A board divided — 5 to 4
On the night of Tuesday, August 19, 2025, after nearly three hours of argument and procedural wrangling, USA Cricket’s board voted to terminate its landmark 2019 commercial agreement with American Cricket Enterprises (ACE), owners of Major League Cricket. But if the initial news suggested a united stand, the reality inside the virtual boardroom was anything but.
The motion, introduced by Chairman Venu Pisike and backed by director David Haubert, passed on a razor-thin 5–4 margin. Those in favor: Pisike, Haubert, Srini Salver, Anj Balusu, and Pintoo Shah. Those opposed: Nadia Gruny, Kuljit Nijjar, Atul Rai, and Arjun Gona.
According to Cricbuzz, the board has long been divided into factions. Pisike and Salver’s opposition to ACE has been public for years. Balusu, elected unopposed after other candidates were disqualified, is considered one of Pisike’s close allies. Haubert and Shah were independent directors, but their appointments had Pisike’s support. On the other side, Gruny has openly challenged Pisike’s legitimacy as chair, Nijjar has often pressed for governance reform, Rai has positioned himself as a critic of Pisike’s methods, and Gona has voiced unease with the board’s direction.
Nijjar, Rai and Gona are also plaintiffs in an ongoing lawsuit against USA Cricket, but they maintain that the lawsuit has nothing to do with their positions on this issue .
The split was not just ideological — it reflected deep mistrust about how the ACE matter had been handled over the past five years.
The chair’s long shadow
In a note circulated after the vote, and in an interview with cricexec, director Atul Rai expressed disbelief at both the timing and the process. For him, this was not about whether ACE had flaws in its contract — “nobody disputes that,” he admitted — but about how Pisike had maneuvered the board into a rushed, divisive decision.
Rai pointed out that Pisike himself had been part of the original RFP committee that shortlisted ACE as USA Cricket’s commercial partner. “Mr. Pisike never had problems with the agreement until late 2020,” Rai maintained.
According to Rai, once Pisike consolidated power on the board in early 2023, he forced himself into the role of head of the ACE negotiating committee. “He formed a whole group, claimed he would negotiate, and by mid-2023 had taken complete control,” Rai wrote. By June of that year, when Pisike became chair, he dissolved the committee altogether and declared himself the sole negotiator with ACE. It is worth noting that not all members of USA Cricket’s board agree with this characterization.
For two and a half years, Pisike had “complete access to everything he wanted,” Rai alleged — but no progress to show for it. “Nothing was reported to the board. He said he was talking to this guy and that guy, dropping names, but nothing concrete ever came back. The board kept saying: let’s meet ACE as a group, let’s find solutions together. He refused. Now suddenly, days before elections, he forces through termination.”
According to Rai, his view was that the issue of the ACE relationship should be left for the next board to handle as it saw fit, as elections are around the corner.
The ICC letter ignored
Perhaps the most relevant and serious charge from Rai was that Pisike sidelined more pressing governance issues to focus unnecessarily on the ACE termination.
Just a week earlier, the ICC had sent a letter outlining three urgent requirements for USA Cricket to retain good standing, as a follow up to the recent ICC Annual General Meeting:
A governance review
Completion of overdue elections
An explicit warning to avoid any action that could bring USAC into disrepute
Instead of prioritizing those directives, Rai said, the board spent nearly the entire three-hour meeting debating the ACE contract. “Not even five minutes on the ICC letter,” he recalled. The agenda had just two items: “ACE update” and “ICC letter.” Only one was truly discussed.
“The focus should be on what the USOPC wants, what the ICC wants,” Rai said. “Where does this take USA Cricket? Nowhere. Our governance is in shambles, our finances are in shambles. We’ve had three CEOs in two years, coaches removed, and we’re surviving on borrowed time.”
A governance crisis
For Rai and the dissenting directors, the consequences are grim.
“If we got to the Super 8s at the World Cup, it wasn’t because of what we did, it was in spite of what we did,” he lamented. “Now, days before elections, we saddle the incoming board with the fallout of this decision.”
