International Cricket

ICC ITT Task Force Disbanded May 2026 — Two-Tier Test Fallout Decoded

Sanjana Patel 15 May 2026 Updated 15 May 2026 ~6 min read ~1,172 words

ICC ITT task force disbanded two-tier Test cricket

Share this article

The ICC's International Tournament Task Force, which had spent 18 months developing a two-tier Test cricket structure proposal, was quietly disbanded at the May AGM. The disbanding was not formally announced in the AGM communiqué; it was confirmed by a footnote in the post-AGM administrative circular sent to the member boards. The task force's recommendations are no longer on the agenda. The two-tier Test cricket idea — which had been the subject of two years of debate, three formal proposals, and one ICC working paper — has died. The email chain that killed it has been seen by cricjosh.in, and the structural reasons for the disbanding are the bigger story behind the procedural change.

The Task Force

The International Tournament Task Force was established in November 2024 with a mandate to develop a long-term Test cricket competition structure. The task force had seven members, including representatives from England, Australia, India, and three associate-tier full-member boards. The mandate was to evaluate the case for a two-tier Test cricket structure and to propose either a formal two-tier system or alternative structural reforms.

The task force met formally on four occasions and circulated three iterations of a draft proposal. The third iteration, circulated in February 2026, was a two-tier proposal with a five-team top tier and an eight-team lower tier, with promotion and relegation between the tiers on a four-year cycle.

The Two-Tier Proposal

The two-tier proposal would have placed India, England, Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand in the top tier. Pakistan, Sri Lanka, West Indies, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Zimbabwe, Ireland, and the new full member Nepal would have been in the lower tier. The top tier would play a five-team round-robin Test competition; the lower tier would play an eight-team competition with the top two teams promoted at the end of each cycle.

The cricketing rationale was that the top-tier competition would produce the most commercially valuable Test cricket and that the lower-tier competition would give the smaller boards a guaranteed fixture list against opposition of their own level.

The Email Chain

The email chain that killed the proposal ran across mid-April. The first email was from the BCCI's representative on the task force to the task force chair, formally withdrawing the BCCI's support for the proposal. The second was from the chair to the other task force members, asking for the response to the BCCI's withdrawal. The third was from the Australia and England representatives, signalling that without BCCI support the proposal had no commercial foundation. The fourth was from the chair to the ICC chief executive, asking for the task force's mandate to be reviewed.

The chain produced the conclusion that the task force could not proceed without BCCI support. The ICC chief executive's response was that the task force would be disbanded at the May AGM if the BCCI's withdrawal was not reversed. The BCCI did not reverse the withdrawal.

Why the BCCI Withdrew

The BCCI's formal withdrawal letter cited three reasons. First, that the two-tier structure would limit India's Test fixtures against the lower-tier boards, which the BCCI argued was contrary to the spirit of full-member status. Second, that the commercial value of the top-tier competition was overstated in the task force's modelling. Third, that the promotion-relegation mechanism would produce instability in the FTP that the smaller boards could not absorb.

The first reason is the substantive one. The BCCI's preferred FTP includes India fixtures against all full-member opposition, and the two-tier structure would have reduced that opportunity.

The Lower-Tier Boards' Position

The lower-tier boards had been split on the two-tier proposal. Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and West Indies had been in favour because the lower-tier competition would have provided more Test fixtures than the current FTP allows. Bangladesh and Afghanistan had been opposed because the lower-tier status would have signalled a permanent ranking below the top-tier boards. Zimbabwe and Ireland had been in favour for the fixture-count reason.

The split among the lower-tier boards meant that the proposal did not have unanimous support even from the boards it was designed to benefit. The BCCI's withdrawal was the final factor, but the lack of unanimous lower-tier support was the underlying weakness.

The Top-Tier Boards' Position

The top-tier boards had been broadly in favour. England, Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand had each signalled support, with conditions. India's position had moved from cautious support to formal withdrawal across the 18-month process. The shift was driven by the BCCI's commercial team's reading that the top-tier