A significant majority of global cricket industry executives believe national boards should receive financial compensation when their players participate in overseas franchise leagues, according to the latest cricexec poll.
Asked “Should national cricket boards receive a fee when their players participate in overseas franchise leagues?”, 75% of respondents voted Yes, while 25% voted No.
The result comes amid growing debate over how cricket’s expanding franchise economy should compensate the national governing bodies responsible for developing players, particularly as international talent becomes an increasingly valuable asset for privately operated competitions.
Recent disputes involving the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) have brought the issue into focus. Reported demands for No-Objection Certificate (NOC) fees have disrupted player participation in Major League Cricket (MLC), the Nepal Premier League (NPL) and, most recently, the Abu Dhabi T10 League.
However, the debate extends well beyond Pakistan. It raises a fundamental question about the financial relationship between national boards and overseas franchise competitions: should boards share in the commercial value generated by players they have helped develop, or should those players be free to pursue overseas opportunities without additional financial barriers?
The poll suggests substantial support for the principle of board compensation. But the controversies surrounding NOC fees demonstrate that agreeing with the principle and agreeing on how it should operate are two different matters.
Why national cricket boards want a share of franchise league revenue
National cricket boards invest in the infrastructure that supports professional player development, including domestic competitions, coaching programmes, academies and age-group cricket.
When players progress through these systems and become attractive signings for overseas franchise leagues, those competitions benefit from talent developed through national cricket structures.
The financial question is whether the boards that support this development should receive compensation when their players secure contracts abroad.
For boards operating with limited commercial resources, the issue carries particular significance. Overseas franchise leagues can generate substantial revenue through broadcasting, sponsorship and franchise investment, while the boards responsible for producing participating players may receive little direct financial benefit.
Cricket already has an established example of compensation for overseas player participation.
The Indian Premier League (IPL) began making payments to overseas cricket boards ahead of its 2011 season, reportedly equivalent to 10% of foreign players’ contract fees. That figure was subsequently reported to have increased to 20% in 2017, although later reports have suggested a return to approximately 10%.
Unlike a fixed clearance charge, a percentage-based arrangement links compensation to the value of an individual player’s contract.
It also provides a framework under which participating franchises can account for the additional cost when recruiting overseas players.
The existence of such arrangements strengthens the argument that national board compensation is not an entirely new concept. The disagreement is increasingly about whether similar systems should operate across other leagues and how consistently they should be applied.
Cricket West Indies’ financial challenges strengthen the compensation argument
The financial pressures confronting Cricket West Indies (CWI) illustrate why some national boards are seeking additional revenue sources.
CWI faces an annual funding shortfall of approximately US$25 million and has proposed reducing international player retainers by 25%, shortening domestic retainer contracts to seven months and suspending domestic competitions.
Its financial difficulties have also renewed scrutiny of the way revenue from international cricket is distributed.
CWI Chief Executive Chris Dehring has highlighted the consequences of the ICC‘s 1997 decision to discontinue touring fees and allow host boards to retain broadcast revenue from bilateral series.
Discussing the financial imbalance associated with West Indies touring India, Dehring said:
“A series that could generate $20 million to $30 million in India brings West Indies cricket no revenue.”
The problem is particularly significant for a cricket board whose players remain prominent across international franchise competitions but whose domestic commercial market cannot generate comparable income.
Dehring has also questioned the sustainability of depending on government support.
Speaking to _The Gleaner_, he said:
“… any business model that is dependent on Caribbean governments is not a safe, secure business model.”
He has previously indicated that approximately 90% of CWI’s earnings originate outside the Caribbean, highlighting the board’s reliance on international commercial activity.
CWI President Kishore Shallow has supported calls to reconsider the ICC’s commercial model to provide greater assistance to smaller members.
Although the board’s financial difficulties are not solely connected to franchise cricket, they illustrate the wider economic argument underpinning the poll.
If national boards are responsible for developing internationally marketable players, compensation from overseas competitions could represent another revenue stream to support the structures that produce future talent.
For the 75% of executives supporting fees, this is an important consideration, even though the poll does not establish the individual reasons behind respondents’ votes.
PCB’s US$25,000 NOC demands expose the difficulties of implementing fees
The PCB’s recent approach has provided a prominent example of the practical challenges surrounding player release payments.
During the 2026 Major League Cricket season, franchise owners reportedly faced demands of US$25,000 for each Pakistani player requiring an NOC.
According to reports subsequently published by _Wisden_ and _PakPassion_, some franchises alleged that the payment requirement had not been communicated during recruitment and emerged shortly before the competition began.
One MLC franchise owner, speaking anonymously, described the timing:
“Around a week before the tournament started, when the PCB knew we could not replace players, that’s when they came back and said you have to pay $25,000 per player for an NOC.”
The owner added:
“We asked them why they did not tell us this before and they didn’t respond, they just kept on demanding the money.”
Haris Rauf ultimately became the only Pakistani cricketer to participate in that MLC season, representing the San Francisco Unicorns, whose franchise reportedly agreed to cover the payment.
The controversy highlighted a significant commercial problem.
A franchise that knows the full cost of signing an overseas player before recruitment can decide whether the investment is worthwhile. An additional charge introduced after contracts have been agreed creates uncertainty over budgets, player availability and replacement arrangements.
It can also make players from one country less attractive than comparable overseas recruits whose boards do not impose similar conditions.
These concerns resurfaced during the Nepal Premier League, where the PCB was again accused of seeking US$25,000 per player.
The board’s published 2020 NOC Guide regulates overseas participation but does not specify such a payment requirement.
The PCB had not publicly confirmed the reported Nepal fee demand in the material supplied, and Cricinfo reported that it could not establish whether the demand had been formally communicated in writing.
Nepal Premier League dispute shows the impact on players and franchises
The NPL controversy demonstrated how disagreements over release fees can affect players, franchises and developing cricket markets.
Several Pakistani cricketers, including T20I Captain Sahibzada Farhan, Iftikhar Ahmed, Hunain Shah, Hasan Ali and Usama Mir, faced uncertainty over their participation despite having been recruited by Nepalese franchises.
Some players had already travelled to Kathmandu before being unable to take the field.
Janakpur Bolts were particularly affected after signing Ahmed and Shah, both of whom arrived in Nepal but could not participate.
The franchise was forced to seek replacements while continuing to cover travel and accommodation expenses.
Janakpur Bolts Chief Executive Officer Niroj Khatiwada told _The Kathmandu Post_:
“This is definitely a disappointment for us.”
He added:
“In a broader context, it is a big blow for overall Nepali cricket.”
The consequences extended beyond individual franchise recruitment plans.
Pakistani players represent an important attraction for Nepalese cricket supporters, while their participation can contribute to the development of emerging domestic players through shared training and competitive experience.
Khatiwada highlighted the difficulties created by the absence of those players:
“We cannot bring Indian national cricketers, but fans would have loved seeing Pakistani stars.”
He also noted that franchises had experienced fewer difficulties recruiting players from other South Asian countries.
“Franchises have not struggled to bring players from Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. We hope PCB solves this issue and allows fans outside Pakistan to see their favourite stars play.”
Chitwan Rhinos were similarly affected after losing access to Usama Mir and Hasan Ali, recruiting Tom Taylor and Daniel Richard Mousley as emergency replacements.
Kathmandu Gorkhas Operations Head Shrawan Bahadur Singh revealed that his franchise had also been unable to announce another Pakistani signing because of the clearance dispute.
“We have also signed a Pakistani player, but have not been able to announce due to the NOC issue.”
An unnamed cricket expert associated with MLC questioned the restrictions imposed on players without conflicting national commitments.
“This is not a good thing for cricket,” the expert told _The Kathmandu Post_.
“Cricketers who are free from their national and domestic duties should have the freedom to play cricket in ICC-recognised events.”
The expert also challenged the timing of the reported demands.
“If it is a rule by the PCB, it is not a big deal to clarify those aspects beforehand.”
The Nepal episode illustrates why the broader debate cannot be reduced to whether national boards deserve compensation.
Even where a financial charge may be commercially defensible, the manner in which it is communicated and collected can have consequences for the players and competitions involved.
Abu Dhabi T10 reaches agreement with PCB over player NOCs
The latest development involving the PCB suggests that negotiated arrangements may provide an alternative to unresolved per-player disputes.
Ahead of the 2026 Abu Dhabi T10 League, the PCB reportedly sought US$10,000 for each Pakistani player’s NOC.
The tournament had selected 16 Pakistani cricketers across five franchises, including Fakhar Zaman, Shadab Khan, Naseem Shah and Iftikhar Ahmed.
According to Cricinfo, organisers submitted clearance applications following the September 30 player draft but were informed of the reported payment requirement only days before the competition’s November 7 start.
A franchise official, speaking to PTI by telephone on condition of anonymity, criticised the timing:
“What surprised us was that while we had applied for NOCs for players for the league back in late September, we only got the demand for the USD 10,000 fee few days back.”
The official added:
“It is very unprofessional even if they (PCB) want to charge a NOC fee they should have given enough time for franchises and management to work out some solution. Their demand came very late.”
However, on November 5, _Geo News_ reported that the PCB and Abu Dhabi T10 organisers had reached an agreement under which the league would provide compensation and facilities worth up to US$200,000 in exchange for player clearances.
