There are currently 13 franchise cricket leagues across the world, taking place throughout the year. The Indian Premier League (IPL) began in 2008 and has spearheaded the charge towards big-money T20 cricket, pulling in over half a billion viewers across 67 matches in 2024 [1]. This article will look at cricket contracts, the implications that this will have on players and how this will affect the sustainability of the game.

Introduction

Central contracts have become a key part of the modern framework of cricket over the past 30 years. The Australian national team first introduced them in 1994 – the idea behind them being that the best players were fixed to their respective cricket boards and were paid on a yearly basis. They ensured security by offering them a base salary, which was further supplemented by match fees for each test match, one-day international (ODI) or twenty-over (T20) match played.

The evolution of cricket over the last fifteen years with the introduction of the IPL and franchise leagues being played all year round means that the future of cricket seems less certain. Whilst they still provide the main financial incentive for players to feature for their national teams, central contracts are appearing to lose their strength in the face of vast sums from franchise leagues. So, how can national teams use central contracts to ensure the sustainability of international cricket?

Central Contracts

In March 2000, the England Cricket Board (ECB) gave twelve six-month contracts to cover the test matches to be played in that summer against Zimbabwe and West Indies [2]. These contracts allowed the contracted players to continue to play for their counties in their competitions, but also permitted the England coach, Duncan Fletcher, to rest players from playing in the County Championship (where counties play four-day matches) and the Natwest Trophy (the 50 over tournament for counties). This brought attention to the question of player workload. On average, England cricketers at the time played 152 days per calendar year, including their county and domestic schedules [3].

In 2024, England’s national team across all formats (tests, ODIs and T20s) were scheduled to play at least 109 days of cricket (which rose to 113 after England qualified for the knockout rounds of the T20 World Cup). On top of this, England’s franchise tournament, The Hundred saw 34 matches across the country and the domestic T20 league, the T20 Blast, had 133 matches across the 18 counties. Of course, scheduling issues ruled many England players out of the domestic competition, but these were tournaments that were never in the players’ consideration in 1996.

How Does the Evolution of Cricket Affect Central Contracts?

This evolution of cricket has brought about more games, but also more investment. In a bid to input more money into English cricket, the ECB chose to allow counties to give 51% ownership of the Hundred teams back to their counties and allow the other 49% to go to private investors by means of paying said counties.

The first two counties to sell their stakes were Warwickshire and Surrey, who sold 49% to Birmingham Phoenix and Oval Invincibles respectively, whilst retaining their 51% stake. The Oval Invincibles sold their shares to the Ambani family, who also owns the IPL team, Mumbai Indians [4].  The MI ownership, as it has come to be known, has now purchased stakes in six franchise cricket teams across the globe including in the South African T20 League and in the newly created International League T20, played in the United Arab Emirates.

Further sales of the London Spirit (owned by Marylebone Cricket Club in Middlesex) and the Welsh Fire (owned by Glamorgan) were also sold to consortiums with stakes in other franchise teams around the world. Finally, the Northern Superchargers became the first team to sell 100% of their stake to the Sun Group of the IPL franchise, Sunrisers Hyderabad [5].

The development of these deals has reshaped the scale of cricket in England and has seen a major investment into the system. Selling these stakes has raised over £900 million from private investment but it has generated problems with the legitimacy of the ECB’s contracts against the lucrative ones that these newly financed teams can endorse.

How Will Central Contracts Stay Relevant?

The key question following this huge influx of cash is how the ECB will use this money. Opportunities to reinvest into the 18 counties and the grassroots game are obvious and county cricket fans will likely be invigorated by the prospect of the much-needed capital. Gloucestershire, Leicestershire and Worcestershire, for example, do not have ownership of a Hundred team but are expected to use these to make improvements to their grounds [6].

However, the more pertinent issue for supporters is whether the ECB will respond to the monopolisation of franchise T20 teams by increasing the salaries of players and continuing to control their workload. In May 2023, England batsman, Jason Roy opted out of his central contract worth between £60,000 and £70,000 a year to play in the American Major League Cricket, which saw him bank £150,000 for a three-week tournament [7]. This is a pattern that was first made by New Zealander Trent Boult in 2022 and followed by West Indian Nicholas Pooran and South Africa’s Tabraiz Shamsi.

Cancelling central contracts does not mean that a player is ineligible to play for their countries, but rather that there is no obligation to turn out for the national side. Countries have also been more reluctant to select those who have rejected international contracts, so balancing between big-money franchise cricket and international commitments is going to be a continuous challenge for the best players.

To stay relevant, international cricket organisations are going to have to increase the salaries on offer. Current central contracts are dwarfed financially by franchise organisations and see players being paid for less matches. Analysts have been reluctant to point out the impact of this, but the formation of contracts has to receive some attention, particularly given that franchise teams are beginning to place exclusive rights over players or terminate and restrict players who pull out of tournaments [8]. Central contracts provide certain players with security if they do get injured, but people will often see the disproportionate salaries as a hugely beneficial upside to taking that risk.

Looking to the future, it is no secret that boards will have to work with billionaire owners to balance the players’ time. For example, England’s international team do not play any matches during the Indian Premier League to allow all their players to be available for selection. However, where the difficulties will come when players are contracted to franchise teams all around the world, overlapping with international fixtures. With higher salaries comes the ability for franchise contracts to have more influence on players by potentially drawing them in.

It is possible that franchise owners and cricket boards will give all-year-round contracts to players. This may mean that along the way, there will be conflicts between them, potentially resulting in legal issues around which contract is to be fulfilled. Drawing up these contracts will be a complicated procedure, but many supporters would prefer that international cricket take precedence over the less popular T20 leagues. It would clearly be in the best interests of cricket boards to keep these players with them, but it is an unrealistic prospect in the greedier world of cricket and something that is going to be at the forefront of the future of the sport.

Dan Sheridan (UK) – Contributor

List of References

Leave a comment