ECB Questions Afghanistan Premier League Funding: Money, ICC Sanctioning and Women's Cricket at the Centre of a Growing Dispute

The proposed launch of the Afghanistan Premier League (APL) has raised a question that cannot be settled through discussions between cricket boards alone: where exactly is the money to operate this league coming from? Richard Gould, chief executive of the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB), has indicated that he intends to raise concerns about the Afghanistan Cricket Board's (ACB) financial arrangements at upcoming International Cricket Council (ICC) meetings. At the centre of the dispute is an allegation that revenue distributed by the ICC could indirectly support a franchise competition that has yet to receive official ICC sanction.

The most significant detail is that the APL's player draft has reportedly taken place before the proposed sanction has been secured, while only three of the five franchise owners have been confirmed. This sequence exposes a substantial gap between commercial preparation and regulatory accountability. The APL's immediate problem is not player availability but the origin of its capital, transparency of ownership and the adequacy of ICC oversight.

The draft before ICC approval

The proposed Afghanistan Premier League is being developed as a five-franchise T20 competition. According to the available information, the player draft took place on Tuesday. Eight English players have been associated with the tournament, including internationally experienced T20 specialists Moeen Ali and Alex Hales. The competition is reportedly planned to take place in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), beginning on December 27.

However, an important administrative question remains. By holding a player draft before obtaining ICC approval, the organisers have created a situation in which player participation and franchise planning have already advanced while the regulatory process remains incomplete. Beginning commercial operations before securing regulatory approval is a risky sequence for any professional league.

The ICC's new franchise leagues subcommittee could play an important role in this matter. The committee is reviewing regulations governing league approval, including venue suitability, anti-corruption monitoring, anti-doping controls, franchise ownership backgrounds and financial due diligence. Gould himself is a member of this subcommittee. The ECB therefore has an institutional opportunity to raise its concerns within the regulatory process, rather than relying exclusively on public statements.

The question of dependence on 80 per cent of ICC revenue

The most sensitive part of the dispute concerns the ACB's financial dependence. Gould has said that more than 80 per cent of the board's income comes from ICC funding. He has estimated this support at approximately US$14 million annually. These figures should, however, be treated as Gould's assessment rather than independently verified ICC financial disclosures.

The ECB's argument is that if a substantial proportion of the ACB's income comes from ICC distributions, and the same board subsequently provides financial support to the APL, collective international cricket funding could be indirectly supporting a competition that has not yet received ICC approval.

The ICC appears to be treating the dispute as two separate matters. One concerns the revenue-distribution arrangements between member boards, approved in 2026. The other concerns the regulatory process for approving a new franchise league. The ICC's position is that these two processes should not automatically be treated as one issue.

This is where the central accounting question emerges: is there sufficient institutional separation between general funding received by a cricket board and its commercial investments? If the ICC can demonstrate that its distributions are ring-fenced for designated cricket-development activities, the ECB's allegation could weaken. But if there is no clear disclosure of how the money is spent and who ultimately benefits, the question will extend beyond Afghanistan to the financial accountability of other Full Members.

The APL's commercial structure raises additional concerns. Gould has referred to the limitations of Afghanistan's domestic television market and the difficulty of generating substantial revenue through ticket sales. Only three of the five franchise owners have reportedly been confirmed. Hosting the tournament in the UAE may be a practical decision for security and operational reasons, but it also limits the potential to generate direct ticket revenue from audiences inside Afghanistan.

An important distinction is necessary here. International broadcasting rights and digital revenue from diaspora audiences remain possible sources of income. However, the available information does not disclose the value of those rights, potential broadcasting partners or the actual investment commitments of the franchises. It is therefore premature to conclude that the league has a sustainable financial model.

Moeen Ali and Alex Hales: The ECB's legal constraint

The participation of eight English players makes the dispute more complicated. The ECB has indicated that it intends to move towards issuing No Objection Certificates (NOCs) to the players concerned. One important reason is the legal risk associated with restricting their participation. According to the available information, none of the eight players is centrally contracted to the ECB.

This means the board does not have the same contractual control over their participation in overseas franchise competitions that it might exercise over centrally contracted players. If the ECB attempts to prevent them from participating without a sufficient legal basis, such restrictions could be challenged under employment and competition law. This is commonly described as a restraint-of-trade risk.

Players such as Moeen Ali and Alex Hales belong to a modern T20 labour market in which opportunities in international franchise competitions remain available even after players move away from national-team cricket. For them, participation is a professional and employment decision. However, their involvement could also provide international recognition to a league facing regulatory controversy.

The ECB faces a clear contradiction: it can question the APL's financial arrangements, but its ability to prevent non-contracted players from participating without legal consequences is limited. The board has therefore also emphasised the importance of explaining its position to players and making them aware of the potential reputational implications before the tournament.

Women's cricket: The most important voice beyond the field

The political and humanitarian dimension of this dispute is connected to the restrictions imposed on women and girls by the Taliban in Afghanistan. England has adopted a policy of refusing bilateral cricket against the Afghanistan men's national team in protest against these restrictions. The ECB chair has used the strong term gender apartheid to describe the situation. Amnesty International and United Nations experts have also expressed serious concerns about the rights of Afghan women.

Against this background, Nahida Sapan, captain of the Afghanistan refugee women's cricket team, has appealed to overseas players to reconsider their participation in the APL. Her message goes beyond the commercial opportunities offered by franchise cricket. It draws attention to women cricketers who lack a regular domestic cricket structure and meaningful competitive opportunities in their own country.

Support from other cricket boards for the refugee women's team's tour of England indicates that the issue extends beyond ECB policy. However, this support should not be confused with a binding collective decision by the ICC.

There is also an institutional imbalance. Afghanistan's men's cricket administration enjoys formal representation and voting rights within the ICC as a Full Member. The refugee women's team does not possess comparable institutional authority. The voices of Afghan women cricketers are reaching the international stage, but a permanent domestic cricket structure for them remains an unresolved issue.

The ICC's real test: Will the rules apply equally?

The most important aspect of this dispute is that the ICC must address financial transparency, the legitimacy of the competition and players' freedom of employment simultaneously. The ECB chief executive sits on the subcommittee reviewing the approval process for new leagues. This arrangement is not inherently improper, but clear procedures must separate regulatory deliberations from the public objections of an individual member board.

If the ICC approves the APL, it must establish clear requirements covering complete franchise ownership information, disclosure of financial sources, anti-corruption monitoring and anti-doping controls. If approval is withheld, the decision must be justified by reference to the regulations. Political disagreement or unsubstantiated financial allegations alone cannot provide an adequate regulatory basis.

The ACB, meanwhile, must clarify how ICC distributions are used and how much independent commercial investment is available for the APL. Confirmation of three franchise owners does not establish the complete financial readiness of a five-franchise competition. The identities, investment commitments and backgrounds of the remaining two owners must be examined as an essential part of the process.

The next signal will arrive before December

The proposed December 27 launch and the upcoming ICC meetings are two important milestones in this dispute. For now, the ECB's position, the players' NOCs and the ICC's regulatory process suggest an attempt to find a balance. The greatest risk is that the league's commercial plans may move ahead of its administrative preparation.

Afghanistan cricket needs economic opportunities, but the credibility of a new league will be determined by its funding sources, ownership structure and oversight arrangements, not by the reputation of its players. The next significant development will be whether the ICC makes clear financial disclosures and independent anti-corruption monitoring mandatory conditions for APL approval. If it does, the decision could establish a precedent for the entire global franchise-cricket market, not merely Afghanistan.