When Daryl Mitchell assumed the chief executive role at the Professional Cricketers’ Association in January 2025, he inherited a moment that English cricket had been building toward for years. After decades of financial struggle at county level, the sale of minority stakes in The Hundred franchises was about to deliver £520 million to the 18 first-class counties—a figure that dwarfs even the collective debt burden many had accumulated. It was, as Mitchell describes it, a once-in-a-generation opportunity for sustainability.
But opportunity alone guarantees nothing. For the players Mitchell represents, the influx of private capital carries both promise and peril. Done right, it could raise minimum standards across the professional game, improve conditions, and secure career transition support for those leaving the sport. Done wrong, it risks entrenching existing inequalities or funding the wrong priorities entirely. The stakes have never been clearer, and the PCA’s voice has never mattered more.
A pragmatic approach to unprecedented funding
The messaging from county boardrooms over the past year has often centered on debt relief and infrastructure upgrades—sensible priorities for clubs long accustomed to living hand-to-mouth. What’s striking about Daryl Mitchell’s articulation of the PCA’s position on the opportunity is how aligned it appears with those institutional goals, not opposed to them. The players, he makes clear, are not demanding profligacy. They want sustainability as much as anyone.
“This is a real opportunity to get some sustainability, pay off a load of debt and take the game forward in terms of domestic cricket,” Mitchell said during a recent interview. The PCA, he explained, has long advocated for counties to retire burdensome liabilities before attempting ambitious new spending. Financial stability, after all, protects players’ livelihoods as surely as any salary increase.
That pragmatism extends to how the association approaches remuneration itself. With 18 counties operating vastly different business models—some generating significant off-field revenue, others subsisting largely on ECB distributions—the PCA has historically worked within tight constraints. It focuses on three levers: the salary collar, which sets minimum total spend on players; the minimum salary for individual contracts; and the salary cap, which limits top-end spending.
The trick has always been calibrating these numbers to the weakest clubs rather than the strongest. “You almost have to work to the lowest common denominator,” Mitchell explained, “because the last thing you want to do is trying to force spend on counties which puts them over the edge and gets them into financial difficulties.”
With the new funding in place, those calculations shift. Clubs that once teetered on the brink now have breathing room. That creates space—carefully, incrementally—to raise the floor.
Raising the bottom, not just the top
When Mitchell talks about where new money should go, his priority is unambiguous: it’s not about the six-figure earners. It’s about the rookies, the fringe players, the professionals scraping by on contracts that barely clear £20,000 or £25,000 annually.
“It’s about raising the minimum standards at the bottom end,” he said. “Making being a professional cricketer in this country something that youngsters want to do and something people aspire to.”
The emphasis on aspiration is revealing. County cricket’s role in English cricket extends beyond the first team at each club. It’s the pathway—the place where teenagers decide whether to commit to the sport professionally, where talent either flourishes or drifts away to other careers. If the entry point looks unappealing—low pay, poor conditions, endless travel on inadequate budgets—the system loses players it can’t afford to lose.
That’s why the PCA’s shopping list for the new funds includes not just salary increases but also improved travel arrangements, better expense coverage, and upgraded standards across the board. These aren’t glamorous asks, but they’re the kind of quality-of-life improvements that make careers sustainable over 10 or 15 years, not just two or three.
The PCA has also pushed hard for increased investment in the Futures Fund, a pot of money distributed to players transitioning out of the game. “Everyone has to leave the game as a player at some point,” Mitchell noted. “There’s very few that don’t have to work again.” For those who bow out in their late thirties after long careers, or those released in their early twenties after injury, the fund offers critical support for retraining and career changes. The PCA considers it a massive priority.
Negotiations on all these issues are ongoing. A short-term agreement was reached for the current season before the Hundred money began trickling down, but substantive talks will continue in 2026. When they do, Mitchell will be armed with evidence that the clubs now have the resources to make meaningful changes.
The calendar battle that won’t go away
If the financial side of the PCA’s agenda has found some common ground with county leadership, the same cannot be said for scheduling. Here, the gulf between what players want and what clubs—or more accurately, their members—will accept remains challenging.
