight loss.
India Tour Dependency:Very high. India toured NZ in 2019/20 and 2022/23 (England also visited), both high profit years for NZC. Australia visited in 2024, which was also a profitable year.
ICC Income: 28.38 Million (48.45% of 2024 revenue)
Bottom Line: Well-run but tight margins. Financial health depends on India or ICC deals.
NZC Reserves (2016-2024)
2013:+ $ 7,077,531 NZD ($5.44 Million USD) @ $1.30 NZD per USD
2016:+ $32,628,000 NZD ($23.47 Million USD) @ $1.39 NZD per USD
2017:+ $26,043,000 NZD (19.29 Million USD) @ $1.35 NZD per USD
2018: + $17,879,000 NZD ($12.16 Million USD) @ $1.47 NZD per USD
2019: + $15,149,000 NZD ($10.10 Million USD) @ $1.50 NZD per USD
2020: + $19,829,000 NZD ($13.13 Million USD) @ $1.51 NZD per USD
2021: + $20,384,000 NZD ($14.26 Million USD) @ $1.43 NZD per USD
2022: + $13,653,000 NZD ($8.59 Million USD) @ $1.59 NZD per USD
2023: + $29,205,000 NZD ($18.03 Million USD) @ $1.62 NZD per USD
2024 Cash Flow: $33,881,000 NZD ($20.17 Million USD)
NZC Revenue and Expense
Balance as of 31 July, 2024
Year
Revenue (in $ NZD)
Operating Cost (in NZD)
Other Gains/Charges* (in NZD)
Total Comprehensive Income (in NZD)
2017
+$48,709,000
–$41,757,000
-$13,537,000
–$6,585,000
2018
+$55,442,000
–$42,231,000
-$21,375,000
–$8,164,000
2019*
+$59,400,000
-$60,700,000
+$0
–$1,300,000
2020
+$60,610,000
–$40,734,000
-$15,196,000
+$4,680,000
2021
+$62,518,000
–$43,509,000
–$18,454,000
+$555,000
2022
+$66,401,000
-$46,496,000
-$26,636,000
-$6,731,000
2023
+$97,064,000
-$63,067,000
-$18,445,000
+$15,552,000
2024
+$98,402,000 (+$58,572,619 USD)
-$64,136,000 (-$38,176,190 USD)
-$28,654,000 (-$17,055,952 USD)
$5,612,000 (+$3,340,476 USD)
*2019 Annual Report was not available, so the estimate is based on the 2017-18 and the 2020-21 reports (The -$60,700,000 includes both operating cost/other charges).
Quotes from Annual Report
“As our positive 2023-24 fiscal result shows, NZC is in a sound financial position, something of major importance to our Major Associations given our top-down funding model. Our long-term forecast warns of some head winds, and we have taken steps to ensure we will be best placed to navigate what is currently a volatile global cricket environment.”
“This is a plan that strives to safeguard the financial and commercial sustainability of NZC for the benefit of all, placing high amongst its priorities the need to invest and grow our commercial foothold in South Asia, to operate in an environmentally sustainable fashion, and to build strong partnerships with our broadcast partners at home and in India. The bottom line is that we all depend on each other to survive and flourish.”
“Revenue from broadcast, sponsorships, and ticketing all delivered year-on-year growth as new partnerships were formed, both domestically and offshore, including the marquee and offshore, including the marquee deal reached with Sony as our broadcast partner in the India sub-continent from 2024-2031.”
Financial Health: 🟨 Rebounding 6-Year Financial Trend: Recovered from –$18.9M (2017) to +$10.8M (2022)
COVID Recovery: ✅ Recovered.
Can They Afford to Host Tests? ✅ Yes. They are hosting 8 Tests this year, but need to be cautious. They have plenty in reserves, but cash flow tends to be low.
India Tour Dependency:Very high. India visited Zimbabwe for 3 ODIs in 2022, which corresponds to the largest revenue they had in the six-year period. Hosting ICC Qualifiers also gives them a boost.
ICC Income: $13.5 Million (85.29% of 2022 Revenue)
Bottom Line: Quiet financial rebuild. Still ICC-reliant, but out of crisis.
Financial Health: 🟨 Fragile 10-Year Financial Trend: Flat but steady. Modes surplus maintained since 2020.
COVID Recovery: ✅ Recovered, but hindered by sanctions.
Can They Afford to Host Tests? ❌ Not realistically, neutral venues inflate costs
India Tour Dependency:Moderate. While India doesn’t play Afghanistan often, it has played an indirect role in Afghanistan’s development with IPL contracts and home stadiums in Dehradun and Lucknow.
ICC Income: $4.75 Million (48% of revenue). This will rise to about $16.82 million in the 2024-27 cycle.
ACB Reserves (2017-2022)
Bottom Line: Surviving via ICC support. Lack of a home base continues to hurt.
2017:+1,902,994
2018: +$538,841
2019: +$1,550,462
2020: +$1,940,462
2021: +$2,180,462
2022: +$5,250,462
ACB Revenues and Expenses
Year
Revenues
Operating Cost
Total Comprehensive Income
2018
+$10,849,111
–$12,213,264
– $1,364,153
2019
+$13,121,708
–$12,110,087
+$1,011,621
2020
+$7,150,000
–$6,760,000
+$390,000
2021
+$6,170,000
–$6,410,000
+$240,000
2022
+$9,920,000
-$6,850,000
+$3,070,000
Additional Notes
ACB is investing heavily in developing domestic cricket stadiums, namely (1) Kabul International Cricket Stadium, (2) Logar Cricket Ground, (3) Najibullah Tarakai International Cricket Ground, (4) Paktika Cricket Ground, (5) Wardak Cricket Ground, and (6) Balk Cricket Ground. Budget for each ground ranges from $1-5 million.
Quotes from Annual Reports
“Hosting bilateral series and other tournaments is a significant challenge for Afghanistan…has had to host all of its ‘home’ games in neutral countries such as the United Arab Emirates, India, or Qatar. This has resulted in increased expenses for the ACB, as it has to host both the Afghanistan team and the visiting team at the same time, which incurred higher costs for logistical arrangements and accommodation of both teams.”
“The recent political changes in the country have made it more challenging to transfer money into Afghanistan due to imposed international sanctions. This has caused difficulties for the Afghanistan Cricket Board (ACB) as most of its income comes from ICC distributions, the payments made twice a year. However, the ACB’s leadership and finance team have been working closely with the ICC to find alternative ways to transfer funds into the country to support the organization overcome this issue in the long term.”
“During 2018, ACB hosted Zimbabwe and Bangladesh in February and June, respectively. The forecasted revenue for each series was forecasted at USD 400k.”
Financial Health: 🔴 Negative Reserves, but Expected to Rebound 10-Year Financial Trend: Cricket Australia slipped from $111.03 Million USD reserves in 2016 to a $234K deficit in 2024. Six of the last 10 years have resulted in losses. Massive profits from the 2015 World Cup year has been keeping them afloat.
COVID Recovery: ❌ Still incomplete.
Can They Afford to Host Tests? ✅ Yes, but high operating costs make financial planning critical.
India Tour Dependency:High. CA posted profits in 2019 and 2021 with record revenue numbers.
ICC Income: $37.53 Million (13.86% of 2024 annual revenue)
Bottom Line: CA currently has negative reserves, but cash on hand ($25.7 M AUD), access to $50 M in secured funding. The recently concluded BGT and upcoming Ashes in 2025-26 will put them in a position to bounce back over the next two years.
