USA Cricket's governance trap: Can the game break free of its clubroom politics?
A deep-dive into what ails USA cricket's governance, and what's needed to make systemic changes leading up to LA28
In brief
What the boardroom fights have looked like
At one point in USA Cricket's turbulent existence, former national captain and sitting director Sushil Nadkarni was disqualified from a board election because he submitted a link to his LinkedIn profile instead of a conventional résumé. What should have been settled by a routine email eventually spilled into the courts.
At another, newly elected club director Atul Rai orchestrated the removal of Paraag Marathe, a senior San Francisco 49ers executive, as chairman at Rai's very first board meeting. According to Cricbuzz's reporting at the time, the election of a new chairman was not even on the circulated agenda, and several directors were caught by surprise. The financially distressed body, meanwhile, had unresolved audits and outstanding payments to deal with.
Taken one at a time, these incidents look almost comical, but the record they belong to is serious. The United States of America Cricket Association (USACA) and its successor, USA Cricket, have between them endured four ICC suspensions since 2005. USACA was expelled in 2017. USA Cricket has been suspended since September 2025, and its dysfunction grew so severe that a federal bankruptcy court revoked its Subchapter V designation and appointed a Chapter 11 trustee, finding that the organization could not effectively reorganize under its existing leadership.
The November reorganization plan proposes three independent directors, Selina Kaing, Patrick Singleton and Norman Wain, to lead the body out. That is a good start, but new people at the top will not be enough unless the structure that put local club politics in charge of a national sport changes too.
Four suspensions in twenty years
The ICC suspended USACA in 2005 over its inability to establish legitimate governance, again in 2010 over missed deadlines for constitutional reform and elections, and again in 2015 over governance, finances, reputation and cricketing operations.
The 2012 presidential election showed how the system worked. Of USACA's 47 member leagues, 32 were barred from voting shortly before the poll. The remaining 15 all voted for the incumbent, Gladstone Dainty. Control of membership eligibility had decided the election.
USA Cricket was created under ICC oversight to end this. Its founding board had three independent directors, three individual directors, two player directors and one representative each from clubs and leagues. The same divisions came back.
Directors who challenged alleged misgovernance by their predecessors were later accused of similar conduct by rival factions.
What the infighting cost
Money that could have supported national teams, youth development and grounds went to lawyers.
While this was happening, the men's team's training arrangements were disrupted, a planned tour of Sri Lanka was postponed, and commitments for the youth and women's teams were left uncertain.
The root cause is club control of the national board
Immigrant-led leagues kept cricket alive in America for decades. They funded competitions and secured grounds when no institution would, and they remain the sport's foundation.
The trouble starts when the people who run those leagues also control the national body. In a small electorate, an organized voting bloc can put alliances ahead of competence. When the same factions also influence membership registration, voter eligibility and nominations, they can keep themselves in office. A director who owes their seat to a loyal base of leagues also has little reason to invest in schools, colleges or communities that have never seen the game, because those investments win no votes.
Ahead of the 2024 T20 World Cup, Netflix is understood to have approached USA Cricket about a documentary following the national team. A majority of community-elected directors are understood to have been unwilling to take it forward, and their reasons have not been publicly established. The project would have had to clear ACE's commercial rights and the ICC's tournament rights, which is the kind of complexity an experienced sports administration is equipped to handle. The United States went on to beat Pakistan and reach the Super Eight, a run that a documentary could have taken to audiences well beyond cricket's existing followers.
On another occasion, a community-elected director reportedly asked why every member of the men's national team needed to travel with an individual kitbag, and suggested that players share equipment to save on baggage fees. Bats, helmets, gloves and pads are fitted to each player's physique, technique and safety needs. A cash-strapped body is right to watch its travel costs, but a director who expects international cricketers to share protective gear is thinking like the organizer of a weekend league.
Where the new plan falls short
The proposed constitution envisages a board of nine to eleven directors, with at least three independents and no less than 33.3 per cent of voting power reserved for athlete representatives. During the ICC reinstatement period, Kaing, Singleton and Wain hold full authority, including the power to appoint the additional directors needed. Their immediate tasks are to restore ICC membership, finalize the long-form agreement with ACE and meet the standards for USOPC recognition.
