The Federation of International Cricketers Association (FICA) has deemed the restrictions imposed on non-contracted players' participation in domestic Twenty20 leagues around the world "unjust" and said that they are liable to legal challenge under most jurisdictions.

As per the ICC's existing regulations, players, whether centrally contracted by the national board or otherwise, are constrained to obtain a No Objection Certificate from their home board in order to ply their trade in domestic T20 tournaments such as the Indian Premier League. The aforesaid technicality is being viewed by the FICA as a violation of players' fundamental rights - freedom of movement and choice to play where they are most valued. And a tool in the hands of home boards in case of a conflict with the players, such as the stirring a storm in Australia.

Tony Irish, Executive chairman of FICA commented on the issue saying,

"As it stands, the ICC does have some existing regulations on the provision of 'No Objection Certificates' to players who wish to play in a domestic T20 league. These however were not specifically agreed with the players, and, given where the game now stands, we think a new framework is required. To the extent that a Board might now attempt to rely on existing ICC regulations to restrict players who are not contracted from playing in domestic T20 leagues, FICA believes that would be open to legal challenge in most jurisdictions as a restraint of trade."

Full Story

In reply to CaribbeanCricket.com

FICA apparently is finally growing a pair.

Greedy Mercenaries!

In reply to CaribbeanCricket.com

I have said that for years!

I don't think a non-contracted player was ever denied an NOC because if it is "unjust" and liable to legal challenge someone would have already gone that route....

In reply to Kay
If non is denied an NOC and the language used by FICA is "may constitute" then common sense should tell u that FICA out fishing without a pond and what this really is about is the money that changes hands for these non contracted players.

In reply to Kay

There are two aspects to a legal case -- liability and damages. Your point that no player without a retainer has ever been denied a no objection certificate goes to the issue of damages, not to whether the no objection certificate requirement is legal.

Indeed, the fact that no objection certificates are always granted to non-retained players suggests that the requirement is an unnecessary waste of time. Either that, or ICC members are aware the NOC requirement is illegal and are afraid of a big damages award if and when it is challenged.

In any event, the damages in any restraint of trade case brought by non-retained players are the 10% of player contracts that go to their home boards.

In reply to carl0002

Hammer meet nail

In reply to carl0002

If the player is not contracted, he SHOULD not need a NOC, there are implications in asking for one, at some point it could be denied.

You know rather than have a cockeyed view of the situation one can argue the logic behind it. The NOC system only impacts the poor in world cricket, cuz the rich all have their players contracted in some form. However the poor don't have the financial resources and infrastructure to do that. The NOC system is at its best a recognition by the ICC that these 20/20 leagues have the ability to devastate the cricket resources of poor partners and at a minimum its an attempt to compensate home boards for at least providing the initial platform for those players to be seen. Its not perfect but one can see the logic behind it.

In reply to carl0002

There is always logic behind illegal schemes. Is there some entity in Jamaica that takes 10% of Usain Bolt's earnings because Jamaica provided the early platform for him to be seen?

In reply to carl0002


when a player from another country plays test for another there is no NOC requirement, so why not extend the compensation requirement to that situation which is far more harmful?

In reply to Walco
You know to compare track and field to cricket a team sport with different models for development is not the same.

And Bolt may not pay 10% for his exposure but he darn well pay an agent and a manager though.

In reply to camos
There is none cuz he is considered a member of whichever cricket board he plays for and resident/citizen of that country.

In reply to carl0002

I think in the future all boards will sign their assets from an early age. Any t20 team looking to sign a player will then have to pay the board a fee for the development of that player. The countries in effect will operate as clubs.

In reply to carl0002

These forkers know what they are doing is illegal but continue to do it anyway. There is a special place in law reserved for these types. It's called punitive damages!!!

There was a risk "if refused". But I ask you based on how u carrying on there should be lawsuits flying all over the place. What percentage of players is this happening to. Where is the epidemic of disenfranchised players that are fully convinced of this illegality as u put it. A Windian player has zero prospects of making a living playing cricket has an option to make $0 as opposed to 70,000 US in 2 months for a 10% fee still comes out with $63k US TAX FREE. He should go ahead and sue for the 10% fee if he is so disenfranchised.

In reply to carl0002

I am traveling, so it is difficult to find time to respond in a detailed manner. I will revert to you tomorrow.

In reply to Walco

I take it you mean civil case!

I think Methodic is on point!

In reply to carl0002

So what's the solution to this problem? Wouldn't you agree that a better solution would be a better revenue-sharing arrangement among ICC members instead of dipping their hands into the pockets of the players and taking 10% of their league money? And of course the 10% money-grab does not even come close to solving the problem you identified.

In reply to carl0002

Are the models really that different? The average track athlete starts in school, then joins a club, and if he or she is successful gets national selection and international exposure. The average cricket player starts in school, then joins a club, and if successful gets national selection and international exposure.



Cricketers have agents/managers as well. Most West Indies players are represented by a British Attorney of Sri Lankan heritage who also happens to be married to Kieran Powell.

In reply to carl0002

Every non-contracted player who is forced to pay 10% of his league earnings to his home board in order to play in a foreign league is a victim of the unlawful scheme put in place by the ICC.

A few years back WIPA filed a restraint of trade case against the WICB that apparently went away with Ramnarine. WIPA did not have standing to bring this case. Chris Gayle, Bravo, Pollard, etc. had standing to bring a restraint of trade case against the WICB, but they all declined. Why? Let me "splane" it.

Under the antitrust laws, there are single-actor restraints of trade such as unlawful monopolies, and multi-actor restraints of trade such as conspiracies to fix prices or to boycott goods or services.

In June 2009, the ICC and its Members (including the WICB) agreed between and among themselves that a NOC shall be required from a player’s home board before the player can participate in an overseas league or in another ICC Member’s country, regardless of whether the player is contracted by his home board. In other words, the Members of the ICC have agreed to boycott the services of any foreign player who seeks to play in a Member-sanctioned domestic league without a NOC from his home board.

In view of the above, the career of any cricketer who directly challenges the NOC requirement and the 10% money-grab would come to a crashing end. He would be boycotted by every league around the world. That's why there is no flood of lawsuits.

Not even Chris Gayle, arguably GOAT in the T20 format, was willing to commit career-suicide.

In reply to XDFIX

Yes, but an ambitious prosecutor could possible bring criminal charges as well. Not all countries have criminal antitrust laws though.



Yes, Methodic is on point. The only way to do it legally is contractually.

In reply to Walco

Since we have seen no flood of law suits, one can argue that the NOC arrangements as it presently stands has worked to the benefit of the players and their respective boards, despite the fact that there could be the law suit regarding restraint of trade. When players and boards do not agree, there is always ammunition out there to fight one another. However, there is no guarantee that any victory over the other will improve conditions for the victor. Legality or otherwise is merely a moot point in this present situation between the players and their boards.

In reply to jelfew

Since we saw no flood of lawsuits, one can argue that slavery as it existed worked to the benefit of the slaves and their respective owners.

By no means am I suggesting that cricketers are slaves, but see where your flawed logic can get you?