CA Reserves (2013-2024)
2013: +$8,147,220 AUD ($7.47 Million USD) – @ $1.09 AUD per USD
2014: +$26,676,000 AUD ($25.17 Million USD) – @ $1.06 AUD per USD
2015: +$114,168,000 AUD ($88.52 Million USD) – @ $1.29 AUD per USD
2016: +$149,895,000 AUD ($111.03 Million USD) – @ $1.35 AUD per USD
2017: +$98,600,000 AUD ($75.27 Million USD) – @ $1.31 AUD per USD
2018: +$87,841,000 AUD ($65.07 Million USD) – @ $1.35 AUD per USD
2019: +$97,743,000 AUD ($65.07 Million USD) – @ $1.43 AUD per USD
2020: +$54,588,000 AUD ($37.39 Million USD) – @ $1.46 AUD per USD
2021: +$59,450,000 AUD ($45.05 Million USD) – @ $1.32 AUD per USD
2022: +$48,795,000 AUD ($33.18 Million USD) – @ $1.47 AUD per USD
2023: +$31,901,000 AUD ($21.27 Million USD) – @ $1.50 AUD per USD
2024 Cash Flow: $25,621,000 AUD ($17.09 Million USD)
Cricket Australia might have low reserves, but their total assets total $96,589,000 AUD ($64.39 Million USD)
CA Revenues and Expenses
*Year ending 30 June, 2024
Year
Revenues(in AUD)
Operating Cost(in AUD)
Other Gains/Charges* (in AUD)
Total Comprehensive Income (in AUD)
2014
+$295,897,820
-$193,784,041
-$82,585,431
+$18,528,348
2015
+$380,875,000
-$227,259,000
-$66,124,000
+$87,492,000
2016
+$339,787,000
-$223,826,000
-$80,234,000
+$35,727,000
2017
+$313,005,000
-$251,582,000
-$112,718,000
–$51,295,000
2018*
+$399,265,000
–$272,077,000
-$137,947,000
–$10,759,000
2019
+$485,901,000
-$340,201,000
-$135,798,000
+$9,902,000
2020*
+$390,098,000
–$305,474,000
-$127,779,000
–$43,155,000
2021
+$405,350,000
-$302,350,000
–$98,138,000
+$4,862,000
2022
+$391,004,000
-283,439,000
-$118,220,000
–$10,655,000
2023
+$426,643,000
-$324,192,000
-$119,345,000
-$16,894,000
2024
+$406,245,000 (+$270,830,000 USD)
-$318,036,000 (-$212,024,000 USD)
-$120,473,000 (-$80,315,000 USD)
–$32,264,000 (-$21,509,000)
*’Member Funding’ and ‘Strategic Funding’ contribute to the other gains
Additional Notes:
Player salaries alone cost $121.4M AUD in 2024, underlining the board’s heavy expenditure base.
CA’s share of the 2015 World Cup host profit added $51M AUD to its earnings that year.
Quotes from Annual Reports
“The net result of operations for the year ended 30 June 2017, after distributions to State Associations of $112,242,699 (2016:$106,259,550) was a net loss of $50,802,002 (2016: surplus $9,701,628). The reduction in net result for the year ended 30 June 2017 was in line with Management and budgetary expectations and the Long Range Plan (LRP) four year planning cycle projections.”
“As we know, CA is currently at a low-point in its four-year cycle. Despite this, the first year of the new player agreement has resulted in a 7% uplift in player payments, and the extension of funding agreements with members included a 3.5% uplift this year. The net deficit for the current year, after funding to members, is $31.9M, a further $14.7M down to the previous year. Considering the content-driven $18.2M year-on-year revenue decrease, this result was anticipated and highlights the emphasis on managing costs and driving revenue through business transformation initiatives. CA depleted its reserves through the impacts of COVID, which in aggregate cost around $100m. Despite this, CA has cash and deposits of $25.7m, with a further $50m in funding available though a secured banking facility and is forecast to rebuild reserves through upcoming seasons hosting India and England.
Financial Health: 🔴 At-risk 7-Year Financial Trend: After modest reserves between 2019-2021, Cricket Ireland’s financial reserves have fallen to $3.15 million deficit in 2023. That year marked a critical transition point, with signs of stability ahead.
COVID Recovery: ❌ Not yet complete.
Can They Afford to Host Tests? ❌ Not currently. Their cash in hand has dropped from €1,336,4995 to €434,185 between 2022 and 2023. Hosting even a single Test would leave virtually no liquidity.
India Tour Dependency:High. Indias’s T20I visits (2 each in 2018 & 2022 and 3 T20Is in 2023) lead to noticeable revenue spikes, but also increased costs. Even an England tour could ease the pressure.
ICC Income: $4.75 Million in 2023 (40.36% of annual revenue). Under the 2024-27 ICC distribution model, Ireland is projected to earn $18.04 million offering a welcome financial cushion.
Bottom Line: Ireland remains heavily dependent on ICC funding, and current financial fragility limits its ability to invest ambitiously in the short term.
Cricket Ireland Reserves (2018-2023)
2017: +€216,817 (+199,472) – @ € 0.92 per USD
2018: +€13,470 (+$11,710.2) – @ € 0.87 per USD
2019: +€3,673 ($3,306) – @ € 0.90 per USD
2020: +€1,541,035 (+$1,263,648) – @ € 0.82 per USD
2021: +€310,166 (+$272,946) – @ € 0.88 per USD
2022: +€133,982 (+$125,943) – @ € 0.94 per USD
2023: -€3,464,422 (-$3,152,624) – @ € 0.91 per USD
2023 Cash In Bank and in Hand:€ 434,185
Cricket Ireland Revenues and Expenses
The financial end for Cricket Ireland year is 31 December.
Year
Income
Expenses
Total Retained Earnings
2018
+€9,708,177
– €9,911524
-€203,347
2019
+€10,624,514
–€10,634,311
-€9,797
2020
+€7,934,398
–€6,397,036
+€1,537,362
2021
+€9,739,048
–€10,969,917
-€1,230,869
2022
+€13,103,793
–€13,279,977
-€176,184
2023
+€10,211,129 (+$11,769,397)
-€13,809,533 (-$15,916,935)
-€3,598,404 (-$4,147,538)
*expenses include both direct and administrative expense and Income includes both ‘income’ and ‘other operating income.’
Quotes from Annual Report
“2023 was a challenging, but ultimately successful year – both on- and off-the-field…Covid was still a real and present threat when this Strategic Plan was developed and the uncertainty of the time saw an ambitious but measured document…However, as we enter a new phase in our development as a cricket nation, we will see an uplift in our ICC distribution over the period, and anticipate our allocation to be approximately US$70M, albeit weighted to the backend where around 40% of these funds will be paid in 2027….2023 will be a year to remember for many – and it will hopefully be seen in time as a seminal year for Irish cricket.”
I can understand why South Africa, Sri Lanka, and New Zealand did not host many Tests in recent years.
COVID-19 losses, funding issues, and player availability made things complicated. But now? These boards have rebuilt their reserves. ICC distributions are growing, and India tours bring massive broadcast revenue.
Countries like Ireland and Afghanistan still cannot afford to host a single Test. Australia, despite paying its players among the highest salaries in the game, hasn’t turned a profit in years. India sits at the economic center of world cricket, and it is doing its part.
The money now exists for countries outside the Big 3. The onus is now on every board to give Test cricket the calendar space it deserves.
****
Thank you all for reading. Please subscribe here and check out other financial and research articles below.
If you Enjoy Reading these Financial Cricket Articles, you may also like:
ESPNCricinfo’s Firdose Moonda recently wrote a fascinating article on how Zimbabwe are set to play 11 Tests this year—as many as Australia— despite not being a part of the World Test Championship. Even more surprisingly, they’re hosting eight of them!
The first thought that crossed my mind? “How in the world is Zimbabwe Cricket (ZC) going to afford hosting 8 Tests?”
So, I went looking for answers.
I dug through 268 pages across four annual reports detailing ZC’s finances from 2018/19 to the 2022/23 season, tracing every ounce of revenue, surplus, and ICC payout…so you don’t have to.
