Tom Moffat, the WCA CEO, highlighted differences across eight areas between the two versions: content/media appearances, behind the scenes content, changing room access, biological player related data, licensing, name, image likeness (NIL), player agreement and dispute resolution.

The WCA’s broader contention was that the 2024 agreement gave players the right to decide, and negotiate via the global players body, whereas the ICC version says player consent is not needed, with their boards having that authority.

An example of the significant differences is NIL rights, according to the communication Moffat sent to players. In the ICC’s new version, “the player is required to license their NIL to any third party; 3 players from the same team can be used by an ICC Partner for commercial content which can directly relate to the promotion of the Partners brand or product; the player’s national board approves all use of NIL on behalf of the player; Any use of NIL outside of the Squad Terms can be agreed by the player’s national board.”

In the 2024 agreement, the NIL rights were “restricted” only to the ICC’s commercial partners and the event hosts and the WCA is authorised on behalf of the players to negotiate terms and use. The 2024 version also said a group of players – not three per team – would be “represented in all content” promoting the ICC tournament.

There are significant differences in the terms for the usage of player data during the event as well. The WCA said in the ICC version, the governing body “can use and commercialise player data with the agreement of the player’s national board” and that the ICC “owns” the data. The approved version, WCA said, says the player owns the data and their consent is necessary “given the sensitivities.”

In the ICC version, once the players participate in a global tournament, “he /she is deemed to have accepted the Squad Terms regardless of whether they sign the Terms.” In the version agreed between the WCA and ICC, the players are required to agree the terms and sign for every event separately.

In the memo to players, Moffat accused the ICC and member boards of “deliberately removing” all the protection that players were assured of in the 2024 terms, while “attempting” to “own” players and “claim an almost unlimited ability to use and commercialise it with third parties without your consent, with the only recourse to an in-house dispute resolution process run by the ICC itself .” Moffat also said the ICC and member boards were trying to “exploit the most vulnerable, and worst paid player groups at this World Cup, some of whom are amateur,” through the non-approved version.

This week, Moffat told ESPNcricinfo that the WCA did not want to disrupt the World Cup, but admitted being “deeply concerned” by ICC presenting terms that did not “align” with the 2024 agreement. “The (ICC) terms provided significantly erode player rights and protections including around image and commercial use, compared to those agreed,” Moffat said. “It is especially concerning that it is the most vulnerable playing groups who appear to have been targeted and expected to compete under different terms and conditions to other playing groups participating in the same Men’s T20 World Cup. For many players affected, participation in ICC Events represents a primary source of income and career progression.

“The WCA supports the growth of the game and ICC events, but these objectives should be pursued in partnership with players, not at their expense. The agreed Squad Terms have now been signed by impacted WCA players, and our expectation is for these terms to be honoured by the ICC for the T20 World Cup.”

It is understood the ICC has not responded to WCA’s follow-up mail sent earlier this week. The ICC has been asked for a comment.

[Cricinfo]