In 2019, USA Cricket handed over the keys to its future. American Cricket Enterprise Inc. (ACE), a private consortium co-founded by Sameer Mehta, Satyan Gajwani, Vijay Srinivasan, and Vineet Jain, secured exclusive 50-year rights to run elite T20 cricket in the United States of America. According to the Term Sheet signed between both parties, ACE promised to bankroll national teams, build six stadiums, and launch professional leagues that would make cricket America’s next major sport.
Also read: U.S. is starting to embrace cricket, says top American diplomat
On the field, that dream seems within reach. In 2024, the USA — an Associate Member of the International Cricket Council (ICC) — co-hosted the ICC Men’s T20 World Cup. The national team exceeded expectations by defeating Pakistan and advancing to the Super 8s. Recognising this achievement, USA Cricket was honoured with the ICC Associate Member Men’s Team Performance of the Year award at the recently held ICC Annual Conference in Singapore.
But off the field, the story has been far less harmonious. With the Olympics approaching and cricket newly added to the Los Angeles 2028 Summer Olympics (LA28) slate, that vision is fracturing.
A year ago, the ICC placed USA Cricket “on notice”, and following the recent AGM, the global governing body reiterated: “The organisation remains on notice (USAC). USAC is required to undertake comprehensive governance reforms, including but not limited to completing free and fair elections within a three-month period.”
A contractual dispute between ACE and USA Cricket threatens the board’s Olympic certification, its standing with the ICC, and its authority over the very game it is meant to govern.
In a breach notice issued on June 23 this year, USA Cricket stated that ACE had violated major contractual terms: delayed payments, missed infrastructure deadlines, governance interference, and international overreach. ACE, in turn, denied wrongdoing, claiming that USA Cricket had mischaracterised the Term Sheet and had failed to meet its own obligations.
Why this deal was always different
In most mature U.S. sports, national team governance is insulated from professional league control. Take basketball, for example. USA Basketball, a non-profit governing body, runs the Olympic programme, while the NBA’s privately owned franchises manage the commercial league. The NBA does not own or fund USA Basketball; cooperation typically means player release and scheduling alignment, not a financial lifeline.
But USA Cricket’s 2019 agreement flipped that script. ACE was granted sweeping control: full commercial rights, infrastructure responsibilities, and funding obligations for elite cricket — all in one bundled deal. In return, USA Cricket would receive a 5% share of all cricket revenues and guaranteed minimum payments.
That dependency — rare in American sports — now sits at the heart of a governance crisis.
A billion-dollar deal under review
USA Cricket’s June breach notice charged ACE with several failures. A close examination of the Term Sheet, ACE’s July 8 rebuttal, and supporting legal documents reveals the following:
Alleged breaches
Stadium delivery failure: The contract required six ICC-standard stadiums by 2024 (later extended by a year due to COVID-19). Only one (Grand Prairie, Texas) is complete, and ACE has shifted the responsibility of building infrastructure to MLC franchises without USA Cricket’s written consent. Section 24 of the Term Sheet states: “Except in the event of a transfer to an affiliate, the Agreement, including USA Cricket’s exclusive license for Major and Minor Leagues, is transferable or assignable to another party only with the written consent of USA Cricket.”
The Morrisville, Lauderhill, and Oakland stadiums are not owned or exclusively operated by ACE, and it has pushed the completion timelines to 2028, well outside the agreed timeline in the Term Sheet. The Term Sheet states in Section 5.1 that ACE must “make commercially reasonable efforts to ensure that the stadiums will be operational by no later than 2024” and that it must control “all stadium events and activities”.
Revenue share dilution: The Term Sheet entitles USA Cricket to 5% of all gross cricket-related revenues. ACE’s plan to devolve local sponsorships and media deals to franchises (starting 2027) risks shrinking that pool — and with it, USA Cricket’s share.
Unapproved expansion: ACE’s push for a Toronto-based franchise and a strategic tie-up with New Zealand Cricket was initiated without USA Cricket’s sign-off. The March 2025 ICC sanctioning standards require that when an event is staged in one federation’s jurisdiction but played (in whole or part) in another’s territory, both national bodies must sign off. USA Cricket says no such approval was sought for ACE’s plans outside the U.S.
ACE’s response to this is that the events have not occurred yet and that it will comply with the ICC rules, if and when they do.
Player/staff salary shortfall: USA Cricket cited a $606,189 (player and staff payment for a period of July 1, 2024 to December 31, 2024) and a $647,603 (January 1, 2025 to June 23, 2025) payment lapse. ACE responded with records showing $1.43 million paid in 2024 to players, coaches, and staff eligible for U.S. national teams.