The numbers tell the story. Last season, county cricketers played 38 back-to-back fixtures across formats—an exhausting grind that left little room for rest, recovery, or practice. For 2025, that figure is projected to drop to around six, a massive improvement driven largely by reducing the Vitality Blast from 14 group-stage matches to 12. Getting the Blast finished before The Hundred begins was a major priority for players, and the clubs voted it through with little resistance.
But the relief stops there. The real problem, Mitchell explained, comes in the final six weeks of the season, after The Hundred wraps up in mid-August. Players face six rounds of the County Championship crammed into a compressed window, with the Metro Bank One-Day Cup final sandwiched in between. There’s barely two days’ rest between some four-day matches. The schedule, Mitchell said bluntly, is “slightly too much cricket in too short a space of time.”
The consequences are predictable: heightened injury risk, diminished performance, and a product on the field that doesn’t reflect the quality of the players involved. “It obviously has an impact on performance and the quality of the product on the field,” Mitchell said, “as well as heightening the risk of injuries.”
The solution, from the players’ perspective, is straightforward: reduce the Championship from 14 matches to 12. Take those two rounds out of the late-season crunch and the problem largely disappears. It’s a proposal backed by quality-over-quantity arguments—better-prepared players produce better cricket—and by player welfare concerns.
Yet despite those arguments, the idea has failed to gain the necessary support among county chairs. The voting mechanism requires 12 of 18 counties to approve any structural change, and while there may be a majority in favor of some reduction, there’s no consensus on which structure to adopt or how to balance divisional play.
The membership problem
The real obstacle, Mitchell acknowledged, isn’t the county administrators themselves. It’s the membership.
For many county cricket members — often lifelong fans from an older generation — Championship cricket is the bread and butter. They pay annual subscriptions expecting to watch as much red-ball cricket as possible at their home ground. Any reduction, no matter how sensible from a player welfare or competitive balance standpoint, is not an option.
“I think they see any sort of reduction in the amount of championship cricket as a threat to the game and the way they like to see the game and what they want to see,” Mitchell said. And because county chairs answer to those members—who elect them and hold them accountable—the structural inertia is fierce.
Mitchell has tried multiple angles. The PCA has emphasized quality over quantity, arguing that better-rested bowlers and more time for practice produce higher-standard matches. It has leaned on player welfare, highlighting the physical and mental toll of the current schedule. It has even pointed to the risk of pushing talented players away from red-ball cricket entirely because the Championship is so taxing.
None of it has worked. “You need 12 out of the 18 to vote something through,” Mitchell said. “And that’s where the stumbling block has been.”
There’s a bitter irony here. The counties generally don’t make their profit from Championship cricket—it’s often a loss leader. Cutting two rounds would likely improve their financial position while creating a better schedule for players. But the political economy of county cricket, where members hold ultimate power, makes the change nearly impossible to execute.
When asked how to change members’ minds, Mitchell offered a rueful laugh. “If you’ve got the answer to that, then please let me know.”
A pathway that works—mostly
If the calendar remains a source of frustration, the PCA takes genuine pride in one aspect of the English game: the talent pathway. Despite all the structural challenges and financial difficulties, the county system continues to produce elite players at a remarkable rate.
Mitchell pointed to the proliferation of English talent across global franchise leagues as proof. “The player pathway is probably one of English cricket’s biggest strengths in terms of producing elite-level players,” he said. The sheer depth of white-ball talent knocking on the door of England selection—many of whom are thriving in overseas T20 leagues—speaks to the system’s effectiveness.
Still, gaps remain. Mitchell noted the game’s heavy reliance on private schools, which dominate pathways in ways that limit access for state school cricketers. “There’s still a heavy reliance on private schools,” he said, “and there could be more money invested in state schools.”
The PCA also lauds programs like the South Asian Cricket Academy and the ACE Programme, which have done important work bringing players from ethnic minority backgrounds into county cricket. While technically outside the association’s direct remit—players only become PCA members once they turn professional—Mitchell sees pathway development as integral to the health of the game overall.
“We’ve got a big population and a lot of young kids,” he said. “We can definitely get more people playing the game.”
The women’s game
If there’s one area where optimism clearly outweighs concern, it’s the women’s game. The momentum is unmistakable, both globally and in England, and Mitchell sees the PCA playing an increasingly important role in shaping how that growth translates into sustainable careers.
