Zimbabwe had South Africa in trouble at 55/4 when debutant Lhuan-dre Pretorious inside-edged to the keeper. The fielding side went up. The umpire and Pretorious stayed still.
No Snicko. No review.
Pretorius didn’t walk and went on to score a brilliant 153, lifting South Africa to 418/9.
One moment reversed the trajectory of this match. So, why wasn’t there DRS in this series?
It reminds me of absolute sportsmanship displayed by Zimbabwean legend Sean Williams at a very critical juncture of the game against Afghanistan.
Should Lhuan-dre Pretorius have walked after clearly having edged the ball?
Let’s discuss.. pic.twitter.com/vzY439jQ7i
— ~ U D I T (@Merovaeous) June 28, 2025
Why Isn’t There Decision Review System (DRS) in the South Africa-Zimbabwe Match?
Money. Simple.
DRS isn’t cheap. At the low end, a barebones setup with just four cameras costs $12,000-$15,000 per day. A full-scale system? $60,000-$100,000.
(For a complete breakdown of the cost of technology, read: Economics of Technology in Cricket).
Zimbabwe has made an impressive financial comeback, turning their $19 million deficit into stability. As a result, they now have the funds to host 8 Tests, a major win for a small cricketing nation.
But 8 Tests mean up to 40 days of cricket. Even at the minimum rate, implementing DRS for that many days would cost them at least $480,000, and potentially well into the millions.
So, the trade-off is clear: Zimbabwe can either afford to hosts more Tests or implement DRS, but not both.
For those wondering about DRS costs due to the ongoing #SAvZim match,
DRS costs about $60,000-$100,000 a day
For a 2-Test (5 day) series, the costs will rise an extra $600,000 to $2 million
can either play more Tests or have DRS, but not bothhttps://t.co/I59KQS0wHq
— Broken Cricket Dreams Cricket Blog (@cricket_broken) June 28, 2025
As many have suggested on social media, the more interesting question is: Can the ICC subsidize the cost of DRS around the world?
Taking a Look at ICC’s Financials
Key Takeaways
- According to their 2024 Financial Report, the ICC recorded $474 million surplus in 2024, a slight drop from $596 million in 2023.
- ODI World Cup years remain the most profitable for ICC, but revenues from T20 World Cups are closing the gap. Notably, 2018 was the only non-pandemic year where ICC recorded a loss ($46 million), incidentally the last time there was no men’s ICC event.
- The Bottom Line: Funding DRS across all Test matches would cost the ICC less than 5.1% of the their annual operating costs and about 2.3% of their reserve balance.
ICC Revenues, Costs, Total Surplus
| Revenues from ICC Events | Costs from ICC Events | Other Revenues/Costs* | Total Comprehensive Income | |
| 2024 | +$728,474,000 | -$231,674,000 | -$22,762,000 | +$474,038,000 |
| 2023 | +$839,147,000 | -$246,489,000 | +$3,356,000 | +$596,014,000 |
| 2022 | +$412,862,000 | -$168,000,000 | -$36,487,000 | +$208,375,000 |
| 2021 | +$432,146,000 | -$96,510,000 | -$10,029,000 | +$325,607,000 |
| 2020 | +$34,771,000 | -$34,387,000 | -$18,800,000 | -$18,416,000 |
| 2019 | +$602,908,000 | -$184,565,000 | -$25,683,000 | +$392,660,000 |
| 2018 | +$34,337,000 | -$49,501,000 | -$31,238,000 | -$46,402,000 |
*Other revenues/cost include interest and investment income, general and administrative expenses, foreign exchange, net gain on financial assets, strategic investments, etc.
In 2017, the ICC restructured its financial model for the 2015-23 period, eliminating the $10-million contribution towards the Test fund. Instead, they agreed to redistribute ICC’s surplus back to the boards after every few years (practically, a bonus). This change actually proved lucrative to the Full Members:
- Adjustment of dividend against advance to Members:
- 2019: -$300,000,000
- 2023: -$1,418,522,000
“In 2023, these advances have been offset against the surplus distributed to Members with the first tranche of such distribution (i.e. dividends) amounting to USD 300 million declared during the year 2020 and the second/final tranche amount of USD 1,418.5 declared during the year 2023, both with the approval of the Board of Directors.”
