World Cricket Association sparks debate with opinions on cricket’s governance

April 4, 2025: The international cricket calendar is overcrowded, and India’s dominance is undeniable, shaping the game to its advantage. However, finding solutions to these challenges remains difficult, as there are vested interests in maintaining the current structure.

In August, the World Cricketers’ Association (WCA) launched a thorough review of cricket’s global structure. The WCA chair expressed skepticism that cricket’s leaders could create a clear structure that allows international cricket and domestic leagues to coexist. A six-person panel was set up to provide recommendations after consulting with players, administrators, team owners, and broadcasters.

Between September 2024 and March 2025, 64 interviews were conducted, including 19 with players (split between men and women), 14 with current or former administrators, 17 with media or commercial figures, and 14 with player associations. Notably, there was limited input from the International Cricket Council (ICC) and India, with only one Indian journalist interviewed, alongside the CEO of an IPL team and other prominent figures.

This lack of engagement isn’t surprising. Neither India nor Pakistan recognizes player associations. While India has the Indian Cricket Association (formed in 2019), it’s limited to former players and isn’t affiliated with the WCA. This lack of a genuine players’ union further solidifies the power of the BCCI.

The WCA’s report, “Protecting History, Embracing Change: A Unified, Coherent Global Future,” addresses four main issues: scheduling, economics, regulation, and leadership. It proposes reforms to address a “broken global structure,” which many outside India would likely agree with. However, India’s dominance complicates matters.

Currently, the ICC’s revenue distribution model heavily favors Australia, England, and India, with India receiving the largest share of 38.5%. These three nations retain 87% of bilateral cricket revenues, while countries ranked 13th to 108th by the ICC receive only 2%. The WCA report suggests a new model in which the top 24 countries each receive 2-10% of ICC revenue, and countries ranked 25th and below should receive a collective minimum of 10%. This proposal, if implemented, would drastically reduce the BCCI’s share.

The Indian press has criticized the WCA’s report for not considering the BCCI’s contributions to the ICC’s revenue pool, estimated at 70%. The report also overlooks the significant media rights sale in India, which generates substantial funds for the ICC and attracts advertisers and sponsors.

Another contentious point raised by the WCA is that the IPL accounts for nearly half of global cricket but shares only 0.3% of its revenue with other countries and less than 10% with players. While the Indian response is likely to defend the IPL as an Indian tournament, the report’s findings on revenue distribution are contentious.

The WCA’s proposal for economic reform may not be well-received, but its recommendations on governance and regulation may gain more support, especially outside the current leadership. One key suggestion is that all ICC distributions to National Governing Bodies should be publicly accounted for and independently audited against clear KPIs and enforcement mechanisms.

The previous ICC Chair famously stated that the governing body was “not fit for purpose,” a sentiment shared by many. Replacing the ICC would be a challenging task, particularly because it would directly challenge Indian interests. The ICC, being a members' club answerable to no one, is unlikely to support its own abolition. As a compromise, the WCA proposes an interim step: an independently chaired Global Game Leadership Committee with representation from national boards, DT20 leagues/franchises, players, and independents.

It’s clear that the WCA’s review should ideally have been conducted by the ICC. The fact that it wasn’t reflects the ICC’s inertia and limited leadership. The overcrowded calendar issue is largely a result of the ICC’s inaction. The WCA suggests reserving four three-week windows in the calendar for “core international cricket,” with pooled commercial rights.

While some of the WCA’s recommendations may be impractical or unacceptable, it has successfully brought together various concerns regarding the future direction of cricket. The game may be on the verge of another transformation.