It was as predictable as it was depressing. The ICC revenue split for 2024-27 will see India take US$231 million of the total $600 million per year. The associates combined will recieve $67.16 million. That figure hides a lot - the smallest associates will receive around $23,000 each year - less than the BCCI will receive each hour of this cycle.

There is apparantly a formula that has decided how much each team gets. But one suspects that the formula was worked out after the result was decided - like a hack mathmetician working out the formula for a perfect cup of tea for a nonsense PR campaign.

The crux of the BCCI's argument for getting this share remains unchanged from the earlier Big Three reforms - they contribute the most to the ICC's income and therefore should receive the biggest share. This is certainly the position of many people responding to criticisms of the funding distribution.

Twitter can be a cesspit at the best of times so it shouldn't come as a surprise that even the mildest criticisms of the BCCI's share attracted abuse, allegations of racism, of having a colonial mindset (an accusation as bone-headed as it is offensive to the victims of the horrors of colonialism), of wanting to loot the BCCI, etc.

There were those who made the assumption that anyone English complaining about it was demanding a bigger share for the ECB, apparantly unable to comprehend that someone might not be as myopically parochial as they are. There were those who said that BCCI doing this is fine because of how badly the BCCI were treated when England and Australia ran world cricket, apparantly having never been taught as children that two wrongs don't make a right.

There were those who felt that this was actually the BCCI being incredibly generous. They contributed 70-95% of the income (nobody was consistent, a sure sign of people making things up) but were only taking 39%. How magnanimous of them.

But - and here's the main problem with these arguments - the BCCI didn't contribute a single penny to this. The bulk of the ICC's revenue comes from the money Star Sports pays for the Indian broadcast rights to ICC events. This isn't a redistribution of the BCCI's wealth but a distribution of the money the ICC receive for broadcasting their events. Nobody is taking money out of the BCCI's coffers. Given that Star Sports is ultimately owned by Disney, you'd be hard pressed to make the argument that this is even taking money out of India.

Some of the more coherent arguments talk of poor facilities in India, even in the major stadiums. But this is reason to question how the BCCI are spending their money, not reason to take money that could be used to make the overall health of the game stronger. Because the money Star Sports are paying for these rights isn't to watch India play with themselves - if the rest of the cricketing world falls behind, the value of these rights will decline.

Make no mistake, international cricket is facing an existential crisis with the ever expanding T20 franchise circuit. IPL franchises are already talking about signing players to year long contracts that will require them to ask permission from the franchise to play international cricket - something that is already de facto the case for associate players.

The BCCI aren't solely responsible for this - to suggest so is just as idiotic as those who make out that the BCCI is being generous. The other full members have made themselves so reliant on the huge Indian market that, like a junkie just wanting another fix, they can't say no to the BCCI's demands.

They have failed to adjust to the new reality where international cricket has lost it's USP (being the place to see the best players from other countries) to the franchise circuit. The World Test Championship and ODI Super League were noble efforts but the former is something of a farce with its unbalanced schedule (partially due to the big three taking such a large share of ICC revenue) and the latter was essentially stillborn.

If there is to be any growth in international cricket, it can only come from the associate members. That some of them will get annual funding less than the UK average salary is scandalous. Do these countries need to do more to generate their own revenue? Absolutely. But it is hard to do so when you don't have enough money to have a decent international programme.

In the end international cricket is only as strong as its weakest part. And by this measure, it's very weak indeed. It's not dead yet - but it may be signing its own death warrant.