Two gaps open once that transition ends.
Three independents can be outvoted. On a board of eleven, three independent directors are a minority who need other constituencies' support for every major decision. The original USA Cricket constitution also had three independent seats, and they did not prevent the collapse.
The board elects its own independents. After the transition, independent directors are again to be elected by the board from candidates put forward by the Nominating and Governance Committee. A faction with a board majority can back candidates it finds agreeable over candidates who would challenge it. A director can pass every conflict-of-interest test and still be chosen because the majority expects their vote.
Four fixes
1. Make independents from outside cricket the largest bloc
On an eleven-member board, independent directors should hold five seats, with four for athletes and two for the wider cricket community. That meets the athlete voting threshold and keeps a grassroots voice at the table.
Independent directors should also have no ties to American cricket's clubs, leagues or factions, which is a stricter test than passing a conflict-of-interest check. Kaing, Singleton and Wain all come from outside the sport's established politics, and the constitution should require the same of everyone who follows them into these seats.
Athletes have a strong claim to their four seats. They have borne the cost of every administrative failure, from disrupted pathways and poor preparation to uncertainty over payments, contracts and selection, and they know what elite sport requires.
2. Require professional sports experience
USA Cricket's first independent directors, appointed in 2018, show what the standard should be. Paraag Marathe was president of 49ers Enterprises and executive vice-president of football operations for the San Francisco 49ers. Catherine Carlson was senior vice-president of corporate partnerships and premium activation at the NBA's Orlando Magic. Rohan Sajdeh was a senior partner and managing director at Boston Consulting Group whose work included the Indian Premier League and international cricket's commercial structures. Later appointments have not consistently matched that level.
The three proposed directors do. Kaing is a technology and corporate governance executive with USA Fencing experience, Singleton a three-time Olympian and international sports administrator, and Wain a former general counsel at USA Track & Field.
The constitution should set this down as a requirement. Independent directors should have senior experience in professional or Olympic sport, as an executive, administrator or elite athlete, and the requirement should be published so that every candidate can be measured against it.
The work ahead calls for that experience. Major League Cricket has attracted international investors and prominent franchise owners. New venues are emerging, including the Los Angeles Knight Riders' ground in Pomona and Washington Freedom's proposed stadium in Frederick, Maryland. The national team has just won ICC Cricket World Cup League 2 after a three-year campaign, and cricket returns to the Olympics at LA28. The governing body has to build school and college cricket, the women's game, coach education, sponsorship and broadcast exposure, and work with school districts, universities, city authorities and corporate partners. The board needs people who have done that work in other sports.
3. Limit the power of club and league operators
Club and league operators should be represented on the board without being able to control it. Two seats of eleven gives them that.
They should also have no hand in choosing the independent directors. Membership registration and voter eligibility, the tools used to decide the 2012 election, should be administered by someone with no stake in the result.
Members would still elect their representatives under this structure. Winning over a small membership electorate would no longer be enough to control the national body.
4. Have the USOPC or the ICC vet the board
The 2018 independents were not picked by the board. They were recommended by a Nominating and Governance Committee formed under ICC supervision, whose members included then ICC chief executive David Richardson, Knight Commission CEO Amy Perko, sports and technology executive Rohan Chandran and cricket administrator Keith Aaron. The seven elected directors then approved them.
That arrangement should be permanent. A third party with standing, the USOPC or the ICC, should run or certify the search for independent directors against the published standard. It should also confirm that every director, whichever constituency sends them, is fit to serve before they take a seat. USA Cricket needs recognition from both bodies, so either can vouch for its directors with a credibility the board cannot give itself.
The deadline is LA28
The ICC gave USACA repeated chances before expelling it, then set up USA Cricket as a more modern and professionally run replacement. Less than a decade later it was dealing with another suspended American governing body. With Los Angeles 2028 approaching and more commercial opportunity than the sport has ever had in the United States, another failure would cost far more than the last two.
Kaing, Singleton and Wain have been asked to restore ICC membership and guide USA Cricket through bankruptcy and towards USOPC recognition. If they also write these four changes into the constitution before the board returns to its normal election cycle, the directors who follow will have far less room to repeat the last twenty years.
