The ICC Chief Executives Committee took an important decision of not imposing instant regulations on franchise-driven Twenty20 competitions such as ILt20 & MLC
The proposal of limiting international cricketers’ participation in these tournaments was rejected by a majority vote at the CEC meeting in Durban on Tuesday. While no votes were cast, the proposal was decisively denied, protecting the best interests of the expanding leagues.
A close-sources to the Annual Conference in Durban have informed us that no more discussions will take place in the coming days on the matter. However, it has been recognized that future laws governing such leagues may be required. Despite this acknowledgment, no solution was passed at the Tuesday meeting.
The rejection of the proposed limitations by the CEC is a big victory for two major leagues: The ILT20 in the UAE and the MLC in the US. Due to their significant connection with international cricketers, these leagues received criticism from a few international boards, especially from the England Cricket Board and Cricket West Indies.
Several Cricket Boards opposed maximum participation of overseas players in New Franchise Leagues such as ILT20 & MLC
Notably, the ILT20 allows a maximum of nine overseas players in the playing XI, whereas the upcoming MLC will allow for six foreign players.
Worried about the talent loss caused by players preferring T20 leagues over County duty, some boards tried to limit international players’ participation in these leagues.
The push for limits started in April with the setting up of a working committee. The committee advised that a franchise side field no more than four internationals in its playing XI and that each overseas player’s home board receive 10% of their salary. Although the BCCI supports both ideas, it is not in favor of imposing restrictions on leagues around the world.
Given that the ICC had previously authorized these leagues, any attempt at overturning these decisions would pose a substantial challenge to the world organization.
In addition, the huge investments made in these leagues by known commercial houses established a legal risk. As a result, the CEC meeting in Durban failed to pass any substantive decision on the matter.
The CEC’s decision received different feedback from cricketing communities throughout the world. While league supporters praise the ICC’s stance on retaining the autonomy of the individual boards, opponents believe that the lack of restrictions could lead to a mismatch between international obligations and franchise-driven leagues.