The BCCI's convoluted thinking

The BCCI's convoluted thinking A couple of months ago, the new BCCI administration caused a flutter when it announced that India would not participate in future editions of the Champions Trophy. In addition, it also objected to the ICC's plans for a Twenty20 World Cup. Both these actions were on the basis that the BCCI would not get any substantial revenues from events organized by the ICC, since the ICC has its own sponsorship/telecast deals for its events.The ICC yesterday announced that it had received bids/proposals for several events, including the 2011 and 2015 World Cups, the Women's World Cup and a few editions of the Champions Trophy. It has been apparent for a while now that there're two main contenders for the 2011 World Cup: A cartel of Bangladesh, India, Pakistan & Sri Lanka and the duo of Australia & New Zealand.Given that the BCCI honchos have often argued about ICC-owned events not being profitable for host countries, why did they go ahead with the bid for the 2011 World Cup in the first place? Surely it can't be their case that the World Cup is such a huge event and that it would automagically result in significant revenues aside from what the ICC would earn. From what I can infer, the only revenue a hosting country/board earns is the gate revenue, i.e. spectators at the ground. Sponsorships at the grounds, on television etc. are controlled by the ICC's deals with its official sponsors. Any violation of this would amount to ambush marketing. Gate revenue would obviously form a very insignificant portion from the proceeds, even if the tickets (and products sold inside the stadium) are priced at a high premium. The BCCI would also need to get a confirmation from the government in terms of a tax exemption from the Indian government for hosting the event.I can't see the logic behind the change of heart. Can you?