So the franchise leagues committee is not about the calendar crunch and the cramping of schedules caused by new T20 leagues all around the globe?
Well, franchise cricket operates under domestic structures, because it is played in a country where there is a domestic element. But it has an international element made up of players who travel around the world, come in to participate, and when this concludes they go back, or they go on to another league.
Some of the proposals that come forward look very exciting: here’s the business plan, and in five years’ time, we’ll have a profit, we’ll help build the game in your country; we want to invest, to promote it from a tourism perspective. The ICC, through its board, is making sure the members align on all of this and are working to provide a governance structure that has the same format and rigidness that domestic cricket and international cricket has in terms of regulations as to how the game is delivered. I think the main ethos of the committee is to do a checks-and-balances review and make recommendations that help support the direction that the game is going in, and that franchise leagues are being run to a standard that members expect it to be run to.
Would this review include the issue of non-payment of players?
If somebody’s proposing that they’re going to run a league, and if you look at franchise cricket in the main, a lot of the proposals come from external event organisers. They come in with the plan, the operational responsibility in conjunction with the board, and ultimately, they have a lot of autonomy around the structure of delivery of that event. One of the issues, then, is ensuring that if they do host an event, or the board gives sanction for that event, the money to fulfil their contractual obligations is there. And then one of the discussions is: do you put forward an escrow-type process where all payments are made into a central account before the event starts.
It’s sounds like a strengthening or broadening of the sanctioning process as it has been for leagues all this while?
I think it’s about a review of the current sanctioning regulations, which have been reviewed and there’s been amendments made over time. This process is actually looking and saying: do these meet the level that we expect to protect the sport? If you don’t have good structures and governance, those are cracks that open, that lead to exploitation, and that, ultimately, can lead to corruption. Because we know that a large number of these events attract a lot of interest from the betting community.
Franchise cricket is ultimately an invitation to persons outside of the identified structures of the sport to come and help grow the game. And so part of the [ICC] Board’s view is: what do we know about the people who are coming into the sport? Like knowing your customer from a due diligence perspective. It’s an area that is very much an interest to the league committee. Where is the funding coming from, what’s the business pedigree of the individuals who are either the event organiser or a prospective team owner? Looking at one of the things that’s under discussion is putting together a more robust due diligence framework that may be outsourced, so that you can have confidence that what somebody claims is their business profile is [actually] their business profile.
“It’s a real grey area because a lot of the times they are never actually sanctioned and certainly don’t receive an ICC NoC (no-objection certificate)”
Andy Ephgrave on the legend leagues
Why now? Leagues have been mushrooming for a decade. Maybe this is late and should have happened earlier?
I don’t think that is fair because we’ve had processes in place. I think it’s more a case of when we look back at things, and pick up on feedback [from] within the cricket community, that’s where we do see the highest level of risk and threat in the game at the moment. Because of the transient nature of the game and external people coming in and moving on. It’s more of a collective thing of being able to review what we’ve currently got, to ensure that we are fit for purpose. And if there is room for improvement, which, there are indications, then it’s right and proper we do it.
Are there specifically different challenges of leagues in Associate member regions?
Yeah, absolutely, because unlike a Full Member, which has a recognised integrity, anti-corruption structure, some of our Associate members don’t. They have a nominated person who leads on that stuff, but they don’t have the skills and knowledge and the expertise the way we do, or some of the other members like the ECB, the BCCI, even Sri Lanka Cricket [do]. So, again, [the job is] ensuring that the integrity framework for a proposed league is matching the standard that we would expect for the IPL, the Hundred, or bilaterals and ICC events. Part of that is how we might be in a position to provide support to members. But that should be part of the responsibilities of the event organiser, to provide or ensure that the appropriate level of resource is present and deployed for an integrity function.
How much of a headache are retired and legend player leagues?
It’s a real grey area because a lot of the times they are never actually sanctioned and certainly don’t receive an ICC NoC (no-objection certificate). Domestic boards don’t sanction them or some do. But it is a bit of a grey area because a lot of the players who play in them are not in the current framework of cricket. But quite a lot are still iconic names. I think there’s a balance between heritage and [wanting to watch] the guy that you watched as you were growing up, and the risk around it.
Isn’t there a reputational risk around there that could hurt cricket and the ICC?
It could, yeah, but I think there’s also a degree of it being sort of exhibition cricket or festival style cricket. There was a legends’ league that took place in Sri Lanka in 2024 where there were allegations of corruption. I’m not going to sit here and say there’s no risk. But the key is about delineating between what is the official structures of cricket, and ultimately what is retired players, who are still able to produce memories and demonstrate how they can play. It’s making sure that people recognise what that is compared to a franchise league, an ICC event, or the Ranji Trophy.
“In the last 12 months, we’ve conducted and delivered education sessions to 2096 participants, globally. We’ve covered 333 bilateral international matches. And 30 other events – ICC tournaments or franchise leagues – where we’ve been asked to come in and provide our services. If you look over the last three years, we’ve laid 28 charges in relation to anti-corruption”
Andy Ephgrave
Have there been more approaches reported to the ICC across leagues and international cricket over the last ten years than prior to that? And is there a difference between international cricket and T20 leagues?
Hundred per cent. When we talk about reporting, it can be provided by one of our partners from the betting community who have a regulated viewpoint, or we may get from a gambling commission like the UK Gambling Commission. We get information from the International Betting Integrity Agency.
