Global cricket has never generated more money. Yet, according to three of the game’s most experienced administrators, it has never been more structurally compromised.
Writing in News24, former International Cricket Council (ICC) Chief Executive Haroon Lorgat, former Cricket South Africa President Norman Arendse SC and former CSA Acting President AK Khan argue that the ICC has drifted from independent global stewardship into systemic capture by the sport’s most powerful boards.
ICC accused of institutional decay
The trio do not temper their assessment. “International cricket is decaying from within as its unprecedented commercial wealth masks a leadership crisis that has stripped the game of its credibility,” they write.
At the heart of their critique is the concentration of influence in the hands of the Board of Control for Cricket in India, Cricket Australia and the England and Wales Cricket Board — commonly referred to as the “Big Three”.
According to the authors, “Today, the ICC has abandoned its mandate, functioning merely as a clearing house for the agendas of the powerful.” They go further, stating that the global body “has devolved into a BCCI satellite, sustained by the calculated complicity of CA and the ECB.”
In their view, the ICC’s governance architecture now entrenches bilateral leverage rather than safeguarding the collective interests of the international game.
Bangladesh decision cited as evidence of ‘capture’
One of the most striking examples cited is the ICC’s handling of Bangladesh’s removal from the 2026 T20 World Cup.
“The ICC’s recent shameful summary removal of Bangladesh from the 2026 T20 World Cup epitomises this capture,” they argue, describing the episode as symptomatic of uneven application of policy.
They add that “Bangladesh’s subsequent expulsion and replacement by Scotland was a disciplinary hit-job,” contrasting it with the accommodation reportedly afforded to India in other tournament contexts.
The episode, they suggest, illustrates a governance model in which competitive and political considerations are applied inconsistently, depending on the member involved.
Revenue model under scrutiny
Beyond tournament administration, the financial structure of the ICC also comes under their scrutiny.
“The 2024-2027 revenue model cynically ensures the BCCI receives a staggering 38.5% – roughly US$ 230m annually,” the authors write, highlighting what they describe as a distribution framework that reinforces imbalance.
They characterise the current structure as a “reverse-engineered ‘rip-off’” that “ensures the rich get richer and forces remaining members to fight over crumbs, stifling global expansion.”
In this analysis, the concentration of central distributions risks locking smaller Full Members and Associate nations into structural dependency, particularly in an era where franchise leagues are reshaping the commercial ecosystem.
Reform blueprint targets board structure and transparency
While sharply critical, the column is ultimately framed as a plan for reform.
“There must be a total decoupling of national boards from the global governance structure as recommended by the Woolf Report,” they write, calling for a fundamental redesign of the ICC’s board composition.
They argue that “The ICC must immediately reconstitute its Board to eliminate paralysing conflicts by replacing national representatives with a majority of merit-based, cricket savvy independent directors.”
Transparency measures are also central to their proposals. “The era of secret ballots and closed-door ‘side deals’ that have characterised the current regime must end immediately,” they contend, advocating for public voting records and stronger compliance oversight.
On scheduling, they propose a more centralised global framework, stating that “A mandatory, balanced global playing schedule that includes all full members and provides clear pathways for associates is the only way to preserve the relevance of international cricket in an age of franchise dominance.”
Warning of existential risk
The authors frame their intervention not as political theatre, but as a response to what they view as mounting systemic fragility within the international structure.
“Failure to act now will guarantee the absolute entrenchment of capture and will ensure the permanent death of cricket as a global sport,” they warn.
Coming from administrators who have held senior roles within both the ICC and Cricket South Africa, the critique signals that debate around governance reform — particularly around revenue allocation, board independence and calendar control — is unlikely to dissipate.
