In an unusually candid conversation on The Final Word podcast, ECB CEO Richard Gould delivered a far-reaching state-of-the-union-style reflection on cricket’s shifting landscape—addressing geopolitics, governance, Test cricket’s future, inclusivity, and the game’s increasingly globalized commercial dynamics. Throughout the discussion, Gould emphasized one thing: clarity and flexibility are crucial in steering cricket into a more inclusive, sustainable, and diplomatically sound era.
On the BCCI and India’s global role
Gould offered a robust defense of the BCCI and India’s central role in global cricket, challenging widespread media narratives.
“I think sometimes the BCCI gets an unfair rap from the media,” he said. “We need to understand the finances of cricket and the domestic market in India dwarfs every other country in the world.”
“They’re delivering probably 90% of the value and therefore BCCI and India should have a significant say in what happens. And I’ll go further than that—if you look outside of the other members of the ICC, take out the ICC revenues that are generated largely by India, not more than four or five or perhaps six boards are actually financially sustainable based on their own domestic cricket markets.”
“We all rely hugely on the Indian market.”
He also pushed back against the idea that India fails to give back: “I would also argue that the BCCI take their responsibilities on global cricket really seriously. You look at the number of international fixtures that the Indian team plays away from India—they play probably more than us.”
“Every time they go and play in New Zealand or Ireland or the West Indies, they’re effectively doing so for free because the way that the cricket market works is that the broadcast revenue both home and abroad is owned by whichever team is hosting at home.”
“I think the BCCI work very hard to try and make sure that there is a competitive global market.”
The case for quiet diplomacy
On whether England and Australia should publicly challenge the BCCI more often, Gould argued for pragmatism.
“I think we’ll take whichever approach we think is appropriate to get the best outcome and we’ll be flexible in that,” he said. “The megaphone is helpful at times, and I think [it] did have an impact in terms of the decision that was made by the ICC last week.”
He emphasized that much of the narrative around power in world cricket misses how ICC decision-making actually works. “Let’s not also just assume that cricket is run by and for, say, India, Australia and England. If you look at the fact that we’re now playing a global tournament every year—that wasn’t something that India, Australia and England necessarily supported. That was done because the other members wanted that.”
On Afghanistan and ICC governance
Gould addressed the ICC’s recent decision to fund Afghanistan women’s cricket and his own public support for it.
“I think the megaphone is helpful at times and I think it did have an impact in terms of the decision that was made by the ICC,” he said. “There were very many differing opinions put around the ICC table and not all of them will have been supportive of the action that was taken.”
Gould acknowledged the complexity of ICC dynamics and how cultural norms shape internal debates. “You look at the ICC board table and around the chief execs committee… one of the notable observations is it is all men.”
“We don’t have that parity or clarity of voice that we need around the ICC table. It’s an area where we’ve been able to make huge strides in the ECB… but when we are dealing with international environments we need to sometimes accept that what is a norm for us culturally will not be seen as accepted elsewhere.”
He suggested that sometimes public advocacy can move the needle. “Sometimes you need to use the megaphone rather than back channels—and that was one of those moments.”
On the World Cricketers Association
Gould addressed recent ICC debates surrounding the World Cricketers Association (WCA), particularly after critical comments allegedly emerged from within the ICC about its legitimacy.
“I didn’t recognize those comments,” he said. “In terms of meetings, yeah—sometimes you need to have a quiet space in which people can voice their true opinions. That often leads to better debate.”
He clarified the WCA’s evolving role: “There is a bit of confusion about their role. They were previously a composite body representing the players’ representative bodies around the world… It’s now changed its name. I think it’s had some investment in from an American VC company.”
“Very openly, they’re saying that they are not now just looking after player welfare but they regard themselves as a commercial entity in itself. And that does provide some confusion because it’s normally up to the ICC or the ECB or the member boards to commercialize the game.”
He added, “Yeah, read the report. There was some good stuff in there.”
On Saudi Arabia’s potential role in cricket
Gould addressed growing speculation about Saudi Arabia’s interest in cricket, while confirming the ECB has not been directly involved.
“I haven’t seen or been involved in any conversations with Saudi Arabia at this point coming into cricket in any way,” he said. “I think those conversations have largely come out of Australia over the last few months, and they’re not something that we’ve been directly involved in.”
Still, he acknowledged the broader trend: “You can see how Saudi Arabia have got involved with a whole variety of different sports globally—whether it’s golf or football or Olympics and World Cups.”
“It’s a free market… people will take their decisions and make the decisions thereafter and that may be the consumer, that may be the players, it may be the teams involved, it may be the governing bodies.”
“You’ve got to be very secure in your own belief structures,” he added. “I don’t think it’s necessarily sensible to try and maintain the moral high ground because many cultures are very different in the way they go about things.”
Gould offered a personal anecdote to illustrate the point: “I went to the Qatar World Cup… everybody was going, ‘Oh it’s a disgrace they banned alcohol.’ I went to five games, they were great because everybody was behaving in a really proper fashion.”
“Sometimes these other countries will look at us and go, why does UK sport always have to be linked with having three or four pints?”
On the Olympics and revenue realities
“When we go and play in the Olympics, the players don’t get paid, the boards don’t get paid… You play for the medals and that’s it.”
“Broadcast revenue is retained by the IOC. Ticket revenue is retained by the local organizing committee. So they don’t want to put tournaments on that they can’t make money from on tickets.”
On inclusivity and school participation
“We are putting so much energy into trying to make sure that cricket can become the most inclusive team sport in the country,” Gould said. “It won’t take three to five years. This is a social change that’s got to take place not just in this sport, but across the country.”
“We’re seeing some really good metrics changes… Boys academies are now up to about 32% ethnicity. That is brilliant. That is a huge step forward. But with the girls academies, we’re still roughly at about 10%.”
On leadership longevity
“These are amazing jobs to do. They take a lot of energy,” Gould said. “At some point, you expect to get tapped on the shoulder and go, ‘Alright, we’re going to sub you out now.’”
Richard Gould’s comments offer a rare glimpse into the complexities of cricket’s leadership—where global economics, cultural diplomacy, and institutional reform increasingly shape the game’s trajectory. His views reflect both continuity and evolution: a willingness to challenge conventional thinking while balancing the expectations of diverse stakeholders. As cricket continues to globalize and commercial pressures mount, Gould’s approach will be tested—but it signals a leadership style grounded in pragmatism, transparency, and a long-term vision for the sport.
