Two weeks after its landmark Global Game Structure Report sparked headlines and industry reaction, the World Cricketers’ Association (WCA) has released a follow-up FAQ document aiming to clarify its key recommendations and respond to mounting questions across the cricket world.
Published Tuesday, April 30, the six-page document reinforces the WCA’s push for structural reform in cricket governance, scheduling, and revenue distribution. It also addresses criticisms—direct and indirect—following the report’s release.
As previously reported by Cricexec, multiple ICC board executives criticized the WCA’s report in unusually strong terms. One ICC official was quoted as saying it was:
“Nothing but a trade union making needless noise.”
The WCA’s FAQ does not reference those statements directly, but it reinforces the association’s belief that players and stakeholders need to “start some debate on how cricket can best set itself up for its future.” The full document is available on the WCA website here.
Reaffirming the purpose of the report
The FAQ opens by restating the core intent behind the original WCA report: to prevent foreseeable structural problems in the game and offer a roadmap for a more balanced future.
“The report is designed to start some debate on how cricket can best set itself up for its future and where it is going, to avoid highly foreseeable issues, and to create a clearer, more valuable future for cricket globally.”
“The report covers problems highlighted consistently across stakeholders, and importantly, some recommendations and a roadmap to address them.”
These include:
– “Ensuring international cricket competitions are easier to follow and have more integrity”
– “Protecting international cricket alongside the growing DT20 leagues in a clearer calendar”
– “Financial models conducive to growing the game and some competitive balance in international cricket”
– “Modernised regulations and leadership to manage increasingly cross border issues”
WCA Chairman Heath Mills, in launching the original report, noted:
“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.”
“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.”
Clarifying the WCA’s position on the ICC
In response to the suggestion that the WCA is undermining the ICC’s authority, the FAQ clarifies that its proposals are intended to empower, not diminish, the ICC’s global role.
“No. The recommendations ultimately aim to empower the ICC on issues that clearly require some global management, including the calendar.”
“The ICC is not currently empowered to be a global governing body on most issues.”
“Cricket needs strong global leadership and the recommendations focus on a modernised ICC empowered to lead the game – which has increasingly global / cross border needs – into the future.”
WCA CEO Tom Moffat previously emphasized in the original report:
“The system is broken. Without collective leadership, there is no coordinated decision-making and no prioritization of what’s best for the game as a whole.”
“Cricket is changing fast, but its transition is currently largely unmanaged at global level. There is an urgent need for cricket to reset and modernise its global scheduling, regulations and leadership to keep up with the pace of change and ensure a more balanced future.”
“Every cricket country is part of a global ecosystem, reliant on other countries and their players for their own success.”
Why global scheduling windows are needed
The FAQ devotes substantial attention to explaining why protected windows for international cricket are essential for the game’s coherence and commercial value.
“To ensure a base level of international cricket is protected in the calendar and that it is best v best.”
“To ensure more consistency, an easier to follow calendar, and to give cricket a better way to manage increasing club versus country tension.”
The WCA points out that “there are currently no protected international cricket windows outside of major ICC Events.” Their proposal introduces a baseline tier of “Core International Cricket” to ensure clarity and integrity.
“The recommended windows would protect the minimum level of international cricket required to have fairer, clearer competition structures with some integrity.”
On the potential impact to major bilateral series:
“Effectively as they do now – although with a portion within the protected scheduling windows, and the rest going up against the free market and DT20 leagues, as it does now.”
The case for reform: international cricket under threat
The FAQ lays out the risks facing the international game if the current trajectory continues unchecked—especially for boards reliant on bilateral cricket.
“Without intervention, international cricket, and the national governing bodies who rely on it, is at real risk in most parts of the world.”
“Bilateral international cricket (which includes Test cricket) is most at risk.”
“Broadcasters have indicated they will not continue to pay for a sub-standard, diluted product.”
Reimagining global competition structures
The WCA’s FAQ makes the case for unified, merit-based global competition frameworks across all formats—simplifying qualification for ICC events and increasing meaning in every match.
