Players point the way for cricket — will administrators listen?

The beauty of the proposals made by the World Cricketers' Association regarding how to save the international game is their simplicity. 

Proposed schedules for men's and women's international cricket are illustrated and colour-coded: the 84 days of international cricket, broken into four windows, are highlighted in red; green indicates ‘free market’ that is T20 Leagues; and blue is the ICC windows, which for 2028 include the T20 World Cup and the LA Olympics, where a six-team cricket competition will be played. 

A men’s international structure, covering all three formats, is laid out and colour-coded too, including a proposal for a four-team World Test Championship final after a 12-team two division competition. There are 24 teams split over three divisions for ODI cricket, creating competition for a 14-team World Cup. 

There are 32 teams for the T20 format, split across four divisions, with the top 20 qualifying for the T20 World Cup, while promotion and relegation playoffs are written into the structure. 

It’s easy to follow, for players, as well as, critically, for fans. It creates jeopardy — for everyone — rewards excellence, and according to the WCA which represents over 600 international players, it will bring more money into the game. According to independent analysis requested by the WCA, cricket could unlock $246m per year, were its proposed changes to be implemented. 

It looks good and sounds simple.     

It shouldn’t be, but that simplicity is a scary prospect for the International Cricket Council.

The ICC held a series of meetings at a swish hotel overlooking Victoria Falls in Zimbabwe at the weekend, with proposals over a two division Test system and how points are decided for match wins in the WTC.

South Africa’s qualification for the World Test Championship final certainly didn’t go down well in England and in India, with lots of grumbling about the supposedly easy path Temba Bavuma’s side had to Lord’s.   

The WCA report took six months to compile. Titled Protecting History, Embracing Change: A Unified Coherent Global Future, it provides a perspective about the sport — specifically at international level — that comes at a critical juncture. 

A country like India is awash with money, players and on-field success in terms of World Cups, but as the report highlights, the rest of the cricket world is battling to stay financially afloat. 

The effect of those challenges is seen in organisations such as Cricket South Africa, choosing to withdraw all its contracted players from a Test tour to New Zealand in 2024, to prioritise the SA20 tournament, which has quickly created value. 

Cricket South Africa is also currently conducting a comprehensive review of the domestic structure as concerns grow for the long-term financial wellbeing of the game. 

For now, the ICC is on a solid footing, but it remains reluctant to evolve and problems with its leadership were also highlighted by the report. Citing “political and economic realities”, the WCA’s report states that there is a reluctance to engage in “genuine meaningful change”.

What that leads to are the current problems, where India is so dominant, and historic powers, England and Australia — who are only looking after their own wellbeing — are desperate for content against each other and India. Those nations not in that club then do what they must to appease those nations — even voting on issues at ICC level that may harm them, to ensure they don’t lose out on income from tours or matches against those sides, particularly India. 

In the long term that is no way for the sport to survive. 

Importantly the WCA makes clear that its proposals — covering scheduling, structure and governance — are mere starting points for conversations about changes the game needs to make. 

The ICC is yet to respond publicly to the report though there are sure to be private talks occurring. Most importantly it is what the BCCI — India’s ruling body — says that will carry the most weight. 

They probably won’t say anything, mainly because it doesn’t affect their bottom line. 

But even India, with all its riches and current power over the sport, needs to consider what the players are saying here. 

However, once the power shifts from cricket’s administrators to the conglomerates that run IPL teams — such as Reliance, which owns the Mumbai Indians franchise and its affiliate teams in leagues in South Africa, the UAE, the US and now England — the BCCI’s influence will start to waver. 

It’s why the players’ very intelligent and workable set of proposals bear consideration.