ACE calculated the payment made based on the MLC Draft salary paid by franchisees to U.S. domestic players according to Term 3.3: “… The amounts, structure and format of the contracts for the players, coaches and support staff will be the sole discretion of ACE, or the JV, as applicable” and 3.4 which states: “All contracts for professional players for the Major League will include the ability for the players to represent the USA National teams, subject to the players’ selection for such representation.”
But USA Cricket has objected to ACE’s position that “the entirety of a salary paid to an MLC player can or should be offset against ACE’s obligations under the Term Sheet” and has accused ACE of “essentially using USA Cricket to fund its MLC player salaries”.
Viewed from an Indian or IPL context, ACE’s argument would essentially mean Indian Test captain Shubman Gill’s annual BCCI central contract of ₹5 crore and his match fees should be offset against his Gujarat Titans IPL salary of ₹16.5 crore.
No High-Performance Centre?: Though promised by 2020, ACE maintains that the Grand Prairie venue currently serves that role. However, sources within USA Cricket say that the stadium does not meet the definition or minimum infrastructure standards of a fully operational High-Performance Centre, and that it was not developed in genuine consultation with USA Cricket, despite claims to the contrary.
No Minor League Cricket (MiLC) in 2025: The Term Sheet allows ACE to run Minor League Cricket but does not mandate it annually. So far, the League has seen four seasons since 2021. And while USA Cricket acknowledges that the Term Sheet includes the launch of MiLC, “it feels the spirit and intent of the agreement clearly require the sustainable and continuous operation of developmental competitions”. ACE is yet to announce dates for the MiLC 2025 calendar.
While there is no documentation available with this publication to support USA Cricket’s claims that ACE meddled in athlete elections or team selection, USA Cricket insists that “the application of ACE’s ‘good faith discretion’ under the Term Sheet is being misused to influence national team selections, specifically by promoting the inclusion of MLC-contracted players who meet only the minimum ICC domicile criteria”.
USA Cricket’s own finances: a house built on sand
The financial squeeze behind the confrontation is visible on the balance sheet. USA Cricket ended 2023 with just $52,533 in cash against $615,110 in current liabilities. Receivables swelled to $505,689, and disclosures show $439,000 of that tied to ACE. When the governing body’s short-term survival depends on collecting from the same private partner it accuses of breach, leverage runs one way. The audit also reports continuing negative operating cash flow, reinforcing how quickly funding gaps can become existential.
“… the organisation had a net asset deficiency, negative cash flows from operating activities, and total current liabilities exceeding total current assets. The ability… to continue as a going concern is dependent upon management’s plan,” the USA Cricket auditors noted.
The note further stated that USA Cricket’s ability to operate depends on continued grants from the ICC and advances/contract revenue from ACE, precisely the entities whose payments and performance are now in dispute. In the same filing, USA Cricket disclosed that 48% of its 2023 contributions came from the ICC and 12% from ACE, underscoring how concentrated that lifeline is.
Conflict of interest
Internal emails also reveal that Paraag Marathe, the USA Cricket Chairman between 2018 and 2022, held a consulting agreement with Times Internet (UK) — a key ACE backer and Willow TV (the only 24×7 live cricket channel in the USA and the official broadcaster for MLC) owner — while the Term Sheet was being finalised in 2019. He reportedly disclosed it only in late 2021.
The letter from the USA Cricket counsel states: “Under this agreement, Mr. Marathe is to provide general consulting services to Times Internet (UK) Limited related to (1) sponsorship opportunities in the mainstream U.S. sports advertising space, (2) growing Times Internet (UK) Limited’s business, and (3) media rights and distribution opportunities for Willow TV. Although the financial terms of this agreement and the agreement with ACE are redacted, Mr. Marathe informs me that the financial payment from the Times Internet (UK) Limited agreement is approximately 5% of the payments owed under the ACE agreement.”
Marathe is no minor player in the U.S. sports world. He serves as President of 49ers Enterprises and Executive Vice-President of Football Operations for the San Francisco 49ers, and chairs Leeds United in England.
In a communication between USA Cricket and its attorney, which this publication has seen, legal counsel warned in 2021 that while the arrangement might not technically breach USA Cricket policy, it created a strong perception problem and urged Marathe to recuse himself from decisions involving Times Internet (UK).
In a legal advisory to USA Cricket, board counsel wrote: “Although I don’t believe that the agreement causes Mr. Marathe to have a direct conflict of interest under USA Cricket’s Conflict of Interest Policy, there is still a need under the policy to avoid the perception of, or potential for, a conflict.
