The argument that “BCCI reinvests all revenue in cricket” does not withstand scrutiny as a justification for blanket income tax exemption. India’s middle class — salaried professionals, teachers, small business owners — pay income tax at rates of 20 to 30 per cent. A young engineer earning ₹12 lakh a year pays tax. A cricket board earning ₹20,000 crore does not. This asymmetry is not merely inequitable; it is indefensible, writes former IAS officer V.S.Pandey
When the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) filed its accounts for the financial year 2023-24, one number stood out with shocking clarity: income tax paid — ₹0. Not a single rupee. This, from an organisation that earned a staggering ₹20,686 crore that year, making it by far the richest cricket board among 108 national bodies worldwide. For the 19 editions of the Indian Premier League (IPL) that have unfolded since 2008, the BCCI has accumulated wealth that rivals sovereign wealth funds — all while sheltering behind a legal status last justified when it had barely enough money to pay for touring teams.
The question that India’s policymakers have long avoided but can no longer ignore is this: should a body that runs the world’s most commercially explosive cricket league be allowed to classify itself as a charitable trust and pay not a rupee of income tax?
The BCCI is registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, and claims tax exemption under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act as a “charitable organisation” whose stated purpose is to promote and develop cricket in India. When the board was founded in 1928 and even through the decades that followed, this designation had genuine merit. Cricket was a non-commercial endeavour; tours ran at a loss, and state boards were held together by volunteers.
Then came April 2008, and with it the IPL — a franchise-based Twenty20 league that transformed cricket from a sport into an industry. Today, the IPL’s media rights for 2023-27 alone are valued at ₹48,390 crore, sold to Disney Star and Viacom18. The BCCI retains approximately 50 per cent of central media rights, plus portions of sponsorships — including a ₹2,500 crore deal with Tata Group — and ticketing revenues. The IPL alone contributes 59 per cent of the BCCI’s total annual revenue. A single season runs for barely two months and earns more than most countries’ sports ministries spend in a decade.
The financial trajectory of the BCCI over the IPL era is staggering. In the early years, the IPL contributed modest surpluses. By 2012-13, BCCI posted a net profit of ₹350 crore with gross revenue of ₹950 crore. By 2021-22, annual revenue had touched $919 million (approximately ₹7,700 crore), leaving a surplus of $549 million for that single year. Between 2017-18 and 2021-22, BCCI earned ₹27,000 crore in total with a surplus of approximately ₹12,500 crore across five years.
Then came the media rights windfall. IPL 2023 revenues surged 78 per cent year-on-year to ₹11,769 crore, with a surplus of ₹5,120 crore — a 116 per cent increase from 2022. By FY2023-24, total BCCI revenue reached ₹20,686 crore. Looking ahead, BCCI projects income of ₹8,963 crore in 2025-26 from IPL alone, with a surplus of ₹6,728 crore expected for that single season. Since 2019, BCCI has added ₹14,627 crore to its cash reserves, which now stand at ₹20,686 crore — after distributing dues to all state associations. Its general fund has nearly doubled from ₹3,906 crore in 2019 to ₹7,988 crore in 2024.
On all of this accumulated wealth, income tax paid: nil.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) reaffirmed the BCCI’s tax-exempt status in 2021, ruling that commercial success does not alter an organisation’s primary charitable purpose. The Income Tax Department had attempted in 2016-17 to revoke the exemption for IPL income, correctly identifying the league as a profit-driven commercial activity. The ITAT overturned that move, accepting BCCI’s argument that all revenues are reinvested in cricket promotion.
However, critics have pointedly asked whether “promoting cricket” in the form of a franchise league where billionaire owners pay crores for teams, players earn ₹20 crore per season, and media giants spend ₹48,000 crore for broadcast rights can genuinely be described as charitable activity.
The BCCI does pay GST — approximately ₹2,038 crore in the two financial years 2022-23 and 2023-24. Players also pay income tax: Indian players at their applicable slab rate, and foreign players at a flat 20 per cent under Section 115BBA. But the board itself, the entity that negotiates, retains, and accumulates the billions — pays nothing.
Compare this to how other sporting bodies around the world are treated by their tax authorities. The contrast is instructive.
The National Football League (NFL) in the United States had long enjoyed a limited tax exemption for its league office under a non-profit classification — but came under such intense public and congressional pressure that it voluntarily surrendered its tax-exempt status in 2015. Major League Baseball gave up its exemption even earlier, in 2007. The NBA was never tax-exempt. Individual NFL, NBA, and MLB teams are all fully taxable corporate entities. The NFL’s national TV deals generate $9.5 billion annually and every dollar earned by teams flows through standard corporate tax channels.
The England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB), operating in the UK, pays taxes on its commercial earnings despite being a non-profit body. The ECB earns around £310 million (approximately ₹3,300 crore) annually — a fraction of the BCCI’s earnings — yet commercial income is taxable under UK law. Premier League football clubs in England are required to pay PAYE, National Insurance contributions, VAT, and corporation tax, with HMRC actively scrutinising compliance.
Cricket Australia operates as a company limited by guarantee and is subject to Australian corporate tax law on commercial activities.
The BCCI’s status is, therefore, genuinely exceptional — not just in cricket, but in global sport.
The argument that “BCCI reinvests all revenue in cricket” does not withstand scrutiny as a justification for blanket income tax exemption. India’s middle class — salaried professionals, teachers, small business owners — pay income tax at rates of 20 to 30 per cent. A young engineer earning ₹12 lakh a year pays tax. A cricket board earning ₹20,000 crore does not. This asymmetry is not merely inequitable; it is indefensible.
A workable reform would involve separating the BCCI’s genuinely developmental activities — grassroots cricket, state association support, women’s cricket promotion, infrastructure — from its commercial operations, primarily the IPL. The IPL is not charity.
The Income Tax Department was right in 2016-17 when it challenged the exemption. Parliament should now legislate the matter clearly, rather than leaving it to tribunals to repeatedly re-litigate.
The question is “Can a developing country like India afford to make IPL profits tax-free?” India builds roads, schools, and defence systems on taxpayer funds. It cannot continue to exempt, on grounds of charity, a league whose media rights alone are worth more than the GDP of several small nations.
The BCCI’s charitable status made sense when it was genuinely charitable. Nineteen IPL editions and ₹20,000 crore in reserves later, that case has long since closed.
(Vijay Shankar Pandey is former Secretary government of India)
