Is BCCI truly struggling to sell the Title Sponsorship Rights for home international matches? Here’s the situation.

On 20th July 2026, the BCCI released its ITT (Invitation to Tender) for the title sponsorship rights. The proposed asset will cover 35 international matches on Indian soil, including 10 Tests, 12 ODIs and 13 T20Is. The fixtures are subject to confirmation from the board. The last date to purchase the tender document was 4th August, and 5th August was the deadline to ask for clarifications.

GroupM, ITW, and Sporty Solutions have confirmed the purchase of the tender documents. 13th August was the deadline for submitting the bids. A Cricbuzz report suggests that either the BCCI received no bids or the bids received didn’t meet their expectations.

The board is now involved in private negotiations with potential brands to meet its expectations. The brands in this conversation are Google Gemini, Spinny, and SBI Life.

The asset in question is the most premium property available in World Cricket in terms of reach and brand exposure, which makes this matter more alarming. So, is the BCCI really finding it difficult to sign a title sponsor? One thing is for sure: it is not what it looks like from the outside and is more complex than you can imagine.

Reasons for BCCI’s trouble

The causes due to which the BCCI have not yet confirmed a deal are as follows:

1. Category exclusions: Businesses that operate directly or indirectly in sectors like betting, gambling, cryptocurrency, virtual digital assets, online gaming, fantasy sports gaming, tobacco, and alcohol are barred from entry. Other companies in sectors such as sportswear, tyres, paint, and waterproofing products have also been excluded to protect existing partners. This narrows the scope for securing high-bidding sponsors. MRF, CEAT, Berger Paints, JSW Paints, Nike, Puma, and Decathlon were identified as examples of brands unable to bid under the current rules.
2. The Pricing method: BCCI set the base price at ₹4.85 crore per chargeable match, as per sources. This is where contradictions can arise among brands and BCCI officials; Team India is often considered “the premium property”, which is half the truth in today’s world. With so much cricket being played, every match doesn’t carry the same intensity and following. A single per-match reserve price assumes broadly comparable brand value across the calendar. Buyers may prefer pricing that reflects opponent, format, timing, venue, expected viewership, and the availability of digital inventory. A prime-time T20 against a leading opponent and a weekday ODI can’t be valued the same.
3. High expectations due to IPL: When an event like the Indian Premier League, with a concentrated season, high frequency, a younger audience, team affiliations, local activations, digital content, and a large advertising marketplace, is always around the corner, the price may be competing with the IPL, not just other cricket. To be honest, for a brand with a finite budget, a bilateral title sponsorship can look less flexible, even when India’s national team has greater cultural relevance.
4. Uncertainty in match scheduling: The declaration made by the BCCI about the no. of matches for the two-year title deal is not fixed and is subject to the final schedule determined by the BCCI in its sole and absolute discretion,” the BCCI said in its ITT. Brands on this part can be hesitant without confirmations on the number of home matches; format mix; marquee-match share; whether the calendar collides with IPL or ICC events; broadcast and streaming distribution; audience size and advertising clutter.
5. The true meaning of reach: A large audience doesn’t always signify incremental reach; the process of defining reach is now evolving, and marketers are now demanding a more unified view of the exposure they will be receiving. The concerns for modern-day marketers are more complicated than ever before; they want to know: how many additional people they will reach through this deal, and how much overlap there is between various platforms like CTV, digital platforms, TV, etc.; who is reached through TV and other platforms; and how often the high-quality audience is being reached. Nielsen | BARC ONE Ads was introduced to measure unified reach and avoid counting the same audience twice, but it still lacks industry-wide adoption.
6. The discontinuance of the previous deal and the price hike: The last deal with IDFC First Bank has not been renewed, which sends a signal to the market that the deal may not have been profitable to the sponsor, and recently JioHotstar, the industry giant, has also claimed that it that the they will lose c25,760 crore in 2024-25 (FY25). The price hike from the previous deal can be something that may have backfired; the last sponsors paid ₹4.2 crore per match, and according to Cricbuzz, the BCCI has set the price at approximately ₹ 4.85 crore per match approx, a 15.5% increase.

What can be the repercussions?

These events can be the very first sign that bilateral cricket has started to hit a ceiling, but the marquee matches still have strong relevance from an advertiser’s point of view. Another matter of fact is that, as the board has approached brands for private discussions, it may have to share some negotiating power of negotiation, which is something we have already seen in the past when the government imposed the RMG ban, banning all forms of RMG, including fantasy sports, rummy, and poker.

BCCI has not failed to sell the game; instead, it is struggling to sell cricket at a legacy valuation in a market that now demands cross-platform accountability. The audience for cricket is still huge; the problem remains that an advertiser’s needs are evolving, and BCCI has to keep up with that to exploit the unparalleled viewership it possesses, which does not seem to be happening at the moment.