The recent Women’s World Cup provided a vivid illustration of cricket’s shifting landscape. With host India winning the tournament, the tournament’s impact on the sport’s commercial prospects was profound. The knock-on effects are already visible: endorsement deals proliferating, Women’s Premier League salaries climbing, and a broader recognition that women’s cricket can drive meaningful revenue.
“Women’s cricket is becoming a global phenomenon,” Mitchell said. “I only see that going from strength to strength.”
In England, that momentum is manifesting in tangible ways. Mitchell highlighted recent progress on pay equity at the international level, where women’s match fees now match men’s—a landmark achievement that reflects years of advocacy. The Hundred’s women’s salary cap has doubled for 2026, rising to £880,000 per team, a significant investment that signals ownership groups are taking the women’s game seriously.
The PCA’s membership among women players has been growing rapidly as professionalization accelerates. With squads now consisting of at least 15 full-time professionals per team, and standards rising accordingly, the association is increasingly focused on ensuring those players have the same protections, support systems, and career development opportunities as their male counterparts.
Still, challenges persist. While the women’s Hundred salary cap has doubled, the men’s cap has risen by 45% to just over £2 million. That creates a widening gender pay gap—a development the PCA is “not completely happy with,” Mitchell said, even as he acknowledged the significant investment in the women’s game. The gap speaks to a broader tension: celebrating progress while recognizing how far the journey still has to go.
The broader point, Mitchell suggested, is that a thriving women’s game benefits everyone. More viewers, more commercial interest, more pathways for young girls—all of it strengthens cricket’s position in an increasingly competitive sports marketplace. And for the players themselves, the professionalization of the women’s game represents an opportunity to build careers that were simply unavailable to previous generations.
The Hundred and the 12.5% deduction
On the men’s side, The Hundred presents its own set of negotiations. For 2026, the salary cap has increased substantially, and squad sizes have expanded slightly to accommodate a fourth overseas player per team. But the PCA failed to secure an increase in the minimum base price for men’s players, which will remain at £31,000—a source of frustration for the association.
One victory did materialize: the removal of the 12.5% deduction from county salaries for players participating in The Hundred. “Everyone should be slightly better off,” Mitchell said, “which is an important thing and something that the players have been pretty strong on over the last four or five years.”
It’s a small but telling win—proof that persistent advocacy on even minor-seeming issues can eventually shift institutional positions.
A relationship built on mutual respect
Throughout the conversation, Mitchell emphasized the constructive nature of the PCA’s relationship with the ECB and the counties. “It’s a positive working relationship,” he said. “There’s a mutual respect between us, the ECB and the counties.”
That tone matters. The PCA could easily position itself as adversarial, framing every negotiation as players versus management. Instead, Mitchell describes a collaborative dynamic where all parties recognize their interdependence. “If the game is thriving from, the people who benefit the most are the players—and that works both ways,” he said.
It’s a philosophy that reflects Mitchell’s own background. Before taking the CEO role, he served as PCA chair for four years while also playing county cricket for Worcestershire for 19 seasons. He knows the dressing rooms, understands the concerns, and brings credibility that a purely administrative leader might lack. When he speaks about player welfare, it’s not abstract—it’s lived experience.
The long view
As English cricket enters this new era of private investment and institutional restructuring, the PCA’s task is to ensure that players don’t get lost in the shuffle. That means pushing for higher minimum standards, better working conditions, and a schedule that doesn’t grind careers into dust. It means protecting the Futures Fund and advocating for pay equity in the women’s game. And it means holding the line on issues like The Hundred deductions, even when progress feels incremental.
“Trying to get a strong English game from top to bottom is the absolute priority,” Mitchell said, “because then everyone benefits.”
It’s a long view, grounded in pragmatism rather than naive idealism. The PCA isn’t demanding revolution. It’s asking for steady, sustainable improvement—the kind that compounds over years into something genuinely transformative. Whether the counties, the ECB, and the game’s stakeholders are willing to meet that ask will define not just the next few seasons, but the next generation of English cricket.
For now, Mitchell and his members are prepared to keep making the case. The money is there. The opportunity is real. All that remains is the will and consensus about how to use it wisely.
Read part one of cricexec’s “Great County Cricket Reset” series here.
Read part two of cricexec’s “Great County Cricket Reset” series here, featuring Leicester County Cricket Club.
Read part three of cricexec’s “Great County Cricket Reset” series here, featuring Glamorgan County Cricket Club.