Key Takeaways
At the end of 2017, Zimbabwe Cricket was $18.9 million in debt. By 2022, they had cleaned up their finances and reported a surplus of almost $12 million.
ZC remains heavily reliant on direct ICC distributions, which made up 63.5% of their revenue in 2018, rising to 96.6% (2019), 95.9% (2020), before dropping slightly to 90.7% (2021), and 74.5% (2022). Encouragingly, in 2022, they also earned $2.65 million or 16.74% of their revenue from TV rights, diversifying their income streams.
In 2018, ZC spent $445,763 to host Sri Lanka (2 Tests). The Bangladesh series (1 Test, 3 ODIs, 3 T20Is) in 2021 cost them $993,540, and Pakistan’s visit (2 ODIs, 3 T20Is) added an additional $889,340. Hosting regular World Cup qualifiers also costs ZC around $2-3 million every 2 years, although this is typically offset by an equivalent revenue.
England agreeing to pay Zimbabwe a ‘touring fee’ is a step in the right direction. Between 2018-2022, Zimbabwe paid $100,000-$400,000 to participate in overseas tours regardless of the format.
Having played just 12 Tests from 2020-2024, Zimbabwe are scheduled to play 11 in 2025 – the joint-most of any team 😮 pic.twitter.com/uOJdG5x6KC
One paragraph in Moonda’s article particularly caught my eye,
“….and an ICC suspension for government interference in 2019….Since then, they have cleaned up their finances, in particular and made their annual ICC disbursement of US $13.5 million stretch to fund a five-team domestic system, which includes a first-class competition, the national sides, and to host Tests at $500,000 a pop. This bumper year, hosting Tests will cost them about $4 million.”
This lines up with what I found in my earlier piece, “How Much Does It Take to Host A Test?” where we estimated that hosting a single Test can cost anywhere from $350,000-$1.4 million to host a Test depending on factors like the version of DRS used, size of support staff, logistics, etc.
Understanding Test hosting expenses is only one part of the puzzle. To get the full picture, we need to look at Zimbabwe Cricket’s overall financial health — how much revenue they generate, what they spend on operations, and how they have managed to shift from a deep deficit to a growing surplus.
ZC’s Statement of Comprehensive Income Summarized
Let’s dive into Zimbabwe Cricket’s annual revenue, operating costs, and overall financial health.
We can see the step-by-step progress made by the board over the last five years.
At the end of 31 December 2017, ZC had a deficit or total surplus of $-18,900,427. Their surplus at the end of each subsequent year was as follows:
2017:-$18,900,427 (4 Tests)
2018:-$14,182,531 (2 Tests)
2019:+$3,307,548 (0 Tests)
2020:+$1,568,441, after prior period adjustment of -$533,342 (3 Tests)
2021:+1,293,742 (5 Tests)
2022:+$11,979,997 (0 Tests)
Year
Revenues
Operating Cost
Other Gains/Charges*
Total Comprehensive Incomes
2018
+$14,167,700
-$13,502,975
+$4,053,171
+$4,717,896
2019
+$11,905,334
-$7,174,817
+$12,759,562
+$17,490,079
2020
+$5,520,442
-$6,940,391
+$214,183
-$1,205,766
2021
+$9,318,149
-$9,651,008
+$58,160
-$274,699
2022
+$15,829,422
-$12,118,204
+$6,975,037
+$10,686,255
Operating Surplus per year (Revenues – Operating Cost):
2018: +$664,725
2019: +$4,730,517
2020: -$1,419,949
2021: -$332,859
2022:+$3,711,218
*Note: This section is a net sum of (i) ‘Gain realised on conversion of local liabilities’ and (ii) ‘Finance charges’, (iii) share of profit of investments in subsidiaries accounted for using the equity method, and (iv) revaluation surplus on land and buildings.
We have used the 2022 Annual Report for both 2021 and 2022 years since there was $297,939 period correction from 2021, where inventory was erroneously marked as an operating expense.
Now, let’s take a look at how much revenue Zimbabwe receives from the ICC?
Under the previous ICC distribution model (2016-2023), Zimbabwe was allocated $94 million over seven years, which breaks down to roughly $13.42 million per year on average.
Under the new 2024-27 model, Zimbabwe are set to receive about $17.64 million a year.
Here are the contributions from the last four annual reports. The pandemic years definitely seemed to have an impact on the contribution in 2029.
Year
ICC Contribution
Trades & Receivables from ICC
Total from ICC
2018
$9,000,000
$2,969,358 (ICC Loan)
$11,969,358
2019
$11,500,000
$2,062,079
$13,562,079
2020
$5,292,791
$769,292
$6,062,083
2021
$8,459,915
$3,296
$8,463,211
2022
$11,788, 243
$3,239,324
$15,027,567
Note: In addition to ICC loan in 2018, ZCB also took upon Metbank loan and ZAMCO bank loan which totaled their borrowings to $14.4 million.
Operating Costs on Cricket Expenses
Alongside revenue, we also examined how much of Zimbabwe Cricket’s operating costs go toward organizing and administering cricket.
ZC’s investment in the sport has increased post the pandemic-induced break and signals a renewed commitment in growing the sport.
International Cricket Expenses
Year
International Cricket
Domestic Cricket
Central Administration
2018
-$4,840,396
-$1,457,251
-$1,846,502
2019
-$1,074,007
-$1,110,107
-$630,643
2020
–$1,218,449
-$1,332,304
-$434,704
2021
-$3,624,531
-$1,621,988
-$703,003
2022
-$4,604,893
-$3,115,367
-$947,410
Apart from these three areas, human resources and depreciation & impairment make the rest of their total operating costs.
The year-by-year and series-by-series breakdowns are provided below.
— Broken Cricket Dreams Cricket Blog (@cricket_broken) May 20, 2025
Other Interesting Findings
In 2018, ZCB received $571,949 for hosting the WC Qualifiers, $2.5 million for hosting other events, and $694,013 in sponsorship.
The cost of repairs and maintenance of ground equipment over the 5-year period was as follows: $120,739 (2018), $22,397 (2019), $110,413 (2021), $476,287 (2022).
$100,000 was the cost for the kit for their national team in 2018.
Total Sports Marketing in 2021 was $28,045.
In 2021, ZCB’s cricket income was made up of ICC distributions, World Cup Qualifier ($367,190), TV Rights ($435,381), and sponsorship/other income ($55,663).
In 2022, the new National Premier League (NPL) and Zim Afro T10 cost about $254,181.Women and age group tournaments investments also increased from $34,434 in 2021 to $217,073 in 2022.
Since the ICC suspension, Zimbabwe Cricket has been proactive in getting its financial act together. Even though COVID-19 was disastrous for the rest of their operations, during this period, they paid off their old debt, invested in women’s cricket and grassroot cricket, and inaugurated domestic tournaments like the National Premier League (NPL) and Zimbabwe Afro T10.
Here are some quotes from Tavenga Mukuhlani, ZC’s chairman and Givemore Makoni, the managing director in the annual reports over the 4-year period.
2019/20 Annual Report
With the ICC having frozen funding to ZC, our facilities were in disarray, with grass overgrown and the wickets needing a lot of work (Makoni).
“Having ended as badly as it started, the period under review has without any doubt been Zimbabwe Cricket (ZC)’s annus horribilis...At the close of the just-ended financial year, we had whittled the US$27-million legacy debt down to US$1 million, in the process breaking the chains that had enslaved our organisation to an unending cycle of financial troubles (Mukuhlani).
“With our revenues constrained, we seriously considered laying off staff and cutting salaries as so to future-proof the organisation….So, our only alternative was to live within our budget, which is almost entirely funded through distributions from the ICC” (Makoni).
“There was a time we genuinely feared the 2021/22 season was going to be a total disaster….The global pandemic had a huge impact on every element of the men’s and women’s game, putting huge pressure on our finances, as tours and matches were either cancelled or postponed and revenue streams destroyed….From a business perspective, we came up with the Zimbabwe Cricket Strategic Plan 2021-2026, which outlines the strategic visions and goals that we have identified to help the organisation realise its full potential and better [fulfill] its mission (Mukuhlani).
“From a business perspective, this was the first season in which we could begin to put the financial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic behind us, and we did with another clean audit outcome” (Mukuhlani).
“This Annual Report spans what has been one of my most challenging times as Zimbabwe Cricket (ZC) Chairman….Over the past five years, we have made significant strides in women’s cricket, including, for the first time in the history of the game in Zimbabwe, giving national contracts to women players and offering allowances to non-contracted women players” (Makoni).
One day you open up the news, and what do you see?
Zimbabwe will be playing 11 Tests in a single year. They are touring England for the first time in 22 years. A Curran brother has chosen to represent them, Sean Williams & Sikandar Raza are still going, Blessing Muzarabani leads the world in Test wickets this year, and even Brendon Taylor is in talks of making a comeback after serving his ICC ban.
So…did this happen overnight?
Well, it did not. Remember, Rome was not built in a day.
Since the 2019 ICC suspension, COVID-19 crisis, and failing to qualify for World Cups, Zimbabwe Cricket quietly got to work. They focused on cleaning up their finances, restructuring debt, and restoring stability in domestic cricket.
Now, with a bit of surplus in hand and increased ICC funding coming soon, they can finally dream a little bigger.
One Test at a time.
****
Thank you all for reading. Please subscribe here and check out other financial and research articles below.
If you Enjoy Reading these Financial Cricket Articles, you may also like:
Growing up in the 2000s, it felt like Australia won EVERYTHING in cricket—World Cups, Champions Trophies, the Ashes, Commonwealth, women’s, men’s, U-19—you name it.
Likewise, the USA, China, Russia, Great Britain, Australia, and France dominate the Summer Olympics. Every. Single. Time.
Why do these countries keep winning? And why doesn’t Djibouti rack up more medals? (For the record, Djibouti won a solitary bronze in 1988 Men’s Marathon).
The easy answers? These developed nations have better facilities, grassroots programs, and a robust ‘sporting culture’. But can we quantify this?
By applying Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs to the economies of the 12 Test-playing cricket nations, 9 FIFA World Cup powerhouses, and six summer Olympic titans, I will create an economic hierarchy for international sports and uncover what it takes for a nation to consistently dominate the global stage. Here are the main questions I’m tackling today:
What is the minimum GDP per capita threshold required for a nation to achieve its first global sporting glory?
How rich must a country win to dominate one team sport?
At what economical threshold does a country go from a one-sport nation to a “sporting culture” like Australia, Russia, China, or the United States?
Let’s begin.
Key Takeaways
To secure its first major team sporting achievement or an Olympic medal, a nation must meet a minimum GDP per capita of $75-$250. Pakistan won an Olympic gold in field hockey in 1960, when their GDP per capita was just $82. Brazil’s GDP per capita was $235.6 in 1960 when they rose in football, India was at $296 in 1983, Sri Lanka – $776.2 (1996), and Afghanistan was at $560.6 when they qualified for the 2010 T20 World Cup.
To become a dominant ‘one-sport’ nation, the GDP per capita must rise to a minimum of $1000-$2500.
West Germany’s GDP increased from $1162.7 in 1960 to $5659.7 in 1974, by which team they had won two World Cups. When Argentina won again in 1986, they had amassed $3436.1 GDP per capita. Brazil reached $3298 by 1994.
Jamaica’s GDP per capita rose from $1632 in 1988 (two Olympic medals) to $5029.8 in 2008 (11 medals).
India’s GDP per capita rose from $544.1 in 2003 to $1021.9 in 2007 before they were able to launch the IPL.
When a nation reaches a minimum of $15,000 GDP per capita, a Global Hunger Index (GHI) < 5, and a poverty rate of less than 2%, they are able to rise to an Olympic and multi-team sport supergiant. China’s current GDP per capita is $13,870. They reduced their GHI from 13.4 in 2000 to <5 by 2016. Australia’s GDP per capita almost double from about $20,000 to $40,000 between 1999-2007, and currently have a GDP per capita of $67,980.
American psychologist, Abraham Maslow, proposed a model that distributed human behavior into five distinct levels:
Physiological Needs: Essentials like food, water, and shelter.
Safety: Security, financial stability, and health.
Love & Belonging: Relationships, intimacy, and connections.
Esteem: Self-respect, status, and recognition.
Self-Actualization: The pursuit of reaching one’s full potential.
The first two represent an individual’s ‘basic needs’, the next two are the ‘psychological needs,’ and the final level focuses on ‘self-fulfillment needs.’
My Theory on the Economics of Sports Dominance
The First Stage: Individual Triumphs
In a nation-state’s early stages, sporting success begins with individual pioneers who overcome socioeconomic hardships and limited infrastructure to achieve greatness. The only prerequisite is that the individual’s physiological needs are met during their physical growth. Think Milkha Singh’s story, rising against odds in post-Partition independent India to reach 4th in the 1960 Rome Olympics in the 400 meters.
The Second Stage: One-Sport Nations
As the nation progresses economically, it has the potential to become ‘one-sport’ nation based on cultural influences and accessible sports (for example, cricket in the British colonies, soccer globally). These teams often include athletes from both affluent and underprivileged backgrounds. Families meet Maslow’s safety needs, which enables the next generation to pursue sports. Think Pele’s Brazil in the 1960s or Sunil Gavaskar/Kapil Dev’s 1983 Indian cricket team).
The Third Stage: Middle Class Expands
Sustained economic growth strengthens the middle class, allowing nations to dominate in one sport and venture into others. By this stage, nations fulfill belonging and esteem needs, earning global respect among the sporting fraternity. Think China at the turn of the 21st century or India in the late 2000s.
The IPL in 2008 would not have been possible without India’s economic liberalization in 1991. Not only did the depth of Indian cricket increase drastically, the pool of business class citizens also increased—individuals who could afford to bet on the idea of the IPL.
This middle class and business growth also allowed India to form leagues like field hockey & Kabaddi and start winning individual Olympic medals in wrestling, badminton, gymnastics, shooting, etc.
The Fourth Stage: Cross-Sport Dominance
This can be a tricky transition phase for several nations due to population or limited resources. Dominating across multiple sports requires major investments across different sports, political will, and hosting global events. Before self-actualization, this can lead to a ‘Sleeping Giant’ phase. This is also the stage where nations typically begin excelling in women’s sports, as increased infrastructure and societal progress open doors for female athletes to thrive.
The All-Blacks from New Zealand may dominate rugby, the Kiwis and White Ferns are always competitive in cricket, and they win 10-20 Olympic medals every cycle, but with a population of 5 million, how much farther can they go?
The Fifth Stage: Self-Actualization
Decades of stability produce generations of affluent citizens, near-zero poverty, and world-class infrastructure. Athletes have the resources and environment to reach their full potential. Think the USA, USSR at the height of the cold war, China currently, Great Britain, Japan, and Australia.
Exceptions to the Rule
These conditions are the bare minimum necessary to be competitive. The reverse is not necessarily true. Economic stability does not guarantee sporting success.
For example, the men’s USA team still struggles to reach the Round of 16 after 40 years of investment, hosting the 1994 FIFA World Cup, and the MLS.
Adequate GDP per capita and strong sports culture does not guarantee success either. Mexico has a GDP per capita of ~ $13,360 and a bustling soccer scene. South Africa has a GDP per capita of $6,500 and a thriving cricket culture. Neither have won World Cups in these sports.
How much wealth it takes to win international sports.
Economic Trends of Various Sporting Teams (1960-Present)
We look at economies of the top countries who have played cricket, soccer, and achieved Olympic greatness.
Note: These countries also overlap with countries who tend to dominate field hockey, basketball, and ice hockey (except Finland). Baseball dominated countries (Cuba, Puerta Rico, Venezuela) golf & Winter Olympics (less accessible, high-end sports) are out of scope for this study.
Which Socioeconomic metrics do we look at and how were they collected?
We consider the following current socioeconomic stats:
GDP (Gross Domestic Product), population,GDP per capita, and if applicable, percentage of population under poverty, and Global Hunger Index (GHI).
GDP per capita can be skewed if there is high income inequality in the country. Hence, we also look at poverty rates and GHI to gauge a better picture of the population set.
Higher GDP and GDP per capita indicate stronger relative economy. Lower poverty rates and GHI levels reflect improved societal well-being.
Poverty rates are presented according to (1) World Bank’s 2017 data, where the extreme poverty line was defined as $2.15/day. Another poverty line, population under poverty (national) is presented if a nation’s self-defined poverty line is above the World Bank rate.
We source the current statistics from the IMF (International Monetary Fund) and the historical GDP per capita levels from the World Bank. The data is available from after 1960, when the World Bank started collecting this data. This coincides with the post-World War II era, when several nations became independent. World Cups were also beginning to take shape during this time.
Other Notes:
If GHI is not mentioned, that means the country is not analyzed by GHI (These are mostly first world countries that do not have hunger issues)
We combine results for Great Britain (Olympics), United Kingdom (GDP data), and England (1966 FIFA World Cup win, multiple cricket World Cup wins) under the same section.
I’ll use soccer instead of football for the rest of the article.
The sporting achievements listed are not an exhaustive list – just significant achievements spaced out to see trends in GDP.
All the sources we looked at are linked at the bottom of the article for your kind perusal.
Top 12 Richest Test Playing Cricketing Countries by GDP Per Capita
We begin by the 12 Test playing nations, ordered by 2025 GDP per capita.
For some countries, we also look at the GDP per capita at different points in their sporting history.
1. Ireland ($107,240)
Multi-sport nation
What was Ireland’s GDP per capita range at their first major sporting event?$2,516.9 (1974 Five Nations Rugby Union Championship, their first in the modern era, 10th since 1910). Their GDP per capita increased to $61,396.4 by the time they upset Pakistan in the 2007 ODI World Cup.
Ireland’s Current Socioeconomic Stats
GDP: $587.23 Billion
Population: 5.48 Million
GDP Per Capita: $107,240
Population Under Poverty (World Bank): 0.06% (2021)
Population Under Poverty (National): 14% (2021)
2024 Paris Olympic (Total Medals): 7
Most Popular Sports in Ireland: Gaelic Football, Rugby, golf, soccer, cricket
2. Australia ($67,980)
Global Sports Superpower
What was Australia’s GDP per capita at their first major sporting event?$8,252.7 (1978 Women’s ODI Cricket World Cup win)
Australia’s Current Socioeconomic Stats
GDP: $1.88 Trillion
Population: 27.67 Million
GDP Per Capita: $67,980
Population Under Poverty: 0.5% (2018)
2024 Paris Olympic (Total Medals): 53
Most Popular Sports in Australia: Australia Rules Football (AFL), Cricket, Rugby, Soccer, Tennis, Swimming
GDP Per Capita At a Glance
Year
GDP Per Capita
Significance
1963
$1967.2
Netball World Cup Win
1973
$4770.8
Women’s Cricket World Cup (CWC) Final
1975
$7003.8
Men’s CWC Final
1978
$8258.7
Women’s CWC Win
1987
$11651.3
Men’s CWC Win
1999
$20712.7
Men’s CWC Win
2007
$41051.6
3rd Consecutive Men’s ODI WC Win
2014
$62544.1
Women’s T20 WC Win
2023
$64820.9
Men’s CWC Win
3. United Kingdom ($54,280)
Global Sports Superpower
What was England’s GDP per capita at their first major sporting event?$1,987.6 (1966 FIFA World Cup)
UK’s Current Socioeconomic Stats
GDP: $3.73 Trillion
Population: 68.72 Million
GDP Per Capita: $54,280
Population Under Poverty: 0.2% (2021)
Great Britain 2024 Paris Olympic (Total Medals): 65
Most Popular Sports in the UK: Soccer, Cricket, Rugby, Tennis, Golf
GDP Per Capita At a Glance
Year
GDP Per Capita
Significance
1966
$1987.6
FIFA World Cup Win
1973
$3426.3
Women’s CWC Win
1979
$7804.8
Men’s CWC Final
1987
$13118.6
Men’s CWC Final
1992
$20487.2
Men’s CWC Final
2010
$39599
Men’s T20 WC Win
2019
$42662.5
Men’s ODI WC Win
4. New Zealand ($48,230)
Multi-sport nation
What was New Zealand’s GDP per capita at their first major sporting event? $12,330.9 (1987 Rugby World Cup)
NZ’s Current Socioeconomic Stats
GDP: $262.92 Billion
Population: 5.45 Million
GDP Per Capita: $48,230
Population Under Poverty:
2024 Paris Olympic (Total Medals): 20
Most Popular Sports in NZ: Rugby, Cricket, Netball, Soccer, Basketball
People tend to ask how New Zealand always ‘punches’ above their weights and make it to cricket World Cup semi-finals despite a population of 5.45 million?
Because they have the fourth highest GDP per capita and have most of the population above the poverty/GHI line, so individuals can focus on other worldly needs like sports.
GDP Per Capita At a Glance
Year
GDP Per Capita
Significance
1967
$2208.4
Netball WC Win
1987
$12330.9
RugbyWC Win
2000
$13641.1
Women’s CWC Win
2021
$49624.2
World Test Championship Win
5. West Indies ($19,823)
Multi-sport nation
West Indies teams from the 1975-1983 ODI World Cups, 2004 Champions Trophy, and 2012 & 2016 T20 World Cups included players from Guyana, Barbados, Jamaica, Trinidad & Tobago, and Saint Lucia
What was West Indies nations’ GDP per capita at their first major sporting event? (1975 World Cup)
What was Sri Lanka’s GDP per capita at their first major sporting event? $776.2 (Won the 1996 ODI World Cup)
SL’s Current Socioeconomic Stats
GDP: $74.59 Billion
Population: 22.4 Million
GDP Per Capita: $3,330
Population Under Poverty (World Bank): 0.96% (2019)
Population Under Poverty (National): 14.30% (2019)
Global Hunger Index: 11.3 (2024), 21.7 (2000)
2024 Paris Olympic (Total Medals): 0
Most Popular Sports in South Africa: Cricket, Volleyball, Athletics
GDP Per Capita At a Glance
Year
GDP Per Capita
Significance
1975
$279.8
Invited to CWC
1979
$230.8
Qualified for CWC
1996
$776.2
Won CWC
2007
$1578.6
ODI WC Runners-up
2014
$3971.9
T20 WC Win
8. India ($2,940)
One-Sport Dominant Nation, In-Transit to Become Multi-Sport Nation
What was Afghanistan’s GDP per capita at their first major sporting event?$296 (1983 ODI Cricket World Cup win)
India’s Current Socioeconomic Stats
GDP: $4.27 Trillion
Population: 1.45 Billion
GDP Per Capita: $2,940
Population Under Poverty (World Bank): 12.92 % (2021)
Global Hunger Index: 27.3 (2024), 38.4 (2000)
2024 Paris Olympic (Total Medals): 6
Most Popular Sports in India: Cricket, Field Hockey, Badminton, Kabaddi, Wrestling
GDP Per Capita At a Glance
Year
GDP Per Capita
Significance
1975
$161.1
Field Hockey WC Win
1983
$296
CWC Win
2003
$544.1
CWC Runners-Up
2007
$1021.9
T20 WC Win
2011
$1445.5
ODI WC Win
2024
$2700
T20 WC Win
(current USD $)
1983: $296
2003: $544.1
2007: $1021.9
2011: $1445.5
2013: $1432.8
2023: $2480.8
9. Bangladesh ($2,770)
One-Sport Dominant Nation
What was Bangladesh’s GDP per capita at their first major sporting event? $397.3 (Won the 1997 ICC Trophy and qualified for the 1999 ODI Cricket World Cup)
Bangladesh’s Current Socioeconomic Stats
GDP: $481.86 Billion
Population: 173.74 Million
GDP Per Capita: $2,770
Population Under Poverty (World Bank): 5.01% (2022)
Population Under Poverty (National): 18.7% (2022)
Global Hunger Index: 19.4 (2024), 33.8 (2000)
2024 Paris Olympic (Total Medals): 0
Most Popular Sports in Bangladesh: Cricket, Soccer, Kabaddi, Badminton
GDP Per Capita At a Glance
Year
GDP Per Capita
Significance
1997
$379.3
ICC Trophy Win
1999
$388
Qualified for CWC
2015
$1224.4
ODI WC Quarterfinals
10. Zimbabwe ($2,130)
One-Sport Dominant Nation
What was Zimbabwe’s GDP per capita at their first major sporting event? $716.8 (1975 Cricket World Cup – Had Kapil Dev not scored that 175*, we may be playing the ZPL)
Zimbabwe’s Current Socioeconomic Stats
GDP: $36.93 Billion
Population: 17.36 Million
GDP Per Capita: $2,130
Population Under Poverty (World Bank): 39.75% (2019)
Population Under Poverty (National): 38.30% (2019)
Global Hunger Index: 27.6 (2024), 35.3 (2000)
2024 Paris Olympic (Total Medals): 0
Most Popular Sports in Zimbabwe: Cricket, Soccer, Rugby, Athletics
GDP Per Capita At a Glance
Year
GDP Per Capita
Significance
1982
$1095.3
ICC Trophy Win, Qualified for 1983 WC
1995
$648
Hosted All-Africa Games
1999
$582
Best WC Show, 5 Wins
11. Pakistan ($1,590)
One-Sport Dominant Nation
What was Pakistan’s GDP per capita at their first major sporting event? $395.7 (1992 ODI Cricket World Cup Win)
Pakistan’s Current Socioeconomic Stats
GDP: $374.6 Billion
Population: 240.54 Million
GDP Per Capita: $1,590
Population Under Poverty (World Bank): 4.93% (2018)
Population Under Poverty (National): 21.9% (2018)
Global Hunger Index: 27.9 (2024), 36.6 (2000)
2024 Paris Olympic (Total Medals): 1
Most Popular Sports in Pakistan: Cricket, Field Hockey, Squash, Badminton
GDP Per Capita At a Glance
Year
GDP Per Capita
Significance
1960
$82
Field Hockey Olympic Gold
1979
$249.2
First CWC Semi-Finals
1992
$395.7
WC Win
1999
$418.2
WC Runners-Up
2009
$963.8
T20 WC Win
2017
$1519.2
Champions Trophy Win
2022
$1538.3
T20 WC Runners-up
12. Afghanistan ($410.93)
One-Sport Dominant Nation
What was Afghanistan’s GDP per capita at their first major sporting event?$560.6 (2010 – ICC Intercontinental Cup, ICC World T20 Qualifier Winners, qualify for 2010 T20 World Cup)
Afghanistan Current Socioeconomic Stats
GDP: $17.33 billion
Population: 42.17 Million
GDP Per Capita: $410.93
Population Under Poverty (World Bank): 34.9% (2023)
Population Under Poverty (National): 54.9% (2023)
Global Hunger Index: 30.8 (2024), 49.6 (2000)
2024 Paris Olympic (Total Medals): 0
Afghanistan’s Most Popular Sports: Cricket, Buzkashi
Since 1960, only the following countries have won the FIFA World Cup: Brazil, England, (West) Germany, Argentina, Italy, France, and Spain (Uruguay, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia are not considered here).
We will also explore Croatia, Portugal, and the Netherlands, who have been competitive.
1. Netherlands ($70,610)
Multi-Sport Nation
What was Netherland’s GDP per capita at their first major sporting event? $6,454.5 (1974 Finalists)
Current Socioeconomic Stats
GDP: $1.27 Billion
Population: 18.03 Million
GDP Per Capita: $70,610
Population Under Poverty (WB): 0.07% (2021)
Population Under Poverty (National): 14.5% (2021)
2024 Paris Olympic (Total Medals): 34
Most Popular Sports in Netherlands: Soccer, Cycling, Field Hockey
GDP Per Capita At a Glance
Year
GDP Per Capita
Significance
1974
$6450.5
FIFA World Cup (WC) Runners-up
1978
$11195.8
WC Runners-Up
2010
$51305.7
WC Runners-Up
2014
$53457.2
3rd Place
2. Germany ($57,910)
Global Sports Superpower
What was Germany’s GDP per capita at their first major sporting event? $1,162.1 (1960 – West Germany won the 1954 FIFA WC), $5,659.7 (1974)
Current Socioeconomic Stats
GDP: 4.92 Trillion
Population: 84.98 Million
GDP Per Capita: $57,910
Population Under Poverty (World Bank): 0.24% (2020)
Population Under Poverty (National): 16% (2020)
2024 Paris Olympic (Total Medals): 33
Most Popular Sports in Germany: Soccer, Tennis, Basketball, Handball
GDP Per Capita At a Glance
Year
GDP Per Capita
Significance
1966
$1870.8
FIFA WC Runners-Up
1974
$5659.7
WC Winners
1990
$22385.7
WC Winners
2003
$30711.1
Women’s FIFA WC Win
2008
$46386.3
Men’s Field Hockey Gold
2014
$48971.1
WC Winners
3. France ($49,530)
Global Sports Superpower
What was France’s GDP per capita at their first major sporting event? $9,311.9 (1984 Euro)
Current Socioeconomic Stats
GDP: $3.28 Trillion
Population: 66.3 Million
GDP Per Capita: $49,530
Population Under Poverty (World Bank): 0.06% (2021)
Population Under Poverty (National): 15.60% (2021)
2024 Paris Olympic (Total Medals): 64
Most Popular Sports in France: Soccer, Tennis, Rugby, Handball, Basketball
GDP Per Capita At a Glance
Year
GDP Per Capita
Significance
1986
$13430.5
FIFA WC 3rd Place
1995
$26791.8
Men’s Handball WC Win
1998
$24869.4
FIFA WC Win
2006
$36431.6
WC Runners-Up
2018
$41418.2
WC Winners
4. Italy ($41,710)
Multi-sports Nation
What was Italy’s GDP per capita at their first major sporting event? $1,718.5 (1968 UEFA Euro)
Current Socioeconomic Stats
GDP: $2.46 Trillion
Population: 58.96 Million
GDP Per Capita: $41,710
Population Under Poverty (World Bank): 0.81% (2021)
Population Under Poverty (National): 20.10% (2021)
2024 Paris Olympic (Total Medals): 40
Most Popular Sports in Italy: Soccer, Cycling, Tennis, Basketball, Volleyball, Formula 1
GDP Per Capita At a Glance
Year
GDP Per Capita
Significance
1970
$2111.7
FIFA WC Runners-up
1982
$7573.9
WC Win
1994
$19382.2
WC Runners-Up
2006
$33684.7
WC Win
2020
$32091.5
Euro Winners
5. Spain ($37,360)
Multi-sports Nation
What was Spain’s GDP per capita at their first major sporting event? $695 (1984 Euro)
Current Socioeconomic Stats
GDP: 1.83 Trillion
Population: 48.92 Million
GDP Per Capita: $37,360
Population Under Poverty (WB): 0.56%
Population Under Poverty (National): 20.4%
2024 Paris Olympic (Total Medals): 18
Most Popular Sports in Spain: Soccer, Basketball, Tennis, Cycling, Water Sports
GDP Per Capita At a Glance
Year
GDP Per Capita
Significance
1964
$695
Euro Win
1982
$5156
Hosted the FIFA WC
2005
$26451
Men’s Handball WC Win
2008
$35603.2
Euro Win
2010
$30658.7
WC Win
6. Portugal ($30,950)
One-Sport Dominant Nation
What was Portugal’s GDP per capita at their first major sporting event? $18,064.2 (2004 Euro Finalists)
Current Socioeconomic Stats
GDP: $319.93
Population: 10.34 Million
GDP Per Capita: $30,950
Population Under Poverty (WB): 0.23% (2021)
Population Under Poverty (National): 16.40% (2021)
2024 Paris Olympic (Total Medals): 4
Most Popular Sports in Portugal: Soccer, Futsal, Cycling
GDP Per Capita At a Glance
Year
GDP Per Capita
Significance
1966
$601.3
FIFA WC 3rd Place
2000
$11526.4
Futsal WC 3rd Place
2006
$19839.5
WC 4th Place
2016
$19980.3
Euro Win
7. Croatia ($25,080)
One-Sport Dominant Nation
What was Croatia’s GDP per capita at their first major sporting event? $5,712.6 (1998 FIFA WC Semi-Finals)
Current Socioeconomic Stats
GDP: $96.03 Billion
Population: 3.83 Million
GDP Per Capita: $25,080
Population Under Poverty (WB): 0.31% (2021)
Population Under Poverty (National): 18% (2021)
Global Hunger Index: < 5 (2024), 5.5 (2000)
2024 Paris Olympic (Total Medals): 7
Most Popular Sports in Croatia: Soccer, Basketball, Handball, Water Polo
Year
GDP Per Capita
Significance
1998
$5712.6
FIFA WC 3rd Place
2018
$15460.4
WC Runners-Up
2022
$18466.1
WC 3rd Place
8. Argentina ($12,050)
One-Sport Dominant Nation
What was Argentina’s GDP per capita at their first major sporting event? $3282.1
Current Socioeconomic Stats
GDP: $574.2 Billion
Population: 47.64 Million
GDP Per Capita: $12,050
Population Under Poverty (World Bank): 0.61% (2022)
Population Under Poverty (National): 39.20% (2022)
Global Hunger Index: 6.6 (2024), 6.6 (2000)
2024 Paris Olympic (Total Medals): 3
Most Popular Sports in Argentina: Soccer, Polo, Field Hockey
GDP Per Capita At a Glance
Year
GDP Per Capita
Significance
1978
$3282.1
FIFA WC Win
1986
$3436.1
WC Win
2014
$12233.1
WC Runners-Up
2022
$13935.7
WC Win
9. Brazil ($10,820)
One-Sport Dominant Nation. In-Transit to Become a Multi-Sports Nation
What was Brazil’s GDP per capita at their first major sporting event? $235.3 (1958 & 1962 FIFA World Cups)
Current Socioeconomic Stats
GDP: $2.31 Trillion
Population: 213.32 Million
GDP Per Capita: $10,820
Population Under Poverty: 3.5% (2022)
Global Hunger Index: 6.6 (2024), 11.7 (2020)
2024 Paris Olympic (Total Medals): 20
Most Popular Sports in Brazil: Soccer, Volleyball, Basketball, Martial Arts, Futsal
The combined Summer/Winter Olympics tally leaderboard are as follows: United States (3095 medals), Soviet Union (1204), Great Britain (1014), France (961), Germany (960), China (804), Italy (799), Sweden (690), Australia (619), Japan (618), Canada (578), Norway (576), Russia (542), Hungary (540), etc. These countries also happen to be the most developed countries.
On the other end of the spectrum, the following countries only have 1 Olympic medal: Guyana, Iraq, Senegal, Barbados, Paraguay, Sudan, Virgin Islands, Netherlands Antilles, Gabon, Togo, Burkina Faso, Mauritius, Samoa, Tonga, Djibouti, Cape Verde, Dominica, Turkmenistan, Eritrea, Montenegro. You get the point.
Burkina Faso would send its first Olympian in the 1972 Munich Olympics, when its GDP per capita was $99.6. In 1988, they sent 6 athletes ($301.1). When Djibouti won its bronze in 1988, it had a GDP per capita of $878.9.
1. USA ($89,680)
Global Sports Superpower
Current Socioeconomic Stats
GDP: $30.3 Trillion
Population: $338.29 Milllion
GDP Per Capita: $89,680
Population Under Poverty: 1.25% (2022)
2024 Paris Olympic (Total Medals): 126
Most Popular Sports in USA: American Football, Basketball, Baseball, Ice Hockey, Golf, Track and Fields, Tennis, Soccer
GDP Per Capita At a Glance
Year
GDP Per Capita
Significance
1960
$2999.9
71 Olympic Medals
1984
$17121.2
174 Medals
1991
$24342.3
Women’s WC Win
2002
$37997.7
Men’s WC Reaches its first Quarter Finals
2019
$65604.7
Women’s 4th WC Win
2. China ($13,870)
Global Sports Superpower
Current Socioeconomic Stats
GDP: $19.53 Trillion
Population: 1.41 Billion
GDP Per Capita: $13,870
Population Under Poverty: 0% (2021)
Global Hunger Index: < 5 (2024), 13.4 (2000)
China’s Global Hunger Index Trends
Year
GHI
Olympic Medals
2000
13.4
58
2008
7.2
100
2016
< 5
70
2024
< 5
91
2024 Paris Olympic (Total Medals): 91
Most Popular Sports in China: Table Tennis, Badminton, Swimming, Martial Arts, Basketball
GDP Per Capita At a Glance
Year
GDP Per Capita
Significance
1984
$250.7
32 Olympic Medals
2000
$959.4
58 Medals
2008
$3468.3
100 Medals, Hosted Olympics
2022
$10408.7
15 Medals at Winter Olympics (China’s Best Show)
3. Japan ($35,610)
Global Sports Superpower
Current Socioeconomic Stats
GDP: $4.39 Trillion
Population: 123.26 Million
GDP Per Capita: $35,610
Population Under Poverty: 0.73% (2013)
2024 Paris Olympic (Total Medals): 45
Most Popular Sports in Japan: Baseball, Sumo Wrestling, Soccer, Martial Arts
GDP Per Capita At a Glance
Year
GDP Per Capita
Significance
1960
$508.7
18 Medals
1982
$9780
Baseball World Cup Runners-up
2006
$35991.5
World Baseball Classic Win
2011
$48760.1
Women’s WC Win
2020
$40040.8
58 Medals, Hosted Olympics
4. Republic of Korea ($37,670)
Global Sports Superpower
*South Korea
Current Socioeconomic Stats
GDP: $1.95 Trillion
Population: 51.68 Million
GDP Per Capita: $37,670
Population Under Poverty: 0% (2021)
2024 Paris Olympic (Total Medals): 32
Most Popular Sports in South Korea: Soccer, Baseball, Archery, Golf, Taekwondo
GDP Per Capita At a Glance
Year
GDP Per Capita
Significance
1982
$1992.5
Baseball World Cup Win
1988
$4748.6
Hosted Olympics, 33 Medals
2002
$13165.1
FIFA WC 4th Place
2005
$19402.5
Baseball WC Runners-up
5. Canada ($55,890)
Global Sports Superpower
Current Socioeconomic Stats
GDP: $2.33 Trillion
Population: 41.7 Million
GDP Per Capita: $55,890
Population Under Poverty: 0.25% (2019)
2024 Paris Olympic (Total Medals): 27
Most Popular Sports in Canada: Ice Hockey, Lacrosse, Soccer, Basketball, Baseball, Athletics
GDP Per Capita At a Glance
Year
GDP Per Capita
Significance
1976
$8838.9
Hosted Summer Olympics, 11 Medals
1984
$13930.5
44 Medals, Canada’s Best Show
2002
$24256
Ice Hockey Olympic Gold
2010
$47560.7
Hosted Winter Olympic Medal, 26 Medals
2015
$43594.2
Hosted Women’s FIFA WC
6. Russia/USSR ($15,080)
Global Sports Superpower
Current Socioeconomic Stats
GDP: $2.2 Trillion
Population: 145.63 Million
GDP Per Capita: $15,080
Population Under Poverty (WB): 0.18% (2021)
Population Under Poverty (National): 12.10% (2010)
2020 Tokyo Olympic as ROC (Total Medals): 71
Most Popular Sports in Russia: Soccer, Ice Hockey, Gymnastics, Figure Skating
GDP Per Capita At a Glance
Year
GDP Per Capita
Significance
1990 (USSR)
~$9200
USSR Dissolves
1996 (Russia)
$2643.9
Russia Re-enters the Olympics, 89 Medals
2016
$8663.2
56 Medals
Final Thoughts and Future Work
In the future, it would be interesting to analyze countries that dominate less accessible sports like golf or sports in the Winter Olympics. Also nations like Sweden, Norway, Belgium, Uruguay, Czech Republic, Hungary, and Mexico were out of scope for this study, but would be interesting to look at in the future.
Another way to go is to look at the understood how America’s economy is able to support multiple flourishing sports league (NFL, College Football, College Basketball (Men’s/Women’s), NBA, MLS, etc.)
Also, why aren’t Ireland better at cricket? I was surprised to see that they are financially a lot more stable than other nations. The next step would be to look at social policies and government investments to study how countries can start winning consistently at an international stage after they have satisfied the bare minimum economic conditions.
In any case, thank you all for reading. Appreciate y’all! Comment below on what you think!
And please, share, subscribe to our social media channels (X, Facebook) and other platforms (Substack, Medium)
Four years ago I was really excited when the idea of the World Test Championship came out. I mean, it was partially a reason for me to start this blog.
However, with the recent overseas wins of NZ in India, SA in Bangladesh, and Bangladesh in Pakistan—that hope has rekindled.
Therefore, this is a good time for us to revisit the WTC alternative points table algorithm my friend and I had created four years ago to create a more balanced system. For this WTC cycle, I analyzed each of the 51 Test matches and 578 completed sessions one-by-one so you don’t have to.
Before we start, he is a quick refresher on how our alternative points table worked.
Our WTC points table algorithm (1) distributes points on a session-by-session basis rather than an all-or-nothing system for a Test match, (2) includes Home/Away points for both wins & draws, and (3) includes a bonus to reward massive victories (Test match net run rate equivalent).
Points are calculated as follows:
2 points per session won, 1 point per session Tied
There are 15 maximum sessions in a Test (3 sessions per day), so 30 points maximum per Test for the session-by-session category
The details of the algorithm used to decide who won each session is outlined in the original article and is left as an exercise to the reader.
Bonus: 2 * (Number of Sessions Remaining)
Example: If the Test finishes at the end of Day 4, the winning team would get 6 bonus points – (2 * (3 sessions remaining))
Home/Away
Away wins and away draws would be awarded more points.
16 – Home Win, 8 – Home Draw
24 – Away Win, 12 – Away Draw
The maximum points a team could earn per Test is outlined below (Example: 24 – away win points + 30 session points = 54 total if the team won all the sessions).
Points
Win
Draw
Loss
Maximum Points Possible (Per Match)
Home
16
8
0
46
Away
24
12
0
54
Average*
20
10
0
50
Home & Away Points
Finally, since each team plays a different number of matches, we will take a percentage determined by (total points earned)/(maximum points possible*).
The maximum points possible will be determined by (number of matches played * 50), where we choose 50 because it is the average between 46 & 54 and would hence, weight away wins & draws more.
I coded this algorithm in R & Python and double checked the calculations by hand for the session-by-session analysis.
🇦🇺 BEAT 🏴 by 2 wickets, Birmingham 🇦🇺 BEAT 🏴 by 43 runs, Lord’s 🇮🇳 BEAT 🌴 by inn & 141 runs, Roseau 🇵🇰 BEAT 🇱🇰 by 4 wickets, Galle 🇵🇰 BEAT 🇱🇰 by inn & 222 runs, SSC 🇳🇿 BEAT 🇧🇩 by 4 wickets, Mirpur 🇮🇳 BEAT 🇿🇦 by 7 wickets, Cape Town 🌴 BEAT 🇦🇺 by 8 runs, Brisbane 🏴 BEAT 🇮🇳… pic.twitter.com/b55YlIHHzZ
— Broken Cricket Dreams Cricket Blog (@cricket_broken) November 10, 2024
Key Takeaways
45% (23/51) WTC matches in this cycle so far have been won by away teams.
England (79) & India (76) won the most sessions so far, while Australia (47) have tied the most sessions. West Indies (24) & Bangladesh (29) have had the least session wins in this cycle of the WTC so far
We have had a spectacular run of dramatic overseas victories. Each team has had at least one overseas win:
South Africa 1-0 in West Indies & 2-0 in Bangladesh
Australia won 2 Tests each in England & New Zealand
Bangladesh won in Pakistan 2-0
Pakistan won 2-0 in Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka won 2-0 in Bangladesh and a Test in England
England won one Test each in India & Pakistan
The India vs South Africa Test at Cape Town was the shortest Test ever, lasting only 5 sessions.
South Africa won all 9 out of 9 sessions in the recent 2nd Test vs Bangladesh and received the maximum possible 54 points for the Test in our points system.
WTC 2023-2025 Alternative Points Table – Results
Here is our alternative WTC 2023-25 points table at a glance.
Team
Total Points
AverageMax Points Possible*
BCD Percentage
Actual WTC Percentage
Australia
379
600
63.17%
62.50%
India
410
700
58.60%
58.33%
South Africa
233
400
58.25%
54.17%
Sri Lanka
239
450
53.11%
55.56%
New Zealand
277
550
50.36%
54.55%
England
411
950
43.26%
40.79%
Pakistan
206
500
41.2%
33.33%
Bangladesh
162
500
32.4%
27.50%
West Indies
122
450
27.11%
18.52%
*Note: We have added the same over-rate deductions as the current WTC table does (19 for England, 10 – Australia, 8 – Pakistan, 3 – Bangladesh 2 – India)
Observations
Our points table heavily rewards South Africa, who have dominated 3 overseas Tests (1 vs WI, 2 vs Bangladesh).
Sri Lanka are close by with 3 overseas Tests wins as well (2 vs Bangladesh, 1 vs England) but they lost points to Pakistan at home. Similarly, NZ had a good show vs Bangladesh & India away, but lost convincingly 0-2 against Australia (home) & Sri Lanka (away)
The interesting point our points table highlights is showcasing how close a Test match or Test series was. For example, the 2-2 Ashes translates into 132-118 in favor of Australia (due to overseas wins and draw).
In addition, no two Test series are alike.
The Pakistan-Bangladesh 2-Test series (where Pakistan batted well initially and even declared) resulted in 84-24 points in favor of Bangladesh. This series was closer than the SA-Ban series (101-7 in favor of SA), where SA completely decimated Bangladesh.
Appendix: WTC 2023-25 Match By Match Break Down
If you want to look at the particular series or team, here is a table of content organized by home team for easier access:
