The International Cricket Council (ICC) is spearheading the development of its first-ever mobile cricket game, aiming to diversify revenue streams and tap into the booming digital sports gaming market. However, this venture has ignited a high-stakes dispute between the ICC and the World Cricketers’ Association (WCA) over the ownership and control of player name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights. This clash is set to reshape the governance and commercial dynamics of cricket’s expanding digital presence.
Background: ICC’s Mobile Game Ambitions
The ICC’s strategy is clear: capitalize on the global appeal of cricket by launching an official mobile game that features international teams and popular franchise sides. This aligns with similar moves by other sports federations leveraging digital platforms to enhance fan engagement and open new revenue avenues[1].
However, the mobile game covers more than just ICC events, featuring bilateral series, domestic leagues, and franchise T20 teams. This broad scope complicates licensing because the ICC only holds NIL rights for players during its official tournaments. For matches outside this, such as domestic or franchise cricket, the ICC must negotiate separate agreements with individual boards or player associations[1].
The Crux of the Conflict: NIL Rights Ownership
The WCA, a relatively new yet assertive players’ body formed to protect and advance cricketers’ commercial rights and welfare globally, has accused the ICC—and certain member boards—of attempting to “own” player NIL rights beyond previously agreed terms[2].
The WCA believes players’ personal attributes should not be exploited without their express consent and insists on a long-term, player-centric licensing framework. They cite principles emphasizing the protection of player image and privacy rights under their charter[5]. Essentially, WCA argues ICC and some boards are trying to bypass players’ associations and the WCA itself in securing digital licensing, undermining players’ autonomy and revenue share.
ICC’s Response: Direct Board Negotiations, Skipping the WCA
In a decisive move, the ICC has resolved to approach players’ rights holders directly through their individual cricket boards rather than negotiate with the WCA or any third-party player union[3]. This approach was confirmed following ICC board meetings in Harare and Singapore earlier this year.
The ICC’s stance is driven by the fact that member boards collectively form the ICC’s governance structure. From their perspective, players represent their national boards, which then govern bargaining. Hence, the ICC suggests the WCA lacks formal standing to broker or control NIL rights across different jurisdictions.
Player Associations and Member Boards: A Fragmented Landscape
Negotiating NIL rights is complicated by contrasting relationships between players, boards, and associations worldwide. In cricket powerhouses like India and Pakistan, there are no recognized players’ associations, leaving boards as primary rights holders. Conversely, countries such as Australia, England, New Zealand, and South Africa are WCA affiliates, with their player associations often exercising significant negotiating power[1].
This division has already resulted in legal frictions—for example, ongoing disputes between Cricket Australia and New Zealand Cricket with their players over rights tied to digital game platforms exist. In New Zealand’s case, the board even signed a NIL deal for a cricket game independently, despite player association objections[1].
The BCCI’s Role: Leading the Pushback
Notably, the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) stands firmly with the ICC in rejecting the WCA’s reform proposals and claims. According to sources from the ICC Chief Executives’ Committee, the BCCI and its allies dismiss the WCA as a trade union causing distraction rather than acting in players’ best interest[4].
The BCCI’s position is that players’ affiliations and contractual obligations lie with their respective boards—and by extension the ICC—as the governing authority. The prospect of players siding with the WCA over lucrative franchise contracts (e.g., IPL) is seen as highly unlikely and unwelcome by board executives[4].
Tactical and Commercial Implications for the Sport
This image rights dispute could impact the mobile game’s content and release timeline. Without broad NIL consent from players via WCA or direct deals with boards, the ICC risks incomplete player rosters or lack of iconic retired cricketers—key draws for fans and gamers alike[3]. For instance, securing rights for legends like Sachin Tendulkar or MS Dhoni, who may no longer be under BCCI contracts, remains uncertain and legally intricate.
From a broader tactical standpoint, the ICC’s insistence on direct dealings reflects an attempt to consolidate commercial control and revenue share in the rapidly growing esports and gaming market segment. Meanwhile, the WCA’s push highlights players’ increasing awareness and demand for equitable compensation and control over their personal brands in an era when athlete image monetization is as valuable as on-field performance.
Key Players in the Dispute
- ICC: Custodian of cricket’s global governance and organizer of international tournaments, keen to launch and monetize the official game.
- WCA: Emerging global players’ union advocating for athletes’ NIL rights and better revenue sharing.
- BCCI & Member Boards: Major stakeholders opposing WCA’s approach, preferring centralized control via cricket boards.
- Players’ Associations: Varied influence based on country; direct partners in rights negotiations (especially in WCA-affiliated nations).
- Retired Legends: Their image rights are not always controlled by boards, adding an additional layer to licensing challenges.
What Fans Should Watch For
Supporters of the game must monitor how this rights battle shapes the game’s content—whether star players and beloved icons feature fully or if legal squabbles dilute the offering. Moreover, the outcome could set a precedent, influencing future digital and commercial rights deals in cricket’s broader ecosystem.
With cricket’s digital monetization curve steepening, the tussle between ICC and the WCA signals a critical junction where player empowerment meets governing body authority—potentially redefining how the sport’s stars profit from their name and fame off the field.
The coming months will reveal whether this conflict will be amicably resolved or escalate into legal wrangling, impacting the very fabric of cricket’s digital future and player-board relations. For fans, it’s more than just a game—it’s a battle for control over the very image of cricket’s heroes.
Source: www.espncricinfo.com