'Greed' and loopholes: How cricket's $55 million development fund gets gamed

Cricket's international governing body, the International Cricket Council (ICC), convened in Edinburgh earlier this week for its Annual Conference, where discussions centered on the allocation of the sport's financial resources. However, behind closed doors, concerns have been raised about the integrity of the system used to distribute these funds. Insiders claim that despite 28 years of the ICC's development program, greed continues to drive decisions, often at the expense of genuine efforts to foster cricket in underdeveloped regions. Administrators within the ICC, speaking anonymously to Play the Game, highlighted significant issues regarding the potential for fraud and the lack of accountability surrounding the global development program. One such administrator noted the substantial sums of money circulating within the system, suggesting that the program's design favors certain countries while allowing others to barely survive. This disparity raises questions about whether the intended purpose of the funding—supporting the growth of cricket globally—is being undermined by self-interest. The ICC's financial structure is divided between its 12 Full Members and 98 Associate Members. Full Members, including prominent nations like India, Australia, and England, capture approximately 88.8% of the organization's budget, primarily due to their commercial appeal. India alone accounts for nearly 40% of the ICC's annual earnings, largely driven by its robust broadcasting market. In contrast, the Associate Members, defined as those where cricket is "firmly established and organized," typically rely heavily on volunteer labor, with minimal full-time staff. Funding for the Associate Members comes through two primary channels: a competition grant, which provides participation and reward money for ICC tournaments, and a 'Scorecard' grant aimed at encouraging grassroots cricket development. The latter is determined by a scorecard that includes self-reported data on the number of senior and junior players, available pitches, and external funding raised. Based on these metrics, members are ranked into 14 funding tiers, influencing the amount of money they receive. Documents acquired by Play the Game reveal that the total funding pool for Associate Members in the period 2026-27 amounts to USD 54.9 million, with the Scorecard grant constituting slightly more than half of this sum. Top-tier countries such as the United Arab Emirates and Scotland each receive USD 1.02 million in Scorecard funding, whereas lower-ranked nations like Iran and Saint Helena get only USD 26,000. This stark contrast highlights the uneven distribution of resources, with the 26 lowest-ranked members collectively receiving less than a fifth of what the highest-funded country receives. The impact of ranking changes is profound, particularly for lower-ranked boards. For instance, the Philippines moved from 57th to 47th between 2024 and 2026, ascending three tiers and increasing its Scorecard funding from USD 65,000 to USD 237,000. While this improvement might seem legitimate, it underscores the intense pressure to maintain high rankings, potentially leading to unethical practices when oversight is lacking. Journalist Bertus de Jong, who has extensively covered Associate cricket, stated that manipulating scorecard figures is widespread. Transparency has also diminished significantly over the past six years. The ICC ceased publishing its census, which previously detailed participation and infrastructure across all Associate Members. This absence of public data has created a vacuum, reducing the ability to monitor and ensure the proper use of funds. As the ICC prepares for future allocations, the challenge remains to balance the interests of powerful nations with the need to genuinely support the development of cricket worldwide.