Everyone associated with cricket knows the international calendar is overcrowded. Everyone also knows India is the game’s powerhouse and is shaping it to its will. Solutions and remedies to these situations are in short supply, especially given the interests vested in maintaining them.
Last August, in recognition of this, the World Cricketers’ Association initiated a comprehensive review of the game’s global structure. At the time, its chair said they had “given up hope” the game’s leaders could establish a clear, coherent structure in which international cricket and domestic leagues could co-exist. A six-person panel was established with a remit to produce recommendations to the WCA board after talking with players, administrators, team owners and broadcasters.
Between September 2024 and March 2025, 64 interviews were conducted. Of these, 19 were with players, split almost equally between men and women; 14 with current or past cricket administrators; 17 with individuals operating in the media or with commercial interests; and 14 representing player associations. What is striking is the low-level of input from both the International Cricket Council and India — one Indian journalist was interviewed, along with the CEO of an IPL team, an executive of JioStar and a legendary former Indian female cricketer.
Whilst disappointing, this failure to engage is hardly a surprise. Neither India nor Pakistan has recognized player associations. There is an Indian Cricket Association, formed in 2019, but its membership is restricted to former players and it is not affiliated to the WCA. This reticence to allow the formation of a genuine players’ union is underpinned by the Lodha Committee. In response to the 2013 IPL betting scandal, it was instructed by the Supreme Court to recommend reforms to the Board of Control for Cricket in India. Although it recommended the formation of the ICA, it specified it should not act as a union. This lack of player representation further strengthens the BCCI’s power.
The extent of this power is laid bare in the WCA report, “Protecting History, Embracing Change: A Unified, Coherent Global Future.” It focuses on four areas — scheduling, economics, regulation and leadership — and suggests solutions to address a “broken global structure”. It is likely that many outside India will accord with this but therein lies the problem. India is now the dominant actor.
Under the ICC’s current revenue distribution model, the cricket boards of Australia, England and India together receive almost 50 percent, with the BCCI receiving the lion’s share at 38.5 percent. Some 87 percent of bilateral cricket revenues are retained by the same three countries. Only 2 percent of cricket’s global revenue is distributed to countries ranked 13th-108th by the ICC. This is not new information but perhaps the report will help these facts reach more eyes. Its proposed solution will certainly resonate widely.
The report proposes a new model in which each of the top 24 countries receives a minimum of 2 percent and maximum of 10 percent of ICC revenue. It also suggests countries ranked 25th and below should collectively receive a minimum of 10 percent. With the best will in the world, it is difficult to envisage this being acceptable to the BCCI, whose share would reduce from 38.5 to 10 percent.
Unsurprisingly, this suggestion has been received critically by the Indian press. It points out that the report does not talk about the contributions of the BCCI to the ICC’s revenue pool. Estimates vary as to the exact extent, but it is at least 70 percent. The WCA report also fails to recognize the sale of media rights for the India market which is generating an unparalleled inflow of funds for the ICC. In turn, this has led to an influx of advertisers and sponsors.
A further observation by the WCA which is guaranteed to rile Indians is that “the IPL accounts for almost half the global cricket but shares only circa 0.3 percent of revenue with other countries and less than 10 percent with players.”
No doubt the Indian response is to point out that the IPL is an Indian tournament and revenues should be used to benefit the Indian game. This is the case with other franchise leagues. As for distribution to players, there will be few who doubt the IPL pays handsomely.
Although the WCA’s case for economic reform looks to be on thin ice, its take on the game’s governance and regulation is likely to receive a better hearing, at least outside the current body vested with that responsibility. One recommendation which straddles these two areas is: “All distributions from the ICC to National Governing Bodies to be publicly accounted for and independently audited against clear KPIs and enforcement mechanisms.” The fact this is considered at all is suggestive of currently imperfect control systems.
Famously, the previous ICC Chair said the governing body was not fit for purpose, a view shared by many. Upending and replacing the ICC is a task not for the faint hearted since it would directly take on Indian interests. The ICC is a members’ club answerable to no one and, as such, is unlikely to vote for its own abolition. A revolution is not in the air, yet. In recognition of this, the WCA boldly proposes an interim step of an “independently chaired Global Game Leadership Committee to make recommendations to the game and ICC Board,” comprised of “25 percent national boards, 25 percent DT20 leagues/franchises, 25 percent players and 25 percent independents.
It is obvious that the review undertaken by the WCA ought to be one conducted by the ICC. The fact it has not done so reflects its strategic inertia and constricted leadership faculties. An overcrowded calendar can be laid at its door. As a minimum, the WCA has suggested four three-week windows in the calendar that would be reserved for “core international cricket,” with commercial rights pooled.
Whilst a number of the WCA’s recommendations are unlikely to be either practical or acceptable, it has done a service by bringing together a raft of fragmented concerns which plague the game’s future direction. Every so often cricket is subject to transformational tremors. We may be on the brink of another.
