The ICC Associate Member Scorecard is a complex, internal performance tool ranking member nations on off-field metrics (participation, infrastructure, non-ICC income, etc.) to determine their share of ICC funding, with criteria like participation (70%) and governance (20%) driving rankings from top (e.g., $510k) to bottom (e.g., $12.5k) funding groups. It’s different from player/team scorecards (runs, wickets) found on Cricinfo, focusing on development and operations, not match results.
What the Scorecard Measures (Off-Field Performance)
The ICC Scorecard evaluates Associate Members (AMs) across various categories to distribute funds:
Participation (70% weighting): How much cricket is played (men’s, women’s, youth). Measures the depth and reach of cricket within the country, including Coach and umpire pathways, Registered players and teams, Domestic competitions (men, women, youth) and Schools and grassroots programs.
Infrastructure, Officials & Staff (20%): Quality of facilities, trained officials, and administrative staff.
Non-ICC Income (10%): Revenue generated outside of ICC funding. Looks at how boards reduce reliance on ICC funding through Revenue diversification strategies, Sponsorship and partnerships, Broadcast and digital engagement and Event hosting capability.
How It Works
Data Collection: ICC collects data through annual censuses and reports.
Ranking: AMs are ranked based on their scores across these weighted criteria.
Funding Pools: Funds are split into competitive pools based on these rankings.
Funding Tiers: Countries fall into funding tiers, from top earners (Group A) to smaller allocations (Group N).
The current ICC revenue model (2024-27) heavily favors Full Members, with Associates sharing about 11.2% (approx. $67 million annually) of the pool, while the BCCI alone gets 38.5%.
One thought on “The ICC tool that decides how much ICC funding each Associate Member gets”
Doesn’t it anyhow reflect how far men’s or women’s national teams reach in ICC events including pathways?
Comments are closed.