The reported arrangement improved the prospects of Pakistani cricketers participating in the competition, although the supplied reports did not establish that every individual NOC had subsequently been issued.
The agreement is particularly relevant to the wider debate because it demonstrates that compensation can potentially be negotiated between a national board and league organisers rather than imposed exclusively through individual player charges.
It does not, however, establish a standard mechanism for other competitions or resolve questions about how much boards should receive.
Players warn that NOC fees could reduce overseas earning opportunities
While national boards may view franchise participation fees as a source of income, players face a different set of financial considerations.
For cricketers who are not regular members of national teams, overseas leagues can provide earnings that supplement domestic contracts and allowances.
Additional clearance charges may make those opportunities less accessible, particularly in competitions operating with comparatively modest budgets.
One first-class Pakistani player, speaking to PTI on condition of anonymity, explained the importance of smaller overseas competitions:
“Yes players who appear in the domestic tournaments get paid fees and allowances but given not all of us are going to be selected for the national teams these smaller leagues are our lifeline to earn more.”
Another Pakistani player, also speaking to PTI on condition of anonymity, questioned whether smaller competitions could afford both player salaries and board payments.
“They are a number of smaller leagues happening around the world and this NOC condition means we will suffer because these smaller leagues can’t afford to pay the PCB NOC fees and also our fees,” the player said.
These concerns become particularly important when a fixed clearance charge represents a substantial proportion of an individual player’s contract.
A US$25,000 fee carries very different implications for a highly paid international star than for a domestic professional seeking an opportunity in an emerging franchise league.
There is also the question of who ultimately bears the expense.
Ahead of the Abu Dhabi T10, reports suggested that some Pakistani players were prepared to cover the requested NOC charges from their own salaries if franchises refused to pay.
Such an arrangement would shift the cost of board compensation directly onto the cricketer, reducing the financial benefit of participating overseas.
For players already facing limited opportunities in some international competitions, additional uncertainty over clearances could further weaken their position in the franchise market.
Should the ICC establish a standard framework for overseas player fees?
The history of player release payments suggests that establishing a consistent system across international cricket would not be straightforward.
In 2016, the West Indies Cricket Board introduced a proposed levy equivalent to 20% of a player’s overseas franchise contract.
Cricket Australia and Cricket South Africa publicly declined to pay, while only a limited number of boards, including India and Bangladesh, agreed to the arrangement.
The levy did not become a universally accepted practice.
The difficulty lies partly in the different commercial interests of national boards and franchise competitions.
Boards want to protect their investment in player development and national cricket structures. Leagues want access to international talent at predictable costs. Players want opportunities to maximise their earnings without unnecessary restrictions.
These interests can overlap, but they do not always align.
A percentage-based payment, agreed before player recruitment, could provide greater predictability than a fixed charge introduced shortly before a tournament.
It would also allow fees to vary according to contract value rather than imposing the same financial requirement on every player.
However, even a percentage-based system would require agreement over who pays, which players qualify, how compensation is calculated and whether the arrangement applies consistently across different leagues.
The ICC could potentially provide a forum for discussions about common principles, although the supplied material does not establish that a formal global NOC fee framework is currently under consideration.
There is also the question of reciprocity.
If overseas leagues are expected to compensate national boards for releasing players, boards operating their own franchise competitions could face similar demands from other cricket authorities.
A system intended to generate additional revenue could therefore create costs as well as income, depending on the movement of players between leagues.
cricexec poll highlights support for compensation, but implementation remains unresolved
The cricexec poll reveals a clear preference among surveyed global cricket industry executives for national boards to receive fees when their players participate in overseas franchise leagues.
With 75% voting Yes, the results indicate substantial support for recognising the financial contribution national governing bodies make to the development of professional cricketers.
The remaining 25% voted No, demonstrating that opposition to such payments remains part of the industry debate.
However, the poll did not ask respondents to endorse a particular fee structure, payment level or NOC policy.
That distinction matters.
The IPL’s existing compensation arrangements, Cricket West Indies’ financial difficulties and the PCB’s recent disputes each illustrate different aspects of the same challenge.
National boards need sustainable funding to maintain the systems that develop players. Franchise leagues need reliable access to international talent. Cricketers need opportunities to earn a living from their skills.
The reported agreement between the PCB and Abu Dhabi T10 organisers shows that financial settlements can be reached, even after disagreements over player clearances.
But the disruption experienced by franchises in Nepal and Major League Cricket also demonstrates the risks of unpredictable payment requirements.
Ultimately, the poll suggests that the industry is increasingly receptive to the idea of compensating national boards for overseas player participation.
The unresolved question is how cricket can turn that support into a transparent, predictable and commercially workable system without restricting the opportunities of the players whose talent makes the global franchise market possible.
