Protected windows for international cricket, a more equitable revenue distribution system that supports growth and competitive balance, better regulation of player movements across T20 leagues, and an ICC as a global governing body and not a members' club; these are the headline recommendations from a comprehensive game-wide review by the World Cricketers' Association (WCA) to fix what it has called the "broken global structure" of cricket.
Some of the recommendations represent radical shifts to the existing ecosystem, such as reducing the BCCI's share of the ICC's revenues from nearly 40% as it is currently, to 10%; or introducing an interim independent global leadership body that helps modernise the ICC; or bringing in promotion and relegation and multiple divisions in international cricket; and optimising the calendar to produce an extra USD 200 million-plus annually into the game's economy.
But WCA insist the report - entitled "Protecting History, Embracing Change: A Unified, Coherent, Global Future" - is to be seen as the start of a debate on what a better cricket future looks like. Built off a six-month review, it arguably represents the first comprehensive effort to tackle the problems wholesale of a sport paralysed by the tussles between bilateral international cricket and burgeoning T20 leagues, by three different formats vying for space, relevance and revenues, and between its haves and have-not members.
"This process has brought to light an almost game wide appetite for change and a need to address the significant issues with the game's global structure," WCA chairman Heath Mills said. "Whilst there is no silver bullet, the report defines the trends, and major issues facing the sport at global level, along with some recommended solutions, intended to be both aspirational and realistic. The players have an interest in the health of the game globally, and we look forward to discussing and debating the report over the coming months."
The report is based on feedback from 64 stakeholders, including leading male and female players and current captains, as well as current administrators from boards and T20 leagues, goes into considerable detail in identifying the four major problems that afflict the sport and then recommending solutions for each: scheduling, the economics of the sport, its regulation and global leadership.
Scheduling
WCA calls current cricket scheduling "chaotic, inconsistent and confusing". Bilateral cricket co-exists uneasily with T20 leagues (WCA says there is a men's T20 league being played on almost every day of the year) and both rob each other of the best players available, compromising the overall quality of the product.
WCA's recommendation is to have four 21-day protected windows for what it calls Core International Cricket, during which no league cricket will take place. It suggests multiple divisions, in which teams play each team in its division in one series over a two-year cycle. Each series would include a minimum of one match of each format, and each format would incorporate a league table that culminates in a major ICC event (for which windows exist). In this scenario, all bilateral cricket comes with context and jeopardy.
The majority of the rest of the calendar would be given to T20 leagues, but the proposed solution allows bilateral cricket outside the window, seeing no reason why "valued 5-match series could not continue under the recommended structure." To ensure its integrity, the calendar would be centrally controlled.
The report provides an example of the men's calendar for 2028 in which it places the 21-day international windows in February-March, May-June, September and December and includes the T20 World Cup in October-November and the LA28 Olympics in July.
An example of the 2029 calendar for the women's game has also been drawn up, which, the report says, is heading in a similar direction. It has the four international windows in more or less the same months, though September is taken up by the Women's T20 World Cup.
Economics
As it stands, the report argues the game's revenues are not optimised and that the ICC's revenue distribution model is inequitable and hinders the game's growth. It also says that players do not receive a fair earning relative to the wealth they generate.
It finds that 70% of the game's revenues are generated across just three months of the year, that 83% of all revenue is shared by three countries, and that revenues generated by bilateral cricket outside the big three constitutes less than 4%. Total player payments across cricket, it says, represent approximately 10% of all cricket revenue.
As solutions, WCA projects a more optimal calendar (with windows and greater context) could result in an additional USD 246 million revenue for the game annually. It calls for the establishment of minimum and maximum distribution parameters of ICC revenues, giving as an example, "a minimum 2% and maximum 10% for the top 24 countries, and a minimum 10% distribution collectively for countries 25+." That would see the BCCI's share being cut from 38.5% in the current model to 10%.
Players, it says, should also receive a minimum percentage of revenue generated in all sanctioned cricket, across internationals, T20 leagues and ICC events. Another recommendation is the creation of a global growth and development fund, which would go towards sustaining the base level of Core International Cricket for the top 24+ countries. This fund would be built from a percentage of ICC events revenue, T20 leagues and pooled media rights from Core International Cricket - a concept that has been aired before at the ICC but always dismissed.
In recognition of the radical nature of these recommendations, the report does acknowledge the "likely scenario" that cricket will not come together to share revenue in such a way. It suggests that "a new global cricket product may [then] need to be created that achieves this".
It does not refer to it, but WCA has, in recent days, been linked to a new Saudi Arabia-backed T20 league.
Leadership
At the start of the review, WCA was keen to avoid this becoming a governance report. But, it says, the unanimous feedback was that the problems emanated from a lack of leadership. "In short, no one is actually in charge of the sport as a genuine custodian of the global game as a whole," the report concludes. Regional interests dominate, it says, and lead to short-term decisions. There is no independent leadership. The game is run by the most powerful boards, without any representation from leagues, franchises, players or women.
As an interim solution, the WCA calls for the creation of a Global Game Leadership Committee which will make recommendations to the game and ICC Board. This committee would be made up of - in equal parts - boards, T20 leagues/franchises, players, and independents. This body would aim to turn the ICC into a global governing body, rather than the members' club it currently is. This body would also manage the new recommended calendar structure, as well as ensure revenue distribution to members.
Regulation
The report argues that cricket's existing regulatory frameworks, as overseen by the ICC, are not fit for purpose in the game's new "transnational reality". The ICC's regulations "provide unfounded primacy" to international cricket over T20 leagues, a notion the report says is outdated.
The report criticises the way the ICC oversees sanctioning of leagues, the "arbitrary" limit on foreign players in a league, and says the existing No-Objection Certificate system that governs participation in T20 leagues is exploitative.
As solutions, it recommends setting up a form of "tracking and regulation of player movement", measures to protect player rights across leagues, including "minimum professional contract standards", and a dispute resolution mechanism.
WCA is keen to move on the recommendations and the report has already been presented to the ICC's cricket committee, though not initially at least to great engagement.
"Whilst there are a number of positive trends in cricket, there is no doubt that global cricket is at an inflection point," Paul Marsh, who chaired the sub-committee that oversaw the review, said. "Many of the issues highlighted in the report are challenging, but they need to be discussed if we are to create a more sustainable future in more than just a few countries."