������Ƶ

On occasions, this column has expressed its concerns about governance standards in cricket. Sadly, another occasion has arisen. On Aug. 21, following a board meeting, USA Cricket announced the termination of its commercial agreement with American Cricket Enterprises, citing “multiple material breaches of the term sheet signed between the parties in May 2019.” 

The agreement was set for 50 years. It granted ACE the exclusive rights to own and operate Major League Cricket, the top-tier T20 league in the US, along with the Minor Cricket League. The deal also covered commercialization of the national teams and plans to develop cricket infrastructure in the US with dedicated facilities.

The move has plunged cricket in the US into disarray and an uncertain future, with potentially serious and damaging consequences. At stake is not only the future of cricket’s growth, development and investment in the US, the future of USAC and the administration of the sport, but also cricket’s place at the 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles. USAC and ACE have been in open dispute for some months, while USAC’s governing board has been subject to demands for its removal and replacement. The calls have been rejected by a majority of the board.

The US Olympic and Paralympic Committee requires that a properly functioning, compliant and constituted national governing body is in place since, without one, teams cannot take part in the Olympics. At the end of June, the USOPC communicated its desire for USAC board’s membership to be renewed. Administratively, amendments to USAC’s constitution, designed to ensure compliance with USOPC’s strict demands regarding board composition, were approved by USAC’s membership in June 2025. This step in the right direction is now overshadowed by the latest contretemps.

Reaction is also awaited from the International Cricket Council. It is well aware that USAC has been plagued by persistent governance and legal issues for years. At its AGM in July 2024, the ICC issued a suspension notice to USAC, requiring it to undertake comprehensive governance reforms, which included the completion of free and fair elections. These had not been implemented by the time of the ICC’s 2025 AGM on July 20, when, in a move which surprised observers, it extended the period of notice by a further three months. USAC remains on notice, with the ICC reserving the right to take such actions as it deems appropriate. The extension comes hard on the heels of the ICC’s issuance of a six-stage “road map” designed to “restore regulatory compliance and functional integrity” to USAC.

The duration of the extension appears to something of a halfway house. USAC has a number of vital tasks to complete by the end of 2026. A key one is the reconstitution of its board. In part, this is required to fulfill USPOC’s 33 percent athlete representation rule. The overall number of board members will increase from 10 to 12, with four being athletes, elected by US international players. A new Athletes Advisory Council will be created to give athletes a stronger voice and the authority to appoint athlete representatives across USA Cricket committees.

Election of the other board members will be by full members. This has been another source of controversy, with allegations that the voting list had been manipulated in the past to exclude certain people. USAC’s CEO, Johnathan Atkeison, has admitted that improvements need to be made to increase confidence. He also confirmed that there will be a near complete turnover of the board in the December 2025 elections. These will be based on a newly refreshed membership eligibility process, which could lead to a larger and more inclusive voting base.

It was independent director, Venu Pisike, currently serving as chair, who proposed that ACE’s contract should be terminated. He was supported by four allies, who outvoted four other directors. It is understood that the CEO and legal counsel warned of the consequences of such a decision, which may not pass arbitration.

There are also financial pitfalls. First, the ICC suspension notice means that ICC funds remain under its control. Secondly, ACE has provided USA Cricket with an estimated $10 million via quarterly payments. There is no immediate alternative to this income. Thirdly, if ACE challenges the termination in arbitration to protect its investment, legal costs will be beyond USAC’s fragile financial resources.

A lack of cashflow and pressures on capital will affect USAC’s ability to support national teams. The US men’s team has qualified for the 2026 T20 World Cup and needs to prepare. Clearly, the situation is a mess. It begs the question as to why Pisike has adopted his high-risk stance. His tenure as USAC director expires at the end of 2025. The main points of contention for USAC appear to be over ACE’s failures to pay minimum guarantees, build a high-performance center to agreed standards, construct six ICC-standard stadiums by 2024, provide direct funding for national teams and carve out a 5 percent revenue share for USAC. On the surface, these do not appear to be sufficient grounds for USAC’s drastic action.

ACE is in public denial, saying that it “is disappointed that USAC has selfishly chosen, on the eve of the 2025 MiLC season, to wrongfully terminate its agreement. The decision undermines the hard work of players, staff and team personnel, and jeopardizes MiLC, national team activities and preparations for the LA28 Olympics.” The backers of ACE are Sameer Mehta and Vijay Srinivasan, founders of Willow TV; and Satyan Gajwani and Vineet Jain, the principals of The Times Group, publisher of The Times of India. Willow TV is the largest cricket broadcaster in the US and is owned by the Times Internet. These are powerful players, with extreme financial clout. It may be considered a bold move to take on an organization on which the USAC is financially dependent. This does not make sense under normal conditions.

Why would USAC or, at least its chair and his allies, decide that the relationship with ACE cannot continue as before and seek to reset it, at the same time that the ICC and USOPC are seeking to reset the USAC board? The ball has been thrown into ACE’s court. There are nine months until MLC 2026, giving time to renegotiate the agreement, if ACE chooses to take this path. Alternatively, it could choose to litigate, disputing the grounds for termination and putting USAC under severe financial pressure. Already, it has rejected USAC’s claims that it has not met certain contractual obligations.

The situation is, to say the least, puzzling. USAC’s dramatic decision to escalate a contractual dispute can be regarded as either reckless and foolhardy or courageous, but it risks denying Olympic certification, and has surely further damaged its relationship with both the ICC and USOPC, not to mention its own standing and image, domestically and internationally. It did not make sense.

Then, news broke on Aug. 27 that a US congressman has requested the US Department of Justice to investigate ACE on the basis of anti-trust and immigration practices. If these were known to USAC and the ICC it would explain the former’s preparedness to take extreme risk and the latter’s more circumspect approach. What appeared to be an internal conflict is now a crisis, with cricket’s future in the US now in jeopardy, a victim of poor governance.