Message Board Archives

The ICC's Full Members are on the verge of clamping down on player participation in domestic T20 leagues, and may well also stop sanctioning such leagues in Associate Member countries. The mushrooming growth of T20 leagues in recent years has rattled cricket's ecosystem and to control its impact on international cricket, ESPNcricinfo understands the majority of Full Members have given an in-principle nod to capping player participation to no more than three T20 leagues a year.

Both the chief executives committee (CEC) and the ICC Board have discussed the issue at the annual conference in Dublin over the weekend and a broad consensus has emerged that if players are allowed to participate in any number of leagues it will start affecting international bilateral cricket. Although both the CEC and Board were in favour of putting a cap on as soon as manageable, a final decision is only expected at the October round of ICC meetings.

Full Story

In reply to CaribbeanCricket.com

Its interesting that one of the reasons given why Associate Members may not get permission to host a T20 tournament is that it is run by a third party.

And to think that CWI would support such. Maybe CWI will now retake the CPL. How much would they have to pay Digicell to do that?

In reply to Maispwi

Is that the overriding concern?

Hola...T20 leagues around the world should tell ICC to stuff it..
No permission should be needed from them regarding a country wanting to get a T20 league.
Capitalism is good...envy is something else.
Adios
CB

In reply to CITYBOY

I can see the players association-FICA taking them to court and winning.

In reply to CITYBOY

Agreed 100%. It's only now that the ICC wants to put some kind of clampdown. It's so blatantly obvious what the driving force is here.

Instead of trying to be proactive and create windows for Int'l matches, they do eff-all until suddenly, UAE and Canada and Nepal want to join the party. Now it's about 'preventing burnout' or some other claptrap.

Go get em, FICA.

In reply to Tryangle

There is a reason for rules, regulations, and laws - the days of the old wild west are long gone!

Even nature sets rules for itself!

Restraint of trade on so many levels

But that’s what a desperate set of people do when faced with reality of irrelevance.

Here’s to the “sanctity and primacy of test cricket”. Well on its way to being as irrelevant an entity as Pan Am airways, the horse and buggy, 8 track players, and a blackberry phone.

The ICC supposedly in charge of “growing the game”

The difference is they only intent on growing it in select countries.

Non traditional cricketing countries taking an interest in the game purely because of T20 and the ICC says nothing for you.

They don’t care about the game. They care about preserving their stature in the game. That’s it

In reply to Tryangle

Even the biggest mansions run out of space to add more windows at some point....

I don't agree with telling a country they can't have a T20 League, that is just wrong, however, they should be a limit on the amount of T20 leagues a player can play in, 2 leagues plus your home league is enough IMHO

In reply to Kay

Perhaps, but it's not like the Windies international calendar is jam packed and filled to the brim right now

In reply to hawk

Why not leave that to the relevant national board then? India (who can afford it) and I think Pakistan do so. What if you're an emerging player from Zimbabwe, Afghanistan or Ireland, have a very small amount of international matches on your plate and have a chance to make some $$$ that dwarfs whatever your national board can pay.

bullshit!

Is ICC going to mandate each National cricket boards put ALL these players on reasonable national retainer contracts?

If not, this is total fcukery...

GOOD! THIS WAY WOUNDIANS WILL STOP BRITCHNG ABOUT NOT GETTING THE TEAM WHICH THEY WANT. HOPE WOUNDIES BOARD WILL GIVE CHANCE TO MONEY HUNGERS.

ROFL WOUNDIANS

In reply to Tryangle

Doesnt matter if it is board level or ICC level it is badly needed
The challenge i have with playing in all these leagues leave players a spent force by the time national duty comes around
3 leagues is still enough for a player plus national contracts would ensure a player earns a decent living without havung to sacrifice playing for his nation

So players can participate in IPL, Big Bash, and the English league. But if you are from the Caribbean or Sri Lanka and choose to maximize your earnings, then you may have to give up on your local league.

BTW, Indians have been forbidden from playing in leagues other than the IPL. Yet, I have heard little about restraint of trade. Does it matter? Do they care? And what would happen if they choose to take the case to court?

In reply to hawk

Question is what comprises a decent living - some people may be content with say $50K from each of three leagues, but what if you want to really make a difference in your families' lives, then you're going to want $50K from each of six leagues. It comes to the individual and their financial situation and to limit a player's earning power seems a bit contrary to free enterprise.

Because the ICC sat back and let each of the FMs schedule their pro leagues across every period of the calendar, but now that some Associates see the chance to get some promotion and opportunity for their own local talent to rub shoulders with star players (and improve their game), we're in a tough situation.

If it's about player burnout, then amend the calendars... and also find a way to better compensate players on international duty. Another bit of fallout from the Big 3 era. Zimbabwe can't even pay Brendan Taylor and others. Every non-Big 3 board is in a bit of a financial pickle, especially those at the lower end of the FM spectrum.

