USA Cricket Has Been Suspended Four Times. Can a New Board Finally End the Politics?

American cricket has a governance problem that refuses to go away. The United States of America Cricket Association (USACA) and its successor, USA Cricket, have faced four ICC suspensions since 2005. Different administrators have come and gone, constitutional changes have been attempted, and independent directors have been appointed. Yet the same internal battles have repeatedly brought the national governing body to the brink of collapse.

So, can another reorganization finally change things?

The November reorganization plan offers a fresh opportunity. It proposes three independent directors, Selina Kaing, Patrick Singleton and Norman Wain, to lead USA Cricket through its financial and administrative crisis. Their immediate responsibilities include restoring ICC membership, resolving the long-running commercial agreement with American Cricket Enterprises (ACE), and securing recognition from the United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee (USOPC).

It is an important first step. But there is a bigger question. What happens when these three directors eventually hand control back to an elected board?

That is where the proposed changes may not go far enough. Three independent directors on an eleven-member board can still be outvoted, and allowing the board itself to select future independents could bring the same factional politics back into the system.

Perhaps the problem was never simply about finding better administrators. Perhaps the structure itself has consistently rewarded the wrong priorities.

Four ICC suspensions in 20 years: Why does American cricket keep returning to the same problem?

The history of American cricket administration is not particularly encouraging.

The ICC first suspended USACA in 2005 because it could not establish legitimate governance. Another suspension followed in 2010 after the organization missed deadlines for constitutional reforms and elections. In 2015, the ICC suspended it again over governance, finances, reputation and cricketing operations.

USACA was eventually expelled in 2017.

The problems did not disappear with its successor.

USA Cricket was established under ICC oversight, with a structure intended to provide a more professional and balanced approach. Its founding board included three independent directors, three individual directors, two player directors, and one representative each from clubs and leagues.

On paper, this was a reasonable attempt to balance the interests of the wider cricket community with the requirements of a national sports organization.

But the divisions returned.

The fourth suspension came in September 2025, after years of internal disagreements and administrative dysfunction. By January 2026, the bankruptcy court had effectively concluded that the existing leadership could no longer be trusted to guide the organization through its financial crisis.

Twenty years, two governing bodies and four suspensions. How much more evidence does American cricket need that changing the name or replacing a few directors is not enough?

The 2012 USACA election: When membership eligibility decided the outcome

One incident from USACA’s history explains how internal politics became so powerful.

USACA had 47 member leagues. Ahead of its 2012 presidential election, 32 were barred from voting shortly before the poll. That left only 15 eligible leagues, and all 15 voted for incumbent president Gladstone Dainty.

The result was hardly surprising once the electorate had been reduced.

The important issue was not simply who won the election. It was who controlled the conditions determining which members could participate.

When membership registration and voter eligibility are influenced by the same factions competing for power, the election process becomes vulnerable. An organized group does not necessarily need broad support to control a national organization. It needs influence over a relatively small electorate.

That is precisely the kind of arrangement the new USA Cricket structure was supposed to prevent.

The boardroom battles that repeatedly overshadowed cricket

Some of the disputes in USA Cricket’s history might sound like administrative comedy if their consequences were not so serious.

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.

A routine email could perhaps have resolved the issue. Instead, the disagreement eventually reached the courts.

Then there was the removal of Paraag Marathe as chairman.

Atul Rai, a newly elected club director, orchestrated Marathe’s removal at his very first board meeting. According to Cricbuzz’s reporting, the election of a new chairman was not even included on the circulated agenda. Several directors were reportedly taken by surprise.

Marathe was no ordinary administrator. He was a senior executive associated with the San Francisco 49ers, bringing professional sports experience to a governing body that desperately needed it.

Meanwhile, USA Cricket was financially distressed, with unresolved audits and outstanding payments to address.

So what exactly were its priorities?

The disputes continued through successive boards.

2021: Directors Venu Pisike and Srinivas Salver sued five fellow directors and the chief executive over disputed constitutional amendments. The case was withdrawn after approximately two years. The same two directors, then in the minority, also wrote to the ICC alleging misgovernance. Cricbuzz reported that their letter was understood to have urged the ICC to remove USA Cricket’s hosting rights for the 2024 T20 World Cup.

July 2024: Directors Kuljit Singh Nijjar, Arjun Gona and Patricia Whittaker wrote to the ICC alleging harassment, suppression of dissent, questionable appointments and electoral misconduct by the rest of the board.

