WORLD CRICKETERS’ ASSOCIATION (WCA) and the International Cricket Council (ICC) have entered into a fresh dispute, this time over players’ personal rights, including name, image and likeness, as well as the conditions attached to participation in ICC events.
The ICC has already drawn criticism from the global players’ body following Bangladesh’s exclusion from the tournament, and tensions have now escalated further. According to a report by ESPNcricinfo, the WCA alleges that the ICC has issued participation terms for the 2026 T20 World Cup that conflict with an agreement signed between the two organisations in 2024. The players’ association claims the new terms are significantly more exploitative than those previously agreed.
The WCA has formally written to the ICC outlining its objections. In response, the ICC has maintained that the 2024 agreement applies only to eight national governing bodies (NGBs), and not to the full set of teams participating in the upcoming World Cup.
Those eight boards, as cited by the ICC, are Australia, England, New Zealand, South Africa, West Indies, Ireland, the Netherlands and Scotland. Bangladesh does not feature on the list after declining to travel to India, with Scotland taking its place. Among the remaining 12 teams, the boards of India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Oman and the United Arab Emirates do not recognise the WCA, meaning players from those countries are not members of the association.
While Italy, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, Namibia, the United States and Canada do have players’ associations, they had not received participation terms as of 15 January. The WCA has expressed concern that identical conditions could eventually be imposed on them.
The WCA insists that the 2024 agreement was intended to cover all of its members, irrespective of World Cup participation. From a legal standpoint, it argues, the agreement should therefore be binding across the board.
In a memo circulated to players on 15 January, WCA chief executive Tom Moffat pointed to discrepancies across eight key areas, including media obligations, dressing-room access, use of personal data, commercial licensing and dispute resolution processes.
Central to the dispute is the question of consent. Under the earlier agreement, players retained the right to negotiate either individually or through the WCA on matters affecting their personal and commercial rights. The ICC’s new terms, however, remove this safeguard, making board decisions final without requiring player approval.
The revised conditions would also compel players to license their images to third parties, allowing ICC partners to use images of multiple players from the same team for promotional purposes. By contrast, the 2024 agreement imposed tighter restrictions and required consultation with the WCA before any such use.
Another point of contention concerns ownership of biological and personal data. The ICC’s position is that it should retain ownership, with the ability to approve commercial usage through member boards. The WCA strongly disagrees, arguing that players are the rightful owners of their data and that any use without explicit consent is unacceptable.
Arguably the most controversial provision states that a player’s participation in the World Cup would automatically constitute acceptance of all terms and conditions, regardless of whether the agreement has been signed. The WCA has firmly opposed what it describes as an imposed consent mechanism.
Moffat has accused the ICC and its member boards of acting collectively to dilute protections that players are entitled to. He has warned that the proposed framework would disproportionately expose lower-paid and semi-professional cricketers to the risk of exploitation.
