USA Cricket is down to its final lifeline.
Just days after the ICC Annual General Meeting in Singapore granted USA Cricket (USAC) a three-month extension to fix its governance failings, Chairman Venu Pisike is digging in.
“We are confident we can fast-track and complete all elections within three months,” Pisike told The Hindu in an interview. It’s the clearest signal yet that the current board, under heavy pressure from both the ICC and the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee (USOPC), intends to stay the course rather than resign en masse as some stakeholders had hoped.
The backdrop is dramatic: with cricket set to debut at the Los Angeles 2028 Summer Olympics, USA Cricket has been warned that unless it brings its house in order—with independent governance, athlete representation, and financial transparency—it could lose its ICC membership and Olympic recognition. The ICC has delayed immediate suspension, opting instead to monitor reform progress until October. The USOPC, meanwhile, has yet to confirm that it will recognize USA Cricket as the national governing body eligible to send teams to LA28.
Pisike says the elections are already being set in motion, with the board committed to filling vacant seats and completing overdue athlete and membership director appointments.
“We have three categories of directors. First, independent directors appointed by the board. Second, athlete (player) directors—national players elected by their peers. Third, directors elected by membership, which is my category; there are five of those seats. The terms of all five current elected directors, including mine, end at the close of this year; elections for all five will be held then,” he explained.
Two additional athlete director seats remain open due to recent constitutional amendments aligning with USOPC standards, but Pisike blames long procedural delays—including back-and-forth with the USOPC and a stalled Nominations & Governance Committee (NGC)—for the lack of progress to date.
“The NGC—one member appointed by USA Cricket, one by the ICC, and one by the player directors—also had a delay. The ICC seat was vacant; replacing an ineligible member took the ICC almost three months,” Pisike noted. “While we waited, the elections were on hold.”
When the ICC dispatched a “Normalisation Committee” to the U.S. earlier this summer, some expected it to recommend dissolving the board entirely. According to ESPNcricinfo, the ICC even floated full board resignation as a possible step toward Olympic compliance.
Pisike says most members refused.
“The majority declined to resign. Initially, I was prepared to step down because I had asked the ICC to intervene on the MLC contract… But the ICC said it would not involve itself in internal U.S. commercial contracts. Most board members felt resigning would unjustly damage their reputations,” he said.
At the heart of the crisis is the 2019 commercial agreement between USA Cricket and American Cricket Enterprises (ACE), the private consortium that runs Major League Cricket (MLC) and holds exclusive commercial rights to elite T20 cricket in the U.S.
“We strongly believe the contract violates the Ted Stevens Act and ICC membership guidelines. At drafting, I don’t think those considerations were properly addressed,” Pisike said.
He claims the contract—initially pitched as a short-term placeholder while a more detailed version was drafted—grants ACE inappropriate control over ICC funding, infrastructure, and even player contracts.
“The ICC also reviewed the contract and, in 2022, gave opinions indicating we needed to address certain sections (for example, treatment of ICC funding),” he said. “That, in our view, is a direct violation of ICC membership criteria—no external party should control ICC funding.”
Pisike is also raising the alarm about potential antitrust liability, saying that ACE’s broad exclusivity over men’s T20 cricket and its handling of player salaries could open USA Cricket to litigation.
“The contract grants ACE exclusivity over men’s cricket under five hours in duration. That level of exclusivity is, in our view, a significant antitrust risk,” he warned. “If this continues, someone could litigate against USA Cricket for entering a contract that allegedly violates antitrust principles.”
The tensions extend to who controls the national team. According to Pisike, ACE has structured its player contracts in a way that forces USA Cricket to select MLC-contracted players, without clear input or financial support from the governing body.
“They say they will contract players who play MLC and those players will also be available for USA national teams—but there was no clear communication to the players. It effectively forces us to draw from that pool; if we select others, ACE will not pay.”
“Because they are not coordinating with us—not consulting on which players get contracts or the amounts—we issued our own contracts. Franchises conduct their drafts independently each year; we only see who has what after they submit draft records.”
ACE has responded to USA Cricket’s accusations by denying wrongdoing and claiming the board has mischaracterized their agreement. But Pisike says the consequences of inaction are real.
“We see ACE’s control over funding and players] as another direct violation.”
USA Cricket recently issued a formal breach notice to ACE, citing missed stadium delivery deadlines, revenue sharing dilution, and alleged interference in athlete governance. ACE has disputed the notice, asserting that the agreement has been misrepresented.
USA Cricket also alleges unpaid player dues by ACE of $606,189 for 2024 and $647,603 for 2025 thus far. Pisike effectively confirmed those numbers.
On the flip side, USA Cricket’s funding reality is stark: it ended 2023 with just $52,000 in cash and nearly $615,000 in current liabilities. Its audit warned of ongoing cash flow concerns and its dependency on grants and advances.
With its Olympic future on the line, USA Cricket must convince both the ICC and USOPC that it is capable of independent governance—and that it is more than just a bystander in its own sport.
Pisike, for his part, is determined to hold the line.
“We have achieved a lot in my tenure, but the [ACE] contract remains unresolved and keeps generating new issues,” he said. “Installing an entirely new board without any history of the contract’s complexity could mean it takes years to understand and address the problems—and by then it might be too late.”
Time is running out.
