Vivo to Exit IPL as Sponsor?: BCCI to Take Call as Anti-China Sentiment Grows in the Country

Must Read

Implications in Travel Insurance in Light of the COVID-19 Crisis

As the world, today is crippled by this once in a century pandemic and as of date more than...

Second-Round Effects of Rent Control Laws: The Argentine Case

Introduction In colonial India, a city had an issue with its cobra population, which was a problem clearly in need...

Why Are the Big Techs of Silicon Valley Accused of Anti-Competitive Behaviours?

The big tech giants of the Silicon Valley are facing major challenges with relation to their monopolistic powers after...

KSK announces Sanjay Kumar as a Partner for Pharma & Life Sciences Practice

New Partner for KSK's Pharma & Life Sciences Practice King Stubb & Kasiva recently announced that Mr Sanjay Kumar has...

The Debate Between IPR and Competition Law Explained

There are various market processes or structures that govern market scenario. For simplicity, this paper focuses on two mechanisms:...

The Competition Law Regime and Re-Tooling Patent Pools In India

The adversity to acquire licenses of various patented technologies can thwart the commercialization as well as the development of...

Follow us

The Indian Premier League (IPL 2020) season this year seems to be jinxed. It is already struggling as it is ‘indefinitely suspended’ due to the pandemic. At present, they have another issue at hand. The Indo-Chinese border clash at Galwan valley recently has aggravated the issue. Anti-China sentiments are growing high in India. Amidst this, all eyes are on BCCI. People are calling out BCCI to remove all its Chinese sponsors.

There is a deep Chinese connection in Indian Cricket. Vivo, a Chinese phone manufacturer, is the title sponsor of the IPL. Apart from Vivo, there are other sponsors with Chinese investments as well.

Growing Anti-China Sentiments in The Country

On June 15th, 2020, India and China engaged in a faceoff in the Galwan valley in Ladakh. It was considered the deadliest clash in the past four decades. Twenty Indian soldiers, including the Commanding Officer, lost their lives. After the conflict between India and China, anti-China sentiments were growing high. Due to this, the calls for ‘ban and boycott Chinese products’ are growing louder.

IPL’S Title Sponsorship Deal with Vivo

In July 2017, Vivo bagged the IPL title rights for five years. The deal was worth Rs. 2199 Crore, which is 267% premium over the base price. Vivo pays Rs 440 Crore annually. IPL is the most rewarding T20 competition in the world. It is because of the coupling of Vivo’s contract with Star India’s five-year media rights. However, the BCCI has said that they will put the demands of the country first. So, if the government puts a complete ban on Chinese products and sponsors, they will follow it.

BCCI Has Other Chinese Connections

Apart from Vivo, BCCI has other contracts with Chinese sponsors. Chinese investors like PayTM, Dream 11, BYJU’s, and Swiggy are on board. Paytm, a payment app is the title sponsor of Indian Cricket. It is the main sponsor for tournaments held in India and domestic Cricket. Alibaba, a Chinese e-commerce giant, is one of its investors. Alibaba has 37.15 per cent stake in Paytm.

Tencent is one of the biggest video game companies in the world. It has a majority stake in Dream 11.

Dream 11 is an associate sponsor of BCCI and IPL. It is the IPL’s online fantasy league partner since 2019. All these companies are on the Board’s list of sponsors.

Swiggy, a popular food delivery app, is an associate sponsor of IPL. They too have an investment by Tencent. Tencent has a 5.27 per cent stake in Swiggy.

BYJU’s bought the jersey sponsoring rights of the Indian cricket team last year for Rs.1079 Crore. Even BYJU’s has a Chinese connection. Tencent Holdings have invested millions into this App. However, BCCI believes that both BYJU’s and PayTM are Indian brands. Hence, BCCI will review its contracts with Vivo, Dream 11, and Swiggy.

This shows how deep the Chinese connect is in Indian Cricket. 42% of the money goes to the Government of India as taxes. It helps the economy of the country. These contracts with Chinese investments have been quite beneficial. But the BCCI has said that they will end the contracts if the government decides to put a blanket ban. They will definitely have a difficult time coming to a decision.

The Letter of Threat By The Chamber of Trade and Industry (CTI)

The CTI Convenor Brijesh Goyal wrote a letter to the BCCI. In this letter, they asked the BCCI to end sponsorship deals with Chinese firms. He said that if they do not do this, all the traders will boycott IPL and all other international matches in India.

Meanwhile, the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) is also reviewing its Chinese sponsorships. There is a possibility that they might cancel these sponsorships. A meeting of IOA’s executives was convened to take the call on suspending an agreement with Li-Ning. Li-Ning is a Chinese company that sponsors play-kits.

Stance of BCCI

The decision to review the deal comes a day after BCCI treasurer Arun Dhumal said that they would always put the country first. Moreover, Chinese advertisers also spend a lot on advertisements that air during IPL and other BCCI events. According to an estimate, in IPL 2019, the advertisers spent Rs. 500 Crore. Vivo alone pent 150 Crore during the two-month event.

BCCI has put forward another question. Even if they cancel the deal with Vivo, who will replace Vivo and pay Rs. 440 Crore?

Without such support and investment, Cricket cannot thrive or survive commercially.


To date, the government has not come up with any direct guidelines. The BCCI has decided to follow the guidelines of the government. Despite the fate of IPL 2020 remaining uncertain, the sponsorship deals are long term. Sponsorship deals are very vital for IPL and International Cricket as well.

Sundar Raman is the former IPL Chief Operating Officer. He stated in his paper that 18% of the cricket revenue is generated through sponsorship. In the case of IPL, he stated that sponsorship makes 30% of the annual revenue. Further, broadcasting deals make 65% of the revenue.

However, if the BCCI decides to end the deals, it will severely affect their coffers. Now all the eyes are on the BCCI as to what they will finally decide. is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

Bombay High Court Pursues Case Alleging Media Trial, Says NBSA Guidelines Must Be Toothed by Centre

Amid the pleas alleging media trials, the Division Bench had been hearing submissions of the News Broadcasters’ Authority (NBA). It prayed that severe restrictions...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence in diagnosing the septicemia and...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration, possession and a permanent prohibitory...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In Defence of Environment and Animals...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of the Central Government. Any reasonable...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be interpreted to also apply to...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -