The BCCI had categorically stated in the run-up to the IPL media rights auction that “transparency” should remain key at all times. The word remained etched in every single step the cricket board took ahead of the IPL media rights sale.
“It doesn’t matter if the value of the rights (sold) is slightly lesser. But doing it in a transparent manner will remain the cricket board’s priority,” a top BCCI official had maintained ahead of the IPL auction.
Those watching the developments say “it’ll be a step forward, two steps back” if the board opts for a closed bid now.
For those wondering why there’s so much chatter around BCCI deciding between a closed bid and an e-auction, the answers lie in the timing of the tender process.
Global media reports say: a) one broadcaster (read: Disney) is busy re-evaluating future business strategies in India; b) two broadcasters (read: Zee and Sony) are busy smoothing out a complicated and already-delayed merger process; c) That, technically, leaves only one potential bidder (read: Viacom18) with any bit of clarity in how it wants to pursue things.
In such a scenario, BCCI believes ‘an e-auction will dent the price-discovery process and not help derive top value’.
Why? Because the e-auction, outside of obviously being a transparent process, is also an ‘open-bidding process’ where every participating bidder can see the value of rights going up with each single bid and decide to stop when budgets get overly stretched.
With Disney reportedly re-evaluating its business spends in the India market and Zee-Sony combine still closing the ‘merger’, BCCI is unsure if an e-auction will hold water.
In contrast, a closed bid – submitted in a sealed envelope – carries the element of surprise.
In fact, BCCI not being sure about whether to go for an e-auction or a closed bid is one big reason why the entire rights sale process kept getting delayed.
Can’t the process be delayed until the market stabilises?
The tender process cannot be delayed because there are bilateral engagements (like India hosting Australia for a white-ball series, for instance) in September – ahead of the 50-over World Cup – and there’s no home broadcaster in place.
But why can’t BCCI just sell the rights for the one-off home series separately for now and then bring out the tender for the next four-year cycle when the market stabilises?
Some believe if BCCI can sell just this one series separately, they don’t have to rush with a full-fledged tender right now, and ‘buy’ themselves a few more months, at least until the market gets better.
India and Australia are scheduled to engage in a white-ball series in September, post which there’s no other cricket in India until 2024, when India return from South Africa.
However, industry feedback that the cricket board sought reveals that no broadcaster will come forward to bid for a ‘one-off series’ because such a move will be akin to a ‘show of hand’ where per-match rights value is concerned.
“Why will any broadcaster reveal what pricing they have in mind? It’ll affect their overall bid strategy and in turn, the BCCI will suffer the consequences,” say those watching developments.
Can’t BCCI allow Disney to continue for another month?
By virtue of being the rights holders for the last five years, can the BCCI allow Disney the first rights of refusal and ask them to ‘continue’ as broadcasters for the India-Australia series?
No. There are other bidders in the fray who want to partner with BCCI over the next four-year cycle and will object to anything that doesn’t involve a fair tender process.