Grey areas in ICC’s NOC policy push players from dressing rooms to courtrooms

The battle over player freedom and board control has spilled beyond the boundary ropes and into courtrooms. Sri Lanka fast bowler Nuwan Thushara’s recent lawsuit against Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC) is the latest flashpoint in a growing global debate over the No‑Objection Certificate (NOC) system, a regulatory grey area that is increasingly shaping the economics of modern cricket.

The curious case of Nuwan Thushara

Thushara, part of the Royal Challengers Bengaluru squad in the Indian Premier League (IPL), was denied an NOC by SLC after failing new and stricter fitness tests following Sri Lanka's T20 World Cup debacle.

His legal argument rests on the fact that his contract with SLC runs until March 31, 2026, after which he intended to step away from international cricket. He contends that enforcing an NOC under these circumstances is unreasonable and obstructs his livelihood.  

The timing of the legal action has effectively ruled Thushara out of the IPL, costing him significant income and raising questions about whether boards can impose internal selection policies on players who have already signaled their exit from the national set‑up.

A precedent in South Africa

Thushara’s case echoes that of South Africa’s left-arm wrist spinner Tabraiz Shamsi, who challenged Cricket South Africa (CSA) in the Johannesburg High Court in December 2025. Shamsi was not centrally contracted and had withdrawn from an SA20 league contract. CSA refused to grant him a full‑duration NOC to play in the rival International League T20 (ILT20), citing the need to protect its own tournament’s player pool.  

Shamsi argued that withholding the NOC was an act of bad faith, given his lack of contractual ties. The High Court sided with him, issuing an interim order forcing CSA to grant the NOC. The ruling set a major precedent: when a player is outside a central contract, a board cannot use the ICC’s NOC policy solely to protect its commercial interests.

 The bone of contention: A grey area in ICC regulations

At the heart of these disputes lies the ICC’s regulation requiring players to obtain an NOC from their home board before participating in overseas leagues. Crucially, the ICC does not specify the criteria boards must use to grant or deny these certificates. Instead, it leaves the conditions to the discretion of individual boards.  

This discretion has led to varied practices. The Afghanistan Cricket Board recently announced that its players will be allowed to participate in only three franchise‑based T20 tournaments. In Pakistan, the PCB went further, announcing a suspension of all NOCs for players seeking to join overseas T20 leagues in the aftermath of Pakistan’s loss to India in the final of the ACC Men’s T20 Asia Cup 2025.  

Such internal rules, while within the boards’ rights under ICC’s framework, leave players exposed to decisions that may prioritize board interests, national performance concerns, or tournament protection over individual careers.

The path ahead

The ICC’s silence on clear criteria for NOC approval or denial is the common thread running through these disputes. By leaving the matter entirely to boards, the regulations create a grey zone that is now being tested in courts across jurisdictions.  

To prevent further escalation, the ICC will need to amend its regulations, setting out transparent and universal grounds on which a board may allow or refuse a player’s participation in foreign leagues. Without such clarity, players will continue to find themselves at the mercy of board policies, and cricket risks seeing more of its stars in legal battles rather than on the field.