He added: “The world should know. We’re not a private company; we’re a non-profit sport governing body. Yet meetings are run like closed-door sessions, minutes aren’t published, committees are stacked with friends. It’s a crying shame.”
For Rai, the 5–4 vote seemed less like a bold stand and more like a political maneuver — one that ignored ICC directives, sidelined financial warnings, and deepened mistrust inside USA Cricket’s already fractured leadership.
The grievances and the alleged broken promises
For all the internal disagreement about the politics and the timing of this move, as well as the right approach to resolve concerns, USAC board members do seem to be united in their view that ACE was not living up to its contractual commitments.
The 2019 Term Sheet between ACE and USA Cricket was a 50-year deal in which ACE promised a billion-dollar transformation:
Six ICC-standard stadiums by 2024
High-performance centers by 2020
Direct funding for national teams
A 5% revenue share of gross revenues for USAC
In return, ACE received sweeping exclusivity over all men’s cricket in the U.S. lasting under five hours.
By 2025, only one stadium — Grand Prairie, Texas — is fully operational. Projects in Morrisville, Lauderhill, and Oakland remain incomplete or outside ACE’s direct control. The high-performance center allegedly never materialized on schedule. USA Cricket also alleges unpaid sums of $606,189 for 2024 and $647,603 for 2025.
Even more troubling for USAC: the contract gave ACE discretion over increases in ICC grants, something Pisike insists “violates ICC membership criteria.” He has warned repeatedly:
“No external party should control ICC funding. That level of exclusivity is a significant antitrust risk.”
ACE has consistently rejected these characterizations. In response to an investigation by The Hindu, it argued:
“The questions raised reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the Term Sheet and the relationship between USAC and ACE, and are both inaccurate and misleading.”
ACE strikes back: “Unlawful termination”
If USAC expected termination to force ACE into renegotiation, the consortium’s reaction was explosive and seemingly the opposite.
In a strongly worded press release on August 22, ACE condemned the move as “unlawful and wrongful.”
“Since 2019, American Cricket Enterprises and its affiliates have invested more than USD $150 million into growing cricket in the United States,” the statement said. “ACE’s work has created unprecedented opportunities for players, strengthened the cricketing community nationwide, and propelled the future of the sport.”
ACE pointed to achievements:
Creating MLC and MiLC, the first globally recognized U.S. leagues.
Developing world-class stadiums and high-performance facilities used by national teams.
Delivering the ICC Men’s T20 World Cup in 2024 (in which USAC had no involvement),
Providing direct funding to USA Cricket, including advance payments at USAC’s request to cover staff salaries.
ACE accused USAC of hypocrisy:
“USAC is hypocritically alleging contractual noncompliance while requesting that ACE immediately negotiate a new agreement. This is nothing more than a cynical attempt to serve personal and political agendas, at the expense of the U.S. cricket community.”
The consortium called for the entire USAC board to resign, proposing independent directors appointed by the ICC and the U.S. Olympic & Paralympic Committee (USOPC).
And in a final warning:
“ACE is prepared to take all necessary steps to protect its stakeholders, safeguard the progress it has made over the last seven years, and ensure the long-term success of cricket in the U.S.”
Minor League: sanctioned for 2025, but under threat
Caught in the middle of the dispute is Minor League Cricket (MiLC), the 26-team domestic semiprofessional competition that has become the backbone of the U.S. cricket ecosystem.
On August 24, USA Cricket issued a press release affirming that the 2025 MiLC season remains sanctioned — but only because approval was granted before termination.
“USA Cricket views the 2025 iteration of Minor League Cricket to have been sanctioned prior to the termination of the ACE agreement, and because of that, the termination does not affect their 2025 sanction.”
That reassurance, however, only covers the current year. Beyond 2025, sanctioning is uncertain.
MiLC owners are alarmed. In an urgent letter to ICC CEO Sanjog Gupta, they described termination as an “unprecedented action” that threatens the 2025 season (scheduled to begin August 28), destabilizes the ecosystem, and “shakes the very foundation of domestic cricket in the United States.”
