The recent ICC board meetings in Zimbabwe have sparked a significant divide within global cricket, as the ascendance of the World Cricketers’ Association (WCA) continues to stir backlash from the game’s most powerful stakeholders. With the WCA pushing for a more equitable share of global revenues for players and Full Members alike, many within the ICC, particularly the BCCI and its allies, have delivered a clear and public rebuke.
A strong response from ICC executives
The reaction from the ICC Chief Executives’ Committee (CEC) was swift and coordinated. An anonymous CEC member, speaking to the Times of India (TOI), dismissed the WCA outright:
“Who are they? What is the World Cricketers Association? Where have they come from? These are the immediate questions which come to mind. To me they are nothing but a trade union making needless noise. Clearly they don’t have the (players’) best interests in mind and just want to create distractions. If the ICC reacts (to) or entertains such trade unions mushrooming now and then, then the game will not be in the right space.”
The tone echoed strongly through the room during discussions, with the BCCI taking the lead in rejecting the WCA’s report and proposals.
“The BCCI took a strong stand in the CEC meet and it was unanimously backed by the other members of the CEC. The message is clear – the players can either choose to play the IPL or side with the WCA. There seems to be no ambiguity. As far as the share from the gaming rights revenue is concerned, it’s nobody’s business. A player represents their cricket board and members of those cricket boards form the ICC. Where and how does WCA come into picture?”
Questions over WCA’s legitimacy
At the heart of the criticism lies a deeper objection: that the WCA is attempting to disrupt a finely balanced ecosystem without any established mandate.
“Before going to the details of the report, first we need to understand who the WCA is, isn’t it? And why will the ICC discuss changing the revenue model when it was agreed upon by the members when the Finance and Commercial Affairs Committee had made its recommendations. You fix something when it’s broken, and how is this broken? When the existing model was agreed upon, it was duly noted that the BCCI, the Indian market in particular, is bringing in the most money to the table. So where is rocket science? It’s pure math – you bring more, you take more. That’s what happens in sales right? More incentives for better sales. What is the need to complicate matters?”
That logic underscores the current revenue-sharing agreement, which heavily favors the BCCI due to its outsized contribution to global cricket revenues through IPL and India-hosted matches. The WCA’s suggestion that player organizations should be involved in conversations around gaming rights or ICC earnings has been labeled by some as overreach.
The WCA’s agenda
The WCA recently released a report calling for the overhaul of the cricket governance system. Among other things, it calls for:
- A central governing structure with authority over the global calendar
- Minimum standards and agreements for domestic leagues
- Balanced and transparent revenue distribution
- Integrated player workload tracking across formats and leagues
The WCA isn’t against the rise of domestic leagues—far from it. The report acknowledges their importance in expanding opportunities for players and fans, especially in emerging markets.
But according to the WCA the current growth is unregulated, and that’s where the problems lie.
“Leagues are here to stay—and they’re not the problem,” WCA CEO Tom Moffat said. “The problem is that there’s no system sitting above them, making sure that the whole game functions as a coherent ecosystem.”
That lack of oversight is putting national team cricket at risk. As players increasingly choose club over country—often for reasons of financial stability or workload management—the once-clear hierarchy of cricket is blurring.
The report proposes standardizing minimum conditions and international windows for leagues, while ensuring player welfare is not sacrificed in the pursuit of profit.
Tom Harrison, the former ECB CEO and a contributor to the report, added a commercial perspective:
“Cricket’s finances are not optimised because competition structures have become incoherent in the search for more short-term value. Cricket of consequence, rather than cricket for cricket’s sake, is the key to addressing this.”
WCA Chairman Heath Mills said the report emerged from a shared concern across the cricket world.
“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,” said Mills.
“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.”
No traction for WCA proposals with ICC
Despite WCA’s recent publication of its global report urging reforms in governance and finance, ICC CEC members have largely dismissed its contents.
“Was any decision taken on the WCA report? No. Will a decision be taken on the WCA report? Highly unlikely. So there is no question of a dialogue at the moment. The ICC is still trying to understand the fine prints of the organisation and some of the recommendations are absurd to say the least. They just can’t ridicule the ICC and question its existence in the ecosystem. Everyone wants better and bigger things for cricketers but one also needs to understand that there are other moving parts which need to be taken care of,” explains the administrator.
Why is the WCA viewed as a threat?
The strong reaction to the WCA raises questions as to why it is perceived as a threat by cricket’s powers.
One possible explanation is the growing and vocal presence and participation of cricket’s biggest stars in the organisation.
The WCA’s report is unique in how strongly and publicly it centers the voices of current international players—many of whom are rarely heard in debates on governance and structure.
“Our sport has so many great things going for it, but there is potential for it to be so much better,” said South Africa captain Laura Wolvaardt. “We’re encouraging the whole game to come together and help it to achieve its global potential.”
Afghanistan’s Rashid Khan echoed that call: “Cricket has given me so much and I want to see it be strong and sustainable in more than just a handful of countries. We’re urging the game’s leadership to act on the information and suggestions contained in this report.”
“We need to step into our future as a sport,” said Pat Cummins, Australia’s Test captain, “but there are some important parts of our history, and in particular international cricket, that we want to see protected and thriving into the future.”
England captain Heather Knight added:
“As players we understand our responsibility to the game, and we have an interest in it being successful. A unified sport is going to achieve better outcomes than a fragmented one.”
Sana Mir, one of the report’s key contributors and a former captain of Pakistan, put it simply:
“Cricket has an opportunity to come together and define a much simpler, clearer and more unified future across both the men’s and women’s games. This report needs the attention of anyone who cares about the future of cricket.”
A fracture point in cricket’s governance?
The controversy reveals a growing tension between the commercial juggernauts of cricket and emerging voices advocating for better global equity and player representation. While the IPL remains the crown jewel of modern franchise cricket, its dominance is increasingly seen by some as coming at the expense of the broader ecosystem.
For now, the ICC appears firmly aligned with the BCCI in defending the current structure. But the visibility and assertiveness of the WCA may signal that the battle for influence in global cricket governance is only beginning.