“Consistent championships for each format, culminating in qualification for existing pinnacle ICC Events, would simplify and provide meaning to all international cricket.”
“Divisional structures create more jeopardy, high value cricket, and ensure the system is based on merit not politics.”
To address criticism around shorter series, the FAQ emphasizes that context, not length, drives value:
“There is currently no minimum requirement for any country to play against others in international cricket, outside of ICC Events, therefore a minimum of one match series per opponent is a step up from the current status.”
“The international finals for all three formats are currently one match… High stakes context has proven to be more important than implementing an arbitrary series length.”
Sub-committee chair Paul Marsh, in the original report, noted:
“Whilst there are a number of positive trends in cricket, there is no doubt that global cricket is at an inflection point.”
“Many of the issues highlighted in the report are challenging, but they need to be discussed if we are to create a more sustainable future in more than just a few countries.”
“Creating a clearer global calendar and incorporating more consistency across formats along with greater competition integrity and context for international cricket, will benefit cricket and all of its stakeholders hugely.”
Strengthening women’s cricket
The FAQ affirms that the WCA’s recommendations apply equally across the men’s and women’s games, while also addressing the unique challenges facing the women’s side.
“A number of recommendations specifically target the women’s game – e.g:
– Financial modelling based on an increase in women’s international cricket volume / access
– A portion of the Global Growth and Development Fund specifically for women’s game investment, and the central leveraging and funding of Core International Cricket”
On women’s Test cricket:
“There are differing views and clearly some appetite in some parts of the world.”
“The recommendation is that it should continue to have a role in multi format series where it is viable and to review this in 2028.”
Sana Mir supported the initiative’s inclusivity:
“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.”
The economics of imbalance
A particularly striking section of the FAQ highlights the stark economic gap between the richest and poorest boards—and calls for smarter global redistribution.
– “The top ranked country’s governing body runs off an estimated USD 1.4 Billion p.a”
– “The 6th ranked country’s governing body runs off an estimated USD 65 Million p.a”
– “The 13th ranked country’s governing body runs off an estimated USD 6 Million p.a”
“It is in every countries (sic) interests, including big ones, to invest in having a competitive product to sell, and in having someone to play against.”
Who gets a voice in cricket’s future?
The WCA advocates for a more inclusive governance structure that reflects the game’s commercial reality—including leagues, franchises, and players.
“Leagues and franchises currently make up around half of the global cricket economy.”
“It would be naïve to think they are not shaping the future of the game anyway, so why not ensure they have a more formal seat at the global table, along with the National Governing Bodies, players and independents – modern cricket stakeholders.”
On the players’ role:
“Because they are both the labour and the product that is being sold, and much of the value in the game is generated on the back of their on-field performances and commercial rights.”
“Players have an interest in the health and success of the game.”
Top players backing the WCA’s vision include:
“We need to step into our future as a sport, 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.” – Pat Cummins
“Cricket has given me so much and I want to see it be strong and sustainable in more than just a handful of countries.” – Rashid Khan
“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.” – Heather Knight
“Our sport has so many great things going for it, but there is potential for it to be so much better.” – Laura Wolvaardt
What comes next
The FAQ concludes with a look ahead: a real-time “scorecard” and a commitment to sustained engagement with the global cricket community.
“WCA will be developing a scorecard to highlight examples of:
– Problems identified in the report when they arise in real time; and
– Progress made that is consistent with the recommendations in the report.”
And a final call to action:
“Cricket’s leaders have the opportunity to set cricket up for the next 50 years, not the last 50 years.”
“We encourage the game to continue to debate them and will be engaging with stakeholders in the coming months and years to continue to pursue change.”
Conclusion
The WCA’s new FAQ document marks a significant escalation in cricket’s ongoing structural debate. It defends, clarifies, and expands on the most ambitious player-led governance proposal in the sport’s modern history. Far from retreating in the face of ICC criticism, the WCA is signaling that it intends to stay at the center of the conversation—with facts, figures, and a global constituency of players behind it.
Whether cricket’s administrators engage constructively—or entrench themselves further—may determine not just the fate of these proposals, but the very structure of the global game for decades to come.
