ICC proposes greater control over T20 franchise leagues

The ICC is proposing an expansion of its powers and oversight over T20 franchise leagues, as it tries to balance the impact they are having on the game’s integrity and the calendar. The proposals are likely to have significant impact on the viability of several leagues, including the UAE’s ILT20 and Major League Cricket (MLC) in the United States.

A cap of just four overseas players per XI could diminish the commercial viability of both leagues, not to mention limiting opportunities for a number of players who take part in them. Instead, the franchises would have to rely on local UAE and USA players to put out teams. Both leagues also have prominent ties to India, with five out of six ILT20 owners also involved in either the IPL or WPL, and four teams in MLC linked to IPL ownership groups.

Given the matter required intense deliberations last time it was raised at ICC level, the review group makes clear it sought “external legal advice” on such regulation changes (with particular reference to these two leagues), which confirmed that members would not “have any good legal basis to challenge these changes.”

An official from one of the leagues said it was “very concerning” and questioned whether their league could function if such a cap came in. “We were assured before that we were protected under the grandfather clause [which would exempt them as an existing league from new rules].”

They are also an acknowledgment that the sanction process until now has been lax, leading to a growing number of leagues which have been hit by corruption, transient ownership and regular issues with players not being paid. The antidote to that, as recommended by the review group, is for Full Members to be more diligent about, for example, the source of funding for a league, or the protections it has in place for player payments and anti-corruption.

“At the moment, the Regulations do not provide any detailed conditions which must be satisfied by a domestic league and different approaches are therefore taken in the various Member territories,” the paper reads. “A more detailed structure should be put in place (through the Regulations) setting out the conditions that a franchise league would need to satisfy before it could obtain a domestic sanction.”

Significantly, the ICC also recommends widening its jurisdiction to be able to “step in and review sanctions a Full Member provides to a league.” Under current regulations, the Full Member board is the only sanctioning authority for a league in its country (for example, the BCCI sanctions the IPL), with the ICC unable to step in at any stage. But in these recommendations, if the relevant member has not complied with its obligations in issuing a sanction, the ICC could “step in and take over the sanctioning authority (including being able to reject a sanctioning application or removing one which may have been granted by the relevant Member)”.

That right, the ICC says, should also be available if it becomes aware of serious integrity concerns around a proposed league before it starts or while it is on.

Ephgrave, who provided input to the committee, said in the interview that the ACU was receiving more reports of approaches made to players on the league circuit now than in international cricket. As a result, one of the recommendations calls for a league to only be given sanction provided it is either using the ICC’s ACU for the league, or another integrity unit approved by the ICC.

Where a league’s corruption risk is rated high, the ICC’s ACU could be engaged with the cost borne by the league organisers on a not-for-profit understanding. If the ACU determines, however, that appropriate mitigation measures could not be put in place, the application will be turned down “without further consideration.”

Another major recommendation is preventing betting companies – or their surrogates – from sponsoring teams or leagues, which could impact SA20 and is widespread in many smaller leagues.

“This would address the threat posed by the growth of illegal betting (namely betting on unregulated markets or in countries where betting is illegal),” the paper reads. “Such sponsorship exposes host Members to the risk of facilitating illegal betting in cricket, which carries the potential for increased corruption, and raises clear ethical and governance questions for the sport.”

The review group suggests the ICC charge a fee for giving sanction to a league, without the payment of which the application will not be considered. It says the fees could be used to fund outsourced due diligence checks or any subsequent corruption investigations.

As well as the recommendations, the review group has placed several points on the paper it says need further discussion by the chief executives’ committee (CEC). One of these is whether members should make mandatory and standardise the solidarity payment. This is the fee a member where the league is taking place pays to the member from which an overseas player is participating – a recognition of the member’s role in identifying and developing that player.

The committee also asks the CEC and ICC board to consider the status of legends leagues, which have become prominent in recent years, often blurring the line between the status of active players and retired ones. The committee says they “generate significant integrity concerns,” and calls for greater direction on whether they should sit within the ICC’s sanctioning framework, and if not, how those players who take part in them and then play approved cricket should be dealt with.

Another point raised for further discussion is the prospect of a limit on the number of leagues an ICC member can hold within its territory, a move which the paper suggests would help with “preserving the crucial role that international cricket plays in developing and promoting the sport globally”. This could have implications for leagues staged in the UAE.

The CEC will discuss the recommendations and where appropriate will pass on to the board for approval.