“Therefore… my advice would be: Mr. Marathe should excuse himself from any formal or informal discussions related to the relationship between USA Cricket and Times Internet (UK) Limited and/or Willow TV, and should take no part in any discussion or vote… If there is any question or dispute… the CEO of USA Cricket should determine whether Mr. Marathe should be excused…”
The Term Sheet, drawn up when Marathe was Chairman of ACE, vests ACE with extraordinary power:
Section 13 (Audit rights): USAC can audit ACE only once annually via a mutually agreed third party — a clause so restrictive that meaningful financial oversight becomes impractical.
Sections 3, 5, 24 (Infrastructure): ACE can assign infrastructure obligations to affiliates without new consent.
Sections 4-9 (League decisions): All commercial, format, and expansion decisions rest with ACE, not USAC.
Section 22 (Termination): ACE faces no penalty for withholding payments while disputes are unresolved. USAC’s termination rights require long “cure” windows, delaying enforcement.
This arrangement flies in the face of standard U.S. sports governance, where the National Governing Bodies (NGB), for example, USA Basketball, maintain independence from league operators like the NBA. It is a level of authority rarely seen in U.S. sports partnerships. While this model helped fast-track professional cricket in the U.S., it also left USA Cricket heavily reliant on one private partner, with limited audit rights and few enforcement mechanisms if disputes arise.
That dependency has amplified the pressure on USA Cricket to strengthen its governance framework. Under the revised constitution, updated in line with U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee (USOPC) guidelines, the board has expanded from 10 to 12 directors, with two additional seats allocated to player representatives — increasing their total to four.
The last elections were held in a staggered manner — independent directors in February 2024, player directors as far back as August 2022, and membership directors in July 2023.
As per the official USA Cricket website, the board currently has 10 seats, with three vacant. Both player directors — Nadia T. Gruny and Srini Salver — have terms that ended in 2024, while Chairman Venu Pisike’s term runs until December 31, 2025.
To be part of the Olympic system, USA Cricket must also meet the USOPC standards: independent governance, enforceable conflict of interest rules, financial transparency, and a board in which “athlete representatives will equal at least 33.3% of all NGB boards of directors, executive boards, and other governing boards”.
Just before the ICC AGM, an ESPNcricinfo report suggested that the ICC had proposed a full resignation of the USA Cricket board as part of the road map for Olympic certification. However, the majority of board members have declined to resign, stating that it was only one of the three options suggested by the USOPC.
In March this year, three former directors — Patricia Whittaker, Kuljit Singh Nijjar, and Arjun Rao Gona — removed from the board in December 2024, joined current director Atul Rai in suing the organisation and six sitting directors individually, alleging wrongful termination, governance lapses, and retaliation.
Can USA Cricket still govern the sport? Without independent control, strong audit rights, or leverage over its own revenues, USA Cricket risks failing its core mandate. The consequences go beyond league disputes — the board’s very legitimacy, and its Olympic future, may hang in the balance.
Olympic stakes: USOPC certification risk
Cricket’s inclusion at the Los Angeles 2028 Olympics gives this dispute regulatory teeth. In 2023, cricket was among five new sports approved for the LA28 programme by the International Olympic Committee (IOC), driven in part by the vast audience the game commands in the Indian subcontinent. As host, the United States is expected to field both men’s and women’s teams in a six-team medal competition.
The stakes were underscored in June 2024 when the U.S. co-hosted the men’s T20 World Cup, staging matches across three venues — high-visibility proof of market potential ahead of LA28.
USA Cricket is an Associate Member of the ICC, not a Full Member — a status that comes with limited voting power and funding and that places a premium on demonstrating robust governance and development pathways to progress within the ICC system.
Simply put, the structure of USA Cricket’s deal with ACE risks putting it in violation of several governance standards laid out by the USOPC, the ICC, and the Ted Stevens Act — the U.S. law that defines the framework for NGBs and their relationship with the USOPC.
Autonomy undermined
Section 220522.5 of the Ted Stevens Act demands that an NGB “demonstrates that it is autonomous in the governance of its sport, except with respect to the oversight of the organisation, in that it — (A) independently decides and controls all matters central to governance; (B) does not delegate decision-making and control of matters central to governance; and (C) is free from outside restraint.”
But USA Cricket’s core operations — funding, league structure, infrastructure, scheduling — are controlled by ACE as per the Term Sheet (Sections 3, 4, 5, 22). USA Cricket’s own audited financials show dependency on ACE advances to stay afloat — a breach of both spirit and letter.
Code of conduct concerns
Under 8.4.1 (a) (vi, vii) of the USOPC Bylaws, an NGB must “adopt and enforce a code of conduct for its employees, members, board of directors, and officers, including clear conflicts of interest principles, and adopt and enforce ethics policies and procedures”.