We get a lot of speculation as well. People will watch something in a game and will decide that’s definitely corruption. And then with the advent of ChatGPT and other AI platforms, you could be provided with a very detailed assessment as to why the ACU should immediately conduct an investigation into this matter…
Part of it is down to the fact that more players are now reporting than ever before?
Hundred per cent. And a big piece of work that we’ve done is about changing the perception. Historically, anti-corruption was seen as an enforcement arm of cricket, and players were like: well, who’s the person who’s held responsible? Players are vulnerable and our responsibility is to educate and help them and build confidence and trust. And that’s what our engagement programmes have done.
Because our education will follow a process where we will take either real-case scenarios or information that we know and build it into a video that brings to life the vulnerabilities so that it makes it more relatable rather than just standing up saying, you know, ‘2.2 of the code says this, you’re not allowed a phone’; ‘you can’t bet’. Because how do you make that engaging? The one thing I would say that is really refreshing in the game is that there is a real distaste from people who play the game, or are involved, for people who corrupted the game, because they see it as tarnishing what they’re doing.
In the last 12 months, we’ve conducted and delivered education sessions to 2096 participants, globally. We’ve covered 333 bilateral international matches. And 30 other events – ICC tournaments or franchise leagues – where we’ve been asked to come in and provide our services. If you look over the last three years, we’ve laid 28 charges in relation to anti-corruption.
Do you see a difference in in quantity, in the number of incidents, and reports that come to you in international cricket versus league cricket?
Yeah. So, the way I describe it, the highest level of the game at international level, corruption reporting is lower and risk is lower. But I think a lot of that’s to do with payments, you know, and contracts. If you’re trying to engage a player who is on a multi-million-dollar contract to carry out corruption whilst playing for their national team, that’s quite difficult. So we do see higher reporting from franchise cricket.
Cricket comes to the Olympics in 2028. How will it work operationally and jurisdictionally in terms of anti-corruption with the International Olympic Council (IOC)?
We’re already well down the path of engagement with the IOC’s competition manipulation unit. I was on a workshop with them delivering how we build resilience with our national federations as an international federation. They recognised what we’ve been doing for a longer term and looked at how we operate and [have] taken some of those ideas, and we’ve learned from some of the things they’re doing, like an ambassador programme. We’re quite interested in that and see it as a great opportunity to help deliver education and engagement. And then as we move to the actual event, we will be assisting them.
If something happened, would the report be made to the Olympics manipulation committee first?
They do have a reporting hotline, like we have a reporting mechanism, and I think what would happen is whoever received the report, they would share it with the other.
How much of a challenge is posed by social media in terms of there being more accessibility to players than ever before?
There are two elements to that. With greater access can come greater vulnerability, but it also leads to a greater chance of being caught. What we try to do is engage with players and ensure that they’re aware that if they have an active social media platform, and if somebody starts messaging… the whole process of corruption works on reciprocity. You know, there’s no point me coming to you and saying, ‘I’m going to threaten you with X, Y, and Z if you don’t do Y’. What I do is I come in and I say ‘Great game. I’m a big fan, I’ve been following you for a long time. Actually, I’ve got a league coming up and I’d love to sponsor you. Can we have a chat?’
“Football had this issue and what they did is they brought in instant scoring technology. So, you can download some of those apps and you’ll be sitting there watching the game and the next thing you get a notification of a goal, but it hasn’t actually come on screen. And what that did is it shut down a lot of the pitch-sider advantage”
Andy Ephgrave
Then we move to a different platform where you might be able to get more control. But all of that leads to an evidential trace. Nobody at the age of ten, when they’re on their journey to becoming a professional cricketer, says, ‘you know what, I want to be a corrupt cricketer’. What that does is it leaves people with a choice and that choice is part of our messaging. That choice is: tell us what’s happened, we’ll deal with it; you’ve done what you need to do.
So, with those platforms that you talk about, yes, it does give greater access, but it also gives greater opportunity to have tangible evidence. Because of the way that we are structured and the way that we operate, we have a very good intelligence team who are ingesting data, and are able to analyse, and quite often, through that analysis, are normally one or two steps behind knowing who it is.
How big of an issue is the growth of pitch-siders [people in the ground who relay real-time information to betting syndicates or illegal bookies, allowing them to take advantage of the gap between live action and the broadcast of it]?
From a corruption perspective, I think it’s quite small. There’s two elements to it. One is that they’re taking advantage of the time delay which enables them to place bets. So there’s a monetary return for them. That’s nothing to do with the ACU. The other bit is the illegal gambling market. The UN did a study of the illegal betting world and their assessment is that the value is around US$ 1.7 trillion a year. A large proportion of it is online. The Financial Action Task Force have recently published a study about gambling and online betting and the money laundering links that that potentially leads to. And so that’s where there is that vulnerability. We’re aware of it.
So, the reason you’ll see more pitch-siders is because there’s more online betting companies who all need the data, who need to get ahead and be able to know what has happened on the field – a six, a wicket, a boundary – before anyone else. That’s one of the issues. Football had this issue and what they did is they brought in instant scoring technology. So, you can download some of those apps and you’ll be sitting there watching the game and the next thing you get a notification of a goal, but it hasn’t actually come on screen. And what that did is it shut down a lot of the pitch-sider advantage.
Osman Samiuddin is a senior editor at Cricinfo
