Why Did ICC Reject Return Of Champions League T20? All You Need To Know

The International Cricket Council has dropped plans for a global T20 franchise tournament after opposition from India, Australia and England. The move shuts the door, for now, on a Champions League Twenty20-style return. The proposed event would have brought together franchise sides from different countries, but the idea ran into resistance from the three boards that control most of the sport’s money and calendar.

The ICC will not introduce this competition or any other multilateral tournament until 2031. That decision matters beyond one event. It shapes the next cycle of the international calendar and shows how hard it remains for the ICC to push through new revenue streams without backing from the sport’s biggest powers.

The event itself was meant to echo the old CLT20, which ran from 2009 to 2014 and featured teams from leagues such as the IPL, Big Bash League and Pakistan Super League. That tournament folded after low viewership, weak commercial returns and losses that were no longer sustainable. Yet many in the game had begun to see today’s crowded and mature T20 market as a better fit for a revival. The ICC is also looking for ways to earn more and assert greater control over a format driven by private leagues.

Why Was It Scrapped?

The resistance was direct.

India, Australia and England opposed the return of a CLT20-style tournament and also pushed back against a wider ICC plan to add quadrangular T20 competitions in bilateral windows. The key issue was time. Their boards argued there was no room in an already packed calendar for more events.

Those boards were described as "adamant" that extra tournaments could not simply be inserted into the schedule, The Guardian reported. In their view, the only way to create space for a new franchise event was to reduce other ICC competitions such as the World Cups and the Champions Trophy.

That trade-off was a non-starter. The result was the collapse of the proposal before it could move into the next stage of planning. In practical terms, the big three resisted adding more events.

What Happened Before?

This is not a new idea.

The Champions League Twenty20 was an international club franchise competition that ran between 2009 and 2014. It brought together top teams from major domestic leagues, including the IPL, the Big Bash League and the Pakistan Super League, to compete in one tournament.

It ended for hard commercial reasons. The event struggled with low television interest, poor returns and financial losses that did not make business sense. That combination killed the tournament despite the appeal of pitting leading T20 sides against each other.

Its timing may have worked against it. Observers now see the CLT20 as a tournament that arrived too early, before franchise cricket had fully spread and settled across markets. With more established T20 competitions now in place, some in cricket believed the conditions were better for a comeback than they were a decade ago.

What Does ICC Want?

The ICC’s interest is financial and strategic.

It does not earn from the private T20 franchise leagues that now drive much of cricket’s growth and audience interest around the world. A global club event would have given the governing body a direct stake in that market and a chance to shape a part of the game that largely sits outside its control.

The ICC saw the proposed tournament as cricket’s version of the FIFA Club World Cup, an event that has drawn attention and money despite debate around its place in the calendar. For the ICC, that made the idea attractive even before the scheduling fight began.

There is also pressure on future income. The ICC wants more tournaments because it believes it will lose a significant share of commercial revenue when new media rights come into force. Indian broadcasters, which account for a large part of that revenue pool, are reducing that investment. That leaves the ICC searching for other ways to bring in money and widen its reach.

What Happens Next?

The immediate outcome is continuity.

The deadlock means the Future Tours Programme for the 2027-2031 cycle will be almost identical to the latest one, with the only possible change being an expanded World Test Championship.

That points to a larger power struggle. India, Australia and England do not appear willing to surrender the control they now enjoy over cricket’s schedule and economics. Keeping the present structure suits them because it protects their room to grow income through T20 competitions.

The broader question remains open. The ICC wants new events to diversify revenue and shape the game’s direction, but the big three still hold the strongest hand. For now, that leaves global franchise cricket on hold and the status quo intact.