USA Cricket’s legal counsel at that time acknowledged that then-chair Marathe had a concurrent consulting contract with Times Internet (UK).
USA Cricket and Marathe’s failure to disclose the above fact or recuse Maratheduring the 2019 deal-making phase violates the “enforceability” requirement of the USOPC.
Lack of financial transparency
The USOPC Bylaw 8.4.1 (b), which lays down “Financial Standards and Reporting Practices” as part of Certification Standards for National Governing Bodies, requires every NGB to “(i) demonstrate financial operational capability to administer its sport; (ii) be financially and operationally transparent and accountable to its members and to the corporation [the USOPC]; (iii) adopt a budget and maintain accurate accounting records in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAP); (iv) submit its complete IRS Form 990 and audited financial statements, including management letter and budget, to the corporation annually; (v) post on its website its current bylaws and other organic documents, its IRS form 990 for the three most recent years, and its audited financial statements for the three most recent years; (vi) satisfy such other requirements as are set forth by the corporation”.
The Term Sheet’s Section 13 restricts USA Cricket’s audit rights. It says USA Cricket must negotiate and agree upon a mutually acceptable auditor, with rights limited to one annual review. Any dispute triggers a costly arbitration mechanism, making full oversight impractical and opaque.
ICC’s ‘no government (or other public or quasi-public body) interference’ rule
According to article 2.4, clause D of the ICC Memorandum & Articles of Association, each member must at all times “manage its affairs autonomously and ensure that there is no government (or other public or quasi-public body) interference in its governance, regulation and/or administration of Cricket in its Cricket Playing Country (including in operational matters, in the selection and management of teams, and in the appointment of coaches or support personnel)“.
Given that ACE controls the MLC and MiLC structure, funds national team salaries and venues, owns revenue-generating rights, and can withhold payments based on its sole discretion, the ICC could classify ACE’s position as private interference, potentially triggering a review or suspension, especially with Olympic certification on the line.
How cricket boards are structured globally
Most national cricket bodies operate as independent member associations or non-profit federations that administer domestic competitions, select national teams, and interface with the ICC.
While governments may provide funding, security, or stadium support, the ICC requires that boards “manage their affairs autonomously” and ensure “no government (or other public or quasi-public body) interference” in governance or administration.
Recent examples of ICC action
The ICC typically penalises boards for governance failures tied to government interference. USA Cricket’s case is unusual, stemming from private overreach, but the principle of autonomy remains the same.
Sri Lanka (2023): Sri Lanka Cricket was suspended on November 10, 2023, for failing to “manage its affairs autonomously” and allowing government interference. The ICC lifted the ban in early 2024, saying it was satisfied SLC had restored compliance with membership obligations.
Zimbabwe (2019): ICC froze funding and barred the team after a government commission took control of Zimbabwe Cricket. It was reinstated once governance conditions were met.
Nepal (2016): The Cricket Association of Nepal was suspended following government involvement and disputed elections, and was readmitted on a conditional basis after reforms were effected and elections held in 2019.
These cases underline the risk for USA Cricket; while many countries are penalised for state interference, the U.S. challenge is almost the mirror opposite — private overreach concentrated in a long-term commercial partner. If autonomy is the test, the form of control should matter less to the ICC than the fact of it.
The ICC has begun taking steps to “reset” and overhaul the leadership and governance structures of USA Cricket, following concerns raised by the USOPC about whether USA Cricket meets the independence and athlete-representation standards required for Olympic recognition.
Is it conceivable that a sport is introduced in the Olympics without the host country fielding a team in the event? History’s answer is intriguing. Cricket debuted, as a one-off, in the Paris Summer Olympics in 1900. Great Britain, represented by the Devon and Somerset Wanderers, a club side, and a team known as All Paris, comprising mostly British emigrants residing in France and possibly including a couple of French players, competed — and, unsurprisingly, Great Britain triumphed. The winning team was awarded silver medals and the loser bronze. The medals were later converted to gold and silver, respectively.
As host, the U.S. national team is guaranteed a place at the Games. But the real question is: when cricket takes the stage under the Olympic flame, who will be calling the shots — USA Cricket, or someone else nominated by the USOPC? The sporting world will be watching.
Response from ACE
Sportstar reached out to ACE with several questions related to the structural governance issues, including operational transparency in the USA Cricket-ACE partnership and conflict of interest. In response, ACE stated: “The questions you have raised reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the Term Sheet and the relationship between USAC and ACE, and are both inaccurate and misleading.”
“We are unable to comment further, as the Term Sheet is confidential and both parties are bound by strict confidentiality obligations,” it added.
(With inputs from Santadeep Dey and Dhruva Prasad)