Hola...this thing has serious financial complications.Countries are not allowed to grow a market.Most nternational players will go to IPL/Big Bash or England..other countries have to rely on players who did not make the cut for the big dollars.
Some countries will survive but the ICC is in bed with India..anyway Indians don't play in other T20...and as far as I am concerned that's fine...at least there is no fixing.India's IPL is corrupt and the ICC and everyone knows it...every game always comes down to the last over...go figure...
England and Australia are also bookie crazy..so T20 has become a betting game..lucrative for the bookies.
Adios
CB

In reply to Tryangle

there is a fine line between decent living and greed. and i don't think it is a threat to free enterprise, playing all those leagues will eventually cause you to lose value as a player, who wants to hire a spent force with a set of niggling injuries, pretty soon they will be playing in none, hardly any west indians in the IPL last season and next season it will be less.

how does one amend the calendar now??? are we going to limit international play in favour of the leagues, there is a reason in football why a player plays in one league even if it is not his home league, granted footballers earn much more than cricketers right now but this is where it is heading. when the value of contracts go up the amount of available leagues will decrease.
besides time must be made for proper representation of country, otherwise the gap between the richer boards will continue to widen compared with poorer ones

India is strong because their best players are readily available and fit, smart BCCI,
we are getting clobbered because our better players were never available and even if they are now....they are a spent force!!!

In reply to JOJO

It’s just a matter of time before a group of players sue the ICC and is a member boards for restraint of trade and mash up their dolly house. This new restriction, similar to the NOC requirement, is a blatant restraint of trade as it relates to players who are not under contract with any ICC member board.

In reply to hawk

Hola...it will be a matter of who the public wants to see..we saw Gayle almost went unsold at the IPL..but came back with a bang in the games.
Many cricket playing countries around the world will never get a test...so whats wrong with having a tournament like the T20..in a short period..most 2 weeks...some big names come in and the tournament flourishes..how can this diminish a player..either he performs or he does'nt..
Every one talking about IPL..IPL yes pays big bucks..it has vibes..which stadium with a capacity of 60 thousand people plus will not have vibes??
But the quality of play is not that good..yes men throwing around themselves doing all sorts of thing to feed the masses..
oh well..ICC in my opinion should rethink what was proposed..
T20 in the not so big markets will enhance a living to those who cant make it to IPl/Big Bash or England..
Thats the way I see it..
Adios
CB

Is the ICC an entity to itself, or is it a membership body?
We write as though a few guys decide what happen in cricket, ignoring the fact, that a full body vote.
India and the other top nations players make themselves available for International competition, here we have a two bit T20 competition in Canada, and an International tournament in the region.

In reply to CITYBOY

I am part of that public, and i want to see fit cricketers playing at full capacity, i have already said i cannot and will not agree with a nation not having it's own T20 league heck i think each Caribbean nation should have a semi pro league to feed the CPL

the problem lies in the poorer nation not having their best players available because they are playing 6 and 7 of the leagues a year each one lasting about 2 month.... where is the time to play international cricket and how effective can they be, hence the international game suffers with B class players, lack of viewership, attendance, only smart India thrives along with the richer nations

the best players will always go to the IPL, BBl and to a lesser extent the CPL, the lesser known players can ply their trade in the BPL, PSl, whoever else has a "L"

initially i had said if you don't have a central contract play all the Ls if you can, if selected by your country then you should bid the L goodbye and represent, if you are a centrally contract player then 3 leagues a year inclusive of your home league

In reply to hawk

Can the ICC prevent players without a central contract from their cricket board from participating in more than 2 T20 leagues?

What happens if these players decide to retire from test and one day cricket?

Can the ICC still limit them to only 2 T20 leagues? Take Shane Watson as an example. Can the ICC limit him to only 2 T20 leagues?

Lots of questions to be answered here.

Because the pro cricket model is so vastly different than any other mainline sport we're faced with new challenges.

In most pro sports you're contracted to one team in one league for one year. You're not contracted to a team for say 5 months and free to do whatever else outside that contract. With the exception of women's basketball, I can't think of any other sport where players sign all these individual contracts *as well as* a national one, where applicable.

It's a new frontier and was allowed to take on that path. Unlike Messi being a Barcelona player, it's Cricketer X being a Rajastan-Hobart-Kent-Tridents-etc player. The market's clearly there and the players are (relatively) in charge of their own path as far as earnings potential.

For various other reasons we've seen it already with former Windies players. And I think we'll see it a bit more if this scheme is ratified. People will play internationals to get noticed by various franchises, and if successful there, quit the international level and play as a so-called mercenary. Make as much $$ as you can, you don't know how long your career's going to be.

It'll become a different aspect to the club vs country situation that gets talked about in football all the time but will have new legs when applied to the cricket dynamic.

And it's going to be more pronounced for the lesser FMs and the Associates, where you're not going to get a national contract anywhere near the neighborhood of an England or Oz... much less India (unless the unlikely event of a revenue reallocation comes back up).

Which likely leads to continued India dominance at international level.