Women's Cricket Beyond the World Cup

Issue No 37

The ICC has announced a record prize pool of US$8.76 million for the 2026 Women’s T20 World Cup, a 10% increase from the 2024 edition. The tournament will also expand to 12 teams for the first time. That matters. It is not just a bigger cheque. It is a statement of intent.

For years, women’s cricket has been told that it needs to grow its audience, create more stars, build better competitions, attract sponsors, and prove its commercial value. The ICC has now put serious money behind that conversation. That deserves credit.

But it also creates the next question.

What happens below the World Cup?

Because prize money at the top of the pyramid is important, but it cannot carry the whole structure. It rewards excellence. It creates headlines. It tells the market that the women’s game has value. But the economics of women’s cricket will not be fixed by one global event, no matter how successful that event becomes.

The real work is at the base of the pyramid.

That is where players are developed. That is where fans first meet them. That is where boards decide whether women’s cricket is a proper commercial product or still a subsidised obligation. That is where domestic contracts, match fees, academies, coaching, facilities, broadcast coverage, social media storytelling, and franchise competitions either build momentum or quietly limit the ceiling.

At the moment, too much of the women’s cricket economy depends on too few properties.

The Women’s Premier League has changed the market. The Women’s Big Bash were the pioneers. Long before women’s cricket became a commercial conversation, WBBL proved there was an audience. It pioneered standalone scheduling, drove meaningful increases in player earnings, created household names, and demonstrated that women’s cricket could be packaged as a premium entertainment product rather than simply an extension of the men’s game. It was the first real momentum shifter. The Hundred has since helped keep women’s cricket in front of a mainstream UK audience and introduced new fans to the sport. Together, these competitions have created stars, generated content, improved standards, and given players a chance to earn.

But women’s cricket cannot be sustainably global if only India, Australia, and England are driving the economics.

That is not a global game. That is a three-market economy with a World Cup layered on top.

If the ICC has moved, the next rung below must now move as well. Boards and leagues cannot celebrate record World Cup prize money, post the graphics, speak about growth, and then return to underinvesting in the structures that produce that growth.

This is where the conversation has to become more serious.

The Caribbean should not be satisfied with a Women’s CPL that exists only as a small add-on. WCPL has to become a proper property. It needs a clearer commercial strategy, stronger team identities, more consistent scheduling, better content, and a real pathway into the broader CPL ecosystem. If CPL is one of the Caribbean’s most valuable sporting platforms, then women’s cricket should not be treated as a side stage. It should be built into the product with intent.

Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Pakistan need women’s franchise structures that are more than development exercises. They need investment, not just tournaments. These countries have cricket audiences, emotional national followings, and players who can become stars if they are given the same machinery of visibility that male cricketers receive. A player does not become commercially valuable simply because she is talented. She becomes commercially valuable when the system repeatedly puts her in front of fans, tells her story, creates rivalries, builds teams around her, and gives sponsors a reason to attach themselves to her growth.

That is how fandom is created.

North America is another missed opportunity. The infrastructure is there. The diaspora is there. The commercial market is there. Major League Cricket has shown that investors are willing to take cricket seriously in the US. So why is women’s cricket in North America still treated like an afterthought? If the men’s game can be built around venues, franchises, private capital, and long-term market creation, then women’s cricket should not be waiting politely outside the room.

A Women’s Major League Cricket may not need to start big. It may not need six teams and a full broadcast deal from day one. But it does need to start. Even a shorter, well-packaged women’s competition aligned with existing MLC infrastructure would be a serious signal. It would give North American female cricketers something to aspire to. It would give overseas players another earning opportunity. It would give sponsors a cleaner entry point into women’s cricket. Most importantly, it would begin the process of building local stars before the market demands them.

Sponsors do not magically appear first.

They follow investment. They follow attention. They follow stars. They follow blockbusters. They follow the sense that something is happening and that they cannot afford to be absent from it.

The WPL did not become relevant because the market quietly waited and discovered women’s cricket on its own. It became relevant because capital, broadcast power, board commitment, player quality, and national attention arrived at the same time. Once that happened, the stars became bigger. The crowds became louder. The product became easier to sell.

That is the model.

Not every country can replicate India’s scale. They do not need to. But every serious cricket nation can replicate the principle. Put proper money into the women’s game before it is fully profitable. Package it properly. Tell the stories. Create fixtures that matter. Give fans a reason to choose sides. Give broadcasters something that looks and feels like a serious product. Give sponsors a reason to believe they are getting in early, not doing charity.

That distinction is important.

Women’s cricket cannot be sold forever as a responsibility. It has to be built as an opportunity.

For too long, women’s sport has been framed through the language of fairness alone. Fairness matters, but fairness is not enough to build a commercial engine. The stronger argument now is that women’s cricket is underdeveloped inventory in a sport that needs new audiences, new markets, new heroes, and new formats of engagement.

That is a business case.

The ICC’s prize money announcement strengthens that business case. It tells the market that women’s cricket is not peripheral. It tells players that excellence will be rewarded. It tells younger girls that the top of the game is becoming more valuable. But if the layers below do not respond, the sport risks building a beautiful roof on a weak foundation.

A bigger World Cup prize pool should not be the finish line. It should be the trigger.

The trigger for boards to fund stronger domestic contracts. The trigger for leagues to create women’s competitions with real commercial ambition. The trigger for broadcasters to treat women’s cricket as more than cheap content. The trigger for sponsors to back players before they become household names. The trigger for cricket entrepreneurs to stop asking whether the women’s game is ready and start asking what has to be built to make it ready.

We are no longer only trying to prove that women’s cricket deserves attention. We are in the phase of manufacturing attention. Publicising stars. Creating fandom. Building economic habits around the women’s game. Teaching fans when to watch, who to follow, what rivalries matter, and why these competitions deserve space in their calendar.

That takes money.

Real money. Up-front money. Patient money.

Not just prize money at the World Cup. Not just social media campaigns during ICC events. Not just one-off exhibition matches. Real investment across the full ecosystem.

The base of the pyramid needs to become stronger. That means more domestic cricket that is visible. More women’s franchise leagues in more regions. Better pay below the elite level. Better coaching. Better facilities. Better storytelling. Better scheduling. Better commercial imagination.

The women’s game does not need every league to be profitable immediately. Most sports properties are not built that way. What it needs is a willingness to invest with a clear thesis. If we create more professional environments, we improve the standard. If we improve the standard, we create better matches. If we create better matches, we grow audiences. If we grow audiences, we create stars. If we create stars, sponsors and broadcasters have something to buy.

That is the cycle.

Right now, the cycle exists in too few places.

The WPL, WBBL, and The Hundred are doing important work, but they cannot be asked to carry the global women’s game alone. The next stage of growth has to come from the Caribbean, South Asia beyond India, North America, and other markets that have the culture, audience, and infrastructure to contribute.

The ICC has made its move.

Now the rung below has to follow.

Because US$8.76 million is a powerful headline. But the real test is whether cricket can build a women’s economy strong enough that one day, that number feels normal.

Not exceptional.

Normal.

If you enjoyed this piece, share this with someone that will love the Bat Ball Business newsletter. It’s where the real clubhouse conversations happen, early access, deeper insights and a Community Corner for your ideas.
Subscribe here: www.batballbusiness.com