September 2025: Following years of disagreement over the long-form commercial agreement with American Cricket Enterprises, USA Cricket attempted to terminate its 2019 arrangement. It subsequently filed for bankruptcy protection minutes before a scheduled court hearing in the ACE dispute.

There is another uncomfortable pattern here. Directors who challenged alleged misgovernance by their predecessors were themselves later accused of similar conduct by rival factions.

Who knows where the truth lies in every individual dispute? These organizations are notoriously tight-lipped about internal matters, and allegations should not automatically be treated as established facts.

But the recurring pattern is difficult to ignore.

The financial cost of fighting instead of developing cricket

The money spent on legal battles could have supported national teams, youth development, women’s cricket and better facilities.

Instead, litigation became a recurring expense.

USACA’s tax filings showed liabilities of approximately $4.16 million in 2013 and $4.38 million in 2014, largely driven by litigation costs.

Media reports in 2012 put its legal spending at roughly $500,000 over the preceding 16 months, including the dispute involving the 32 disenfranchised leagues.

USA Cricket’s 2021 constitutional dispute reportedly cost around $200,000.

In October 2025, director Atul Rai alleged in a written communication cited by Cricbuzz that the organization had spent nearly $500,000 on legal fees that year.

Bankruptcy filings also revealed prepaid legal retainers of approximately $125,000 to Billion Law and Black Lion Services.

These are substantial sums for a governing body responsible for developing cricket in a country where the sport still needs investment at almost every level.

And the consequences were not limited to balance sheets.

The men’s team’s training arrangements were disrupted. A planned tour of Sri Lanka was postponed. Commitments involving the youth and women’s teams were left uncertain.

There is a fairly obvious question here: how can a national cricket board plan for international growth when it cannot reliably manage its own administration?

The players, coaches and young cricketers who depend on the organization ultimately pay the price for decisions made in boardrooms.

Why club control has become a structural problem

It would be unfair to suggest that local cricket leagues are the problem.

Immigrant-led leagues have been central to keeping cricket alive in the United States for decades. They funded competitions, secured grounds and organized tournaments when established sporting institutions offered little support.

They remain the foundation of American cricket.

The problem begins when the people responsible for running local leagues also exercise disproportionate control over the national governing body.

Consider how a small electorate works. A director elected through a relatively limited group of clubs and leagues may naturally feel accountable to that constituency. Maintaining relationships with those voters becomes important, particularly when re-election depends on their support.

But does that necessarily encourage investment in schools, colleges and communities that have never played cricket?

Not always.

Developing cricket among new audiences requires long-term planning. It involves working with educational institutions, local authorities, sponsors, broadcasters and professional sports organizations. Those projects may take years to deliver results and may not offer immediate electoral benefits.

A director focused on maintaining a voting alliance may therefore have different priorities from someone tasked with expanding the sport nationally.

This distinction matters because the United States is not simply trying to manage an existing cricket community. It is trying to turn cricket into a mainstream sport.

The Netflix documentary opportunity that reportedly went nowhere

The contrast became particularly visible ahead of the 2024 T20 World Cup.

Netflix is understood to have approached USA Cricket about producing a documentary following the national team. However, a majority of community-elected directors were reportedly unwilling to take the project forward. Their reasons have not been publicly established.

There were genuine commercial complications. The project would have needed to clear ACE’s commercial rights and the ICC’s tournament rights.

That is not necessarily a straightforward process.

But it is also the sort of challenge an experienced professional sports administration should be equipped to handle.

The United States subsequently produced one of the tournament’s biggest stories. It defeated Pakistan and reached the Super Eight, giving American cricket an opportunity to reach audiences far beyond its traditional following.

A documentary following that journey could have helped introduce the team and the sport to a much larger audience.

Perhaps the project was commercially difficult. Perhaps the timing was unsuitable. We do not know enough to establish why it did not proceed.

Still, it raises a legitimate question about whether the governing body had the experience and appetite to pursue opportunities beyond its existing cricket community.

When a national team is treated like a weekend league

Another reported incident illustrates the gap between community-level administration and international sports management.

A community-elected director reportedly questioned why every member of the men’s national team needed to travel with an individual kitbag. The suggestion was that players could share equipment to reduce baggage fees.

It sounds like a reasonable cost-saving idea until you consider what is inside those bags.

Cricket bats, helmets, gloves and pads are selected according to individual players’ physiques, techniques and safety requirements. Protective equipment is not interchangeable simply because sharing it might reduce travel expenses.

A cash-strapped organization should absolutely monitor its expenditure. There is no argument against financial discipline.

But there is a difference between controlling unnecessary expenses and failing to understand the requirements of elite international sport.

