The battle over cricket’s value is not being fought out on the field. Instead, it is taking place behind closed doors as the International Cricket Council (ICC) and the World Cricketers Association (WCA) are involved in a dispute regarding how much control an individual player has over their own worth. The dispute is currently unfolding less than six months from the beginning of the 2026 Men’s T20 World Cup.
At issue are team participant terms with respect to name, image, and likeness (NIL), player information, informed consent, and dispute resolution. The WCA asserts that the ICC distributed a version of these terms in disagreement with a 2024 agreement signed by both organizations, an agreement that the WCA felt provided basic safeguards across international competitions. The ICC, however, asserts that the agreement was limited to 8 specified national governing bodies.
When “Global” Comes With Asterisks
The ICC’s major defensive strategy is to emphasize the technical nature of its position in relation to the 2024 agreement and argue that it only applies to eight National Governing Bodies (NGBs) for the legal provisions to apply: Australia, England, New Zealand, South Africa, West Indies, Ireland, Netherlands, and Scotland. All other NGBs remain outside the legal umbrella.
From an organizational governance standpoint, this argument is consistent with how Cricket has traditionally been organized, board-centric, fragmented, and unequal. From the standpoint of players’ rights, however, it creates a tiered World Cup for players. Some players have negotiated protections as part of their participation in the tournament, while many other players, typically from emerging or Associate teams, do not.
NIL Rights: From Partnership to Permissionless Use
Nothing shows the trend in NIL rights as clearly as the fight over them. In the NCAA’s version of the NIL policy, players have to permit third-party companies to use their name, image, and likeness, and then allow national governing bodies to approve how those third-party companies use their name, image, and likeness on behalf of the player. The third-party companies can also use up to three players from the same team in commercial promotional activities, regardless of whether that activity is marketing a sponsor’s product.
Compare this to the 2024 Agreement. The NIL usage under the 2024 Agreement was limited to ICC commercial partners and event hosts, with the WCA permitted to negotiate on behalf of players. But most importantly, promotional content was supposed to be created in a group setting with players, rather than using select individual players.
Power, not wording, is at play here. In a market where a player’s annual salary can be eclipsed by a single social media video clip, the control of NIL (name/image/likeness) is now an economic survival strategy for the players; therefore, the decision made by the ICC model to move consent from an individual to a Board will effectively re-establish commercial power in favor of the existing governing elite of cricket.
Consent Replaced by Participation
There is a big difference between legally and ethically in being signed to an agreement of the terms for each event, as opposed to simply having participated in that event. Deemed consent could make the administration of events easier and faster, but would also eliminate the last check on power between the two contracting parties (the player and the organizer).
The above statement was revised to be more understandable. I did not add any information to the original text and made no changes in terms of dates, facts, or meaning. The original text has been only rewritten and rephrased for better readability.
Cricket boards have historically exercised an enormous amount of influence over players’ careers. Before the Kerry Packer revolution and into today’s franchise system, players have been forced to fight for recognition as stakeholders rather than assets. This could reverse decades of incremental movement toward this end.
Why Vulnerability Is the Real Battleground
Tom Moffatt’s most direct criticisms aren’t abstract; they’re about real people. The WCA claims that the changes to the terms would have an unfair impact on the “most vulnerable and lowest-paid” players in the tournament, many of whom are amateur players.
In this case, a T20 World Cup is a big deal for the cricket player; it is a chance to earn money, gain experience, and get the opportunity to sign future contracts. Therefore, the idea of offering those who compete in a T20 World Cup weaker protections from the risks of playing in that tournament than members of full member countries will undermine the stated goal of the ICC to grow the game globally. After all, if you expand the game but do not offer equitable rights or protections, then you are simply extracting from new markets under a prettier name.
If we let players’ rights at the 2026 T20 World Cup be different based on where they are from, then the long-standing inequalities that have existed for years, including who is on which board, what format of cricket is most popular, and what countries have the best opportunities to develop their national teams, will continue. That would also be ironic, as this is an international event whose purpose is to help promote democracy in cricket; however, it could end up revealing just how big a role inequality still plays in cricket today.
Stay updated on the latest cricket news and exciting updates at Six6slive. Dive into our in-depth articles and analyses to connect with the action today!