Cricket’s Wild West: Who Actually Polices the Game We Love?
Issue No 33
Not long ago, a franchise league collapsed under the weight of unpaid player salaries, outstanding vendor bills, and broken promises.
Many in the game moved on.
But here’s the uncomfortable part.
The same ownership group behind that league is already operating another tournament. As we speak.
I’ve written about that situation before. At the time, it felt like a cautionary tale.
Now it feels like a pattern.
So the question isn’t about one failed league anymore.
It’s bigger than that.
Who actually polices the game we love?
Cricket has never been more global.
Players move freely. Leagues pop up across continents. Opportunities are everywhere.
But beneath that growth sits a gap we’re not talking about enough.
There is no global standard for financial credibility.
No minimum requirement to prove you can pay players.
No escrow system.
No central enforcement mechanism.
You can launch a league, sign players, secure venues, generate hype and if it goes wrong, you can disappear and reappear somewhere else.
That’s not innovation.
That’s exposure.
The Numbers Behind the Illusion
Let’s strip it back.
Even a modest T10 or T20 tournament that looks “professional” carries real cost.
Player pool: $800k – $2.4m
Broadcast and production: $300k – $1m
Hotels and travel: $200k – $800k
Operations and staffing: $200k+
You’re looking at $1.5m to $4m just to stage something that feels credible.
That’s not theoretical.
That’s the minimum cost of legitimacy.
Now flip it.
If a league collapses and doesn’t pay, that’s not just a failed event.
That’s millions in unpaid obligations.
Who Actually Carries the Risk?
Start with the players.
70–100 players
Average contracts between $10k and $30k
That’s up to $2m+ in player wages alone
And here’s the reality.
Players don’t get paid upfront.
They show up. They perform. They trust.
In many cases, they are effectively underwriting the league with their labour.
Then look at the ecosystem.
Hotels housing 6–8 teams for 2–3 weeks → $200k+
Transport and logistics → $50k+
Local staff and freelancers → $100k+
Venue and ground costs → $100k+
When things go wrong, it’s not just contracts.
It’s livelihoods.
Local economies feel it.
And those people don’t have agents, lawyers, or platforms to chase what they’re owed.
The Split Reality of Cricket
At the top end of the game:
IPL franchises backed by billion-dollar ecosystems
SA20 teams owned by established IPL groups
The Hundred underwritten by the ECB
These leagues are structured, capitalised and protected.
At the other end:
New leagues launched on ambition and access
Limited financial safeguards
No global oversight
Same sport.
Completely different levels of accountability.
At the top, leagues are over-capitalised.
At the bottom, they’re underwritten by hope.
Governance… or Lack of It
Here’s where it gets uncomfortable.
The system we have does regulate parts of the game.
Players need No Objection Certificates to move between leagues.
Boards control availability.
Governing bodies manage international schedules.
We even see legal battles when that system is challenged, like the recent case involving Tabraiz Shamsi, where the court intervened to allow a player to continue working after an NOC issue .
That tells you something important.
The system is strong when it comes to controlling player movement.
But where is that same energy when it comes to protecting player payment?
No ICC global licensing for leagues
No mandatory financial guarantees
No escrow requirements
No protection fund for players or vendors
We regulate permission.
We don’t regulate risk.
So Who Is Responsible?
That’s the question no one wants to answer.
Is it the ICC?
Is it Full Member boards?
Is it players’ associations?
Is it on players to “do their due diligence”?
Because right now, the honest answer is simple.
No one owns it.
And when no one owns it, it becomes easy for the same actors to reset, rebrand, and start again somewhere else.
Where This Goes Next
This isn’t a call to stop new leagues.
Cricket needs innovation. New markets matter. Opportunity matters.
But there has to be a baseline.
If you want to run a professional league:
Prove you can pay
Ringfence player salaries
Guarantee vendor commitments
Before the first ball is bowled.
Not after the final invoice is ignored.
Closing Thought
Cricket is growing fast.
Faster than its governance.
And in that gap, we’re seeing the same story play out in different places, with different names, but the same consequences.
The game doesn’t need fewer leagues.
It needs stronger standards.
Because right now, for all its global reach and commercial success, parts of cricket still operate like the wild west.
And until someone takes responsibility for policing it, that won’t change.
If you enjoyed this piece, share it with someone who would love the Bat Ball Business newsletter.
It’s where the real clubhouse conversations happen — early access, deeper insights, and perks like Coffee with Carlos virtual chats and a Community Corner for your ideas.