“MiLC is the backbone of American cricket, with 26 franchises, 500+ pro/semi-pro players, 1,000+ aspiring youth players, and more than 1,000 matches in the past five years… backed by over $40 million in investments so far,” the letter stated.
Owners warned that governance chaos could derail LA28 Olympic ambitions and urged ICC intervention to sanction MiLC for multiple years.
“We request an urgent meeting with ICC leadership to resolve this crisis before irreversible harm occurs. MiLC owners remain fully committed to protecting this league, our investments, and the future of cricket in America.”
Fallout: stadiums, sponsors, investors
The ripple effects of USAC’s termination of the deal are immediate and severe:
Stadium deals frozen: While there are several conversations going on between MLC teams and municipalities about new stadiums, this development has likely put a chill on them and more importantly cast doubt on discussions on land use and tax incentives for cricket stadiums. “How can cities feel comfortable contracting with ACE if USA Cricket is accusing them – fairly or unfairly – of non-compliance?” one insider told cricexec.
Sponsorships on hold: Several major brands and sponsors have reportedly put talks on hold, unwilling to commit amid uncertainty. A senior marketing executive said bluntly: “No brand wants to walk into a governance war.”
Investor pullout: A MiLC co-owner disclosed that a buyer for a stake in its team withdrew within hours of the termination news. A separate multi million dollar project for a high-performance facility affiliated with one Minor League team is now in jeopardy as investors hesitate.
Cross-border damage: A Canadian tournament promoter told cricexec, “This has set us back at least five years, even in Canada. The world views us as a very similar or related market.”
National team crisis
For players, the termination’s impact is visceral.
Cricbuzz reports that USA Cricket and ACE had budgeted $700,000 to host West Indies A in October, with matches in Dallas and Morrisville. Those fixtures, including men’s, women’s, and junior internationals, are now in jeopardy.
Without ACE funding and facilities, the U.S. national teams risk entering the next T20 World Cup in India and Sri Lanka less than 6 months from now, with almost no meaningful preparation matches.
The Olympic stakes
Hovering over everything is the Los Angeles 2028 Olympics, where cricket is set to make its long-awaited return.
To represent the U.S., USA Cricket must be certified by the USOPC as the National Governing Body for the sport and recognized as compliant by the ICC. Both organizations have repeatedly flagged governance deficiencies.
The ICC’s most recent letter as a follow up to the Annual General Meeting warning and compliance deadline extension, beyond laying out requirements for governance reforms and elections, apparently explicitly instructed USA Cricket not to take actions that could bring the sport into disrepute. Atul Rai, in his letter, highlighted this warning — and argued termination blatantly violated it.
If USA Cricket fails, the ICC and IOC have the power to appoint an alternative governing body to oversee U.S. Olympic cricket.
For stakeholders, that is the unthinkable nightmare.
What happens next
The paths forward are uncertain:
Renegotiation – ACE and USA Cricket hammer out a new long-form agreement. Unlikely given the current posture of both organizations, but stranger things have happened in the world of cricket.
Litigation – ACE challenges termination in arbitration or court.
ICC intervention – In response to the conflict, the ICC could suspend USAC or take other measures. Reportedly, ICC’s Normalization Committee, created to sort out and solve America’s governance challenges, was meant to meet on Monday to discuss next steps, although no news has emerged from the meeting as yet.
Olympic reckoning – USOPC could deny NGB certification, forcing a governance reset before LA28.
Conclusion: America’s cricket Rubicon
Through a single vote, USA Cricket has set off the most consequential crisis in the sport’s modern history in America.
On one side: a governing body asserting its autonomy while being on the clock to meet ICC and Olympic standards. On the other: a billionaire-backed enterprise that has invested $150 million and refuses to walk away.
Caught in the middle: the players, owners, investors, fans, and children who believed cricket’s American moment had finally arrived.
The future of American cricket — its stadiums, its sponsors, its Olympic dreams — now hangs in the balance.
