ICC 'looking at in-game penalties for Tests' in the next WTC cycle

How important is the pay parity for men and women at ICC events?
Barclay: It is a landmark decision. We had mooted to have genuine parity put in place by 2030. So I'm delighted, and so is the board, that we've managed to fast forward that by six years. And it's the right thing to do. This organization values inclusivity and equity. So equalizing gender pay and reaching parity is absolutely the right thing to do.

In terms of general sentiment, there's certainly a strong indication that a number of the boards are moving quite quickly towards a genuine level of paying parity. They are not all at the same place and they are not all moving at the same pace. But there is a strong willingness to reach that point, some more quickly than others.

Allardice: As ICC, we can control the things that we can control around our events and one of our major ways of distributing funds to players is through the prize money. And the parity [has] two elements to it: one, if you finish first in a Men's World Cup, you will [get] the same prize money as finishing first in the Women's World Cup; and the amount of money for winning each match in a comparable tournament will be the same as well.

Why did the men's cricket committee review slow over-rate regulations?
Allardice: The scale of the fines is not having any material impact on the pace of play. The men's cricket committee looked at the fines and the suggestions and then certainly balanced the level of fines that are being applied. They were very strong at the points deductions for over-rate penalties in the World Test Championship (WTC) to remain in place. Teams that do not heed the minimum pace of play jeopardise their opportunity to qualify for the WTC final. The men's cricket committee is looking at potential in-game penalties come the next cycle of the WTC.

We are still looking at ways in which we can make a difference within Test cricket because it is a concern. We haven't had the right combination yet in terms of the fines, points, penalties that can have an impact. I know Australia missed the first edition of the WTC final because of over-rate penalty points, but we are looking at other measures. We have been able to introduce measures in T20 and ODI cricket with regards having an extra fielder inside the circle in the last few overs if over rates are slow, but [we are] looking for an in-game penalty for Test cricket as well.

What's the future of bilateral ODIs and will the Super League be back in future FTPs (post-2027)?
Allardice: We reflected on the last four years of men's ODI cricket Super League with each of the 13 teams being able to play 24 ODIs [each]. Netherlands getting through to the ten-team World Cup is an outstanding achievement. Each of the seven teams in League 2 played 36 ODIs, and in the Challenge League - Group A and Group B - where there are 12 teams, they played 15 List A matches each. So our commitment to the format is as strong as ever. The 50-overs World Cup will be an outstanding success in India in a couple of months' time. What it looks like moving forward [remains to be seen, though] one of the discussions is always about how can we create greater context in the bilateral cricket calendar.

You can see the impact that the WTC is having [on the longer format]. It would be ideal to have more context in the calendar. But we also have the understandable desire for members to include more teams in the 50-overs World Cup, which is the decision that's been taken for the 2027 edition of the World Cup. So, the impact of the Super League as a qualification vehicle [has worked]. At the time the FTP was being considered, the members didn't have quite the same impact with an expanded World Cup. The idea of getting greater context in the calendar was canvassed at these meetings but no concrete proposals yet.

Is there a timeline for new regulations concerning capping overseas players to four for ILT20, MLC and GT20 Canada?
Allardice: There are existing events that are already subject to existing commercial agreements and any roadmap to moving towards the new regulations and the limits in those will be determined on a case by case basis. So it's not a straightforward answer within a timeframe.

On the MCC's suggestion on setting up a Test fund
Barclay: The position of the ICC at the moment is that the next revenue distribution model is going to allocate significantly more money to each of the Test-playing countries. How they utilise their money is up to them in terms of bilateral discussions. If they choose to apply some of that to playing Test cricket, then hopefully they'll now have the means to do so. There's been no real discussion around creating a Test fund because it's probably no great need to have at the moment given the amount of money that they should be able to utilise.

What's the status on restarting women's cricket in Afghanistan?
Barclay: We recognize that it's a pretty difficult situation in Afghanistan. The position there obviously runs counter to the ICC's stated intentions to run a totally inclusive and diverse organisation. We've got one member that, through no fault of their own, has had regulation imposed on them, which means that they are simply incapable of playing or supporting women's cricket at the moment. In the last set of board meetings, there was a renewed focus on what is needed to be done to support the member to help them fast track that.

We accept that we can't influence or change the laws of the country, but we are looking to re-establish a framework that helps support what we can do to get women's cricket back up and running in the country together with looking at what steps might be taken to perhaps look at coercing the board and maybe those around it to do better in terms of restoring women's cricket, which of course was being played in the country until they had the change of regime.