A national board has to think beyond the economics of a weekend league. It has to understand what professional athletes need to prepare, compete and perform at the highest level.

The November reorganization plan: A fresh start, but is it enough?

The proposed reorganization offers an opportunity to break this cycle.

The new constitution envisages a board of nine to eleven directors, with at least three independent directors and no less than 33.3% of voting power reserved for athlete representatives.

During the ICC reinstatement period, Selina Kaing, Patrick Singleton and Norman Wain will hold full authority. They can appoint the additional directors needed to complete the transition.

Their immediate responsibilities are substantial:

• Restore USA Cricket’s ICC membership.
• Finalize the long-form agreement with American Cricket Enterprises.
• Meet the requirements for USOPC recognition.
• Guide the organization through its financial and administrative restructuring.

The three proposed independent directors bring experience from outside the established factions of American cricket.

Kaing is a technology and corporate governance executive with USA Fencing experience. Singleton is a three-time Olympian and international sports administrator. Wain is a former general counsel at USA Track & Field.

Their backgrounds suggest that the ICC and those overseeing the reorganization understand the importance of professional sports administration.

But the transition period is only one part of the solution.

Two significant weaknesses remain once the board returns to its regular structure.

First, three independent directors can be outvoted on an eleven-member board. They would need support from other constituencies for major decisions.

Second, the proposed system allows the board to elect future independent directors from candidates put forward by its Nominating and Governance Committee.

That creates a potential conflict.

If a particular faction controls the board majority, it could support independent candidates it finds acceptable rather than those most likely to challenge its decisions.

A director may satisfy every conflict-of-interest requirement and still be selected because the majority expects them to vote a particular way.

The original USA Cricket constitution also had three independent seats. That arrangement did not prevent the organization from falling into another crisis.

So why should the next version be expected to work without a more fundamental change?

Four governance reforms that could finally change USA Cricket

The solution is not to remove local cricket administrators from the national board altogether. Their contribution matters, and the grassroots community needs representation.

But representation should not automatically mean control.

Four constitutional changes could create a more balanced structure.

1. Make independent directors the largest voting bloc

On an eleven-member board, five seats should be reserved for independent directors with no ties to American cricket’s clubs, leagues or existing factions.

The remaining seats would comprise four athlete representatives and two representatives of the wider cricket community.

This would give independent directors the largest bloc while preserving a meaningful voice for players and grassroots cricket.

The distinction between independence and simply having no declared conflict of interest is important.

A director may have no direct financial interest in a decision but still maintain relationships with the people who helped secure their appointment.

The proposed standard should therefore be stricter. Independent directors should come from outside the established politics of American cricket.

Athletes also deserve a strong position on the board.

They have experienced the consequences of administrative failures through disrupted development pathways, inadequate preparation, uncertainty over contracts and payments, and questions surrounding selection.

They understand the practical requirements of elite sport in ways that administrators cannot always replicate.

Four athlete seats would ensure their experience is represented in important decisions.

2. Require professional or Olympic sports experience

USA Cricket’s first independent directors, appointed in 2018, provide a useful benchmark.

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, with work that included the Indian Premier League and international cricket’s commercial structures.

These were people with experience in professional sports, commercial partnerships and large-scale organizational management.

Later appointments have not consistently maintained the same standard.

The three proposed directors, however, appear to meet the requirement.

Kaing brings technology and corporate governance experience, including work with USA Fencing. Singleton offers experience as a three-time Olympian and international sports administrator. Wain brings legal and governance experience from USA Track & Field.

The constitution should make this qualification mandatory.

Independent directors should have senior experience in professional or Olympic sport, whether as executives, administrators or elite athletes. The requirement should also be published so candidates can be assessed against a clear standard.

Why is this so important now?

Because the opportunities ahead are significantly larger than the administrative responsibilities USA Cricket has struggled to manage.

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 also won ICC Cricket World Cup League 2 following a three-year campaign.

And cricket is returning to the Olympics at LA28.

The governing body now has to develop school and college cricket, expand the women’s game, improve coach education, attract sponsors and broadcasters, and build relationships with universities, school districts, city authorities and corporate partners.

These are not small administrative tasks.

USA Cricket needs people who have successfully handled comparable responsibilities in other professional sports.

3. Limit the influence of club and league operators

Club and league operators should retain representation, but their influence needs to be proportionate.

Two seats on an eleven-member board would provide a grassroots voice without allowing a small group of local organizations to dominate national decision-making.

There should also be a clear separation between community representation and the appointment of independent directors.

Club and league operators should have no role in selecting those independent members.

The same principle should apply to membership registration and voter eligibility. These processes should be administered by individuals or bodies with no stake in the outcome.

Remember the 2012 USACA election, when 32 of 47 member leagues were excluded from voting shortly before the presidential poll.

That experience shows why the electoral process needs protection from factional influence.

Members should still elect their representatives. Grassroots cricket should not lose its voice.

But winning support from a relatively small membership electorate should no longer be enough to control the national governing body.

4. Introduce independent vetting through the USOPC or ICC

There is also a question of who should decide whether a person is suitable to become an independent director.

In 2018, the original independent directors were not selected directly by the board.

They were recommended by a Nominating and Governance Committee established under ICC supervision.

Its 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 subsequently approved the recommendations.

That arrangement offered a level of external oversight that the proposed future process should preserve.

The USOPC or ICC could run or certify the search for independent directors against the published qualification requirements.

More importantly, every director should undergo third-party vetting before taking a seat, regardless of which constituency nominates them.

This would not eliminate disagreements or guarantee that every appointment is perfect. No governance structure can promise that.

But it would introduce an external check that the board cannot provide for itself.

USA Cricket needs recognition from both the USOPC and ICC. Either organization has the standing to provide a level of credibility that internal appointments alone may struggle to establish.

Why the timing matters: LA28 could change everything

There is a larger story here than another American cricket administration struggling with its constitution.

Cricket is entering a period of considerable opportunity in the United States.

Major League Cricket has helped attract investment and international attention. Franchise owners are bringing experience from established sporting markets. New stadium projects are being discussed, and the national team has demonstrated that it can compete against established international sides.

The sport’s return to the Olympics at Los Angeles 2028 could provide an even bigger platform.

But opportunities do not automatically translate into sustainable growth.

Someone has to build the infrastructure around them. That means developing pathways for young players, creating opportunities for women, improving coaching standards, negotiating commercial partnerships and ensuring the national teams have stable administrative support.

It also means working with organizations that have little previous experience of cricket.

A board dominated by internal political interests may struggle to deliver that kind of long-term strategy.

The ICC has already given American cricket multiple opportunities to correct its governance failures.

It suspended USACA, eventually expelled it in 2017, and then helped establish USA Cricket as a more modern and professionally managed replacement.

Less than a decade later, the successor organization found itself suspended again.

That is an extraordinary record for a country preparing to host cricket at the Olympics.

Another failure would carry consequences far greater than another round of legal bills or administrative restructuring.

It could damage the confidence of investors, commercial partners, players and international cricket administrators at precisely the moment when the sport has its biggest opportunity to grow in America.

Can Selina Kaing, Patrick Singleton and Norman Wain break the cycle?

The November reorganization plan has placed three people with relevant professional experience in positions of authority.

Their immediate task is difficult enough: restore ICC membership, navigate the bankruptcy process, settle the long-form agreement with ACE and secure USOPC recognition.

But there is another responsibility that may prove even more important.

They have an opportunity to change the rules before USA Cricket returns to a normal election cycle.

Five independent directors, four athlete representatives and two wider cricket community representatives would create a different balance of power. Mandatory professional sports experience would establish a clearer standard for appointments. Limiting club and league representation would protect the national board from being dominated by local voting alliances. Third-party vetting would add an external layer of accountability.

None of these changes would guarantee that USA Cricket never experiences another disagreement.

Sports organizations are made up of people, and disagreements are inevitable. Directors will challenge each other, commercial decisions will be contested, and difficult financial choices will have to be made.

That is not necessarily dysfunction. In fact, healthy disagreement is part of good governance.

The real objective should be to ensure that disagreements do not repeatedly prevent the organization from doing its actual job: developing cricket and supporting its players.

Kaing, Singleton and Wain have been given an opportunity that their predecessors did not manage to turn into lasting institutional reform.

Will they use it?

American cricket has spent two decades dealing with suspensions, lawsuits, disputed elections and financial instability. It now has new venues, commercial investment, a competitive national team and an Olympic opportunity approaching in 2028.

The contrast could hardly be greater.

The challenge is no longer simply finding people capable of managing the organization today. It is building a constitution that makes it harder for tomorrow’s board to repeat yesterday’s mistakes.

A lot needs to change. Much of the history is difficult to explain, some of the damage may be beyond the control of the current administrators, and the next chapter remains uncertain.

But before USA Cricket returns to its normal election cycle, it still has a chance to make sure that the same old politics do not return with it.

                                               

Relevant news