ICC Reserves Fund Over Time:
- 2018: +$351,175,000
- 2019: +$304,773,000
- 2020: +$697,433,000
- 2021: +$379,017,000
- 2022: +$704,624,000
- 2023: +$912,999,000
- 2024: +$90,491,000
- 2025: +$564,529,000
Sources: ICC Annual Reports
Looking Ahead
“The success of our media rights and commercial programme for our next four-year cycle means we are able to invest more money than ever before into our sport…This is by far the largest level of investment ever to go into cricket. It’s a once-in-a-generation opportunity for our Members to accelerate growth and engage more plays and fans and drive competitiveness.”
-Greg Barclay, ICC Chairman
Also Read: How Much Money Does it take the ICC to Host a Cricket World Cup? (Case Study)
The Math: What Would it Actually Cost to Fund DRS Globally
There are 71 Test matches scheduled in the current World Test Championship (WTC) cycle.
Suppose, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, and Ireland, who are not part of the WTC, play 32 Tests in the next two years. (They are already playing 17 this year, Zimbabwe – 11, Afghanistan – 3, Ireland – 3).
That brings the total to roughly 103 Test matches, or a maximum of 515 days of Test cricket. Recall that DRS costs vary widely based on the setup:
- Barebones system: $12,000-$15,000/day
- Full-feature DRS: $60,000-$100,000/day
Suppose the ICC negotiates through partnerships, media rights, and pays upfront for the DRS, bringing the costs down to $50,000 per day for a full-functioning system.
At this conservative average,
- $50,000/day x 515 days = $25.75 million
- Spread over 2 years for the WTC cycle, that’s ~$12.88 million per year
That’s a fraction of ICC’s annual expenses and even less if we consider when you consider the finds available in the reserve pool (And if we really think about it, that’s about the amounts Rishabh Pant ($3.21 million), Shreyas Iyer ($3.18), Venkatesh Iyear ($2.83), Arshdeep Singh ($2.14), and Yuzvendra Chahal ($2.14 million) were paid this year in the IPL. So the money exists in the cricketing world, but the redistribution is the issue).
One alternative approach could be to decouple Snicko and Hawkeye from the DRS package. Snicko alone can cost as little as $3,500/day, while Hawkeye is the most expensive part of the DRS package.
Another idea is for the Big 3 to fund their own DRS (since they have deals with media companies) and for ICC to subsidize DRS outside the Big 3.
Should the ICC Bear the Cost of DRS?
Can the ICC bear the Cost of DRS? Yes.
But should they? That’s less straightforward.
If the ICC uses reserve funds to cover DRS, it may come at the cost of other priorities: Associate cricket development programs, women’s cricket, and grassroots infrastructure. $12-15 million is not a small amount.
Even if those areas are not directly impacted, protecting the surplus might push the ICC further down its current trajectory: expanding media rights, but at the cost of a competitive balance.
The trade-offs?
- India-Pakistan forced together in group stages again
- ODI World Cup limited to 10-14 teams
- Champions Trophy kept alive with little purpose beyond revenue
- Back-to-back T20 World Cups, reducing space in the cricket calendar
So yes, the ICC can pay for the DRS, but doing so means reconsidering what they value the most: commercial growth of the game or its fairness.
What would you choose? Risk losing hundreds of thousands of dollars for one inside edge decision or let a single moment swing the course of a match?
****
Thank you all for reading. Please subscribe here and check out other financial and research articles below.
If you Enjoy Reading these Financial Cricket Articles, you may also like:
#BCD396 © Copyright @Nitesh Mathur and Broken Cricket Dreams, LLC 2023. Originally published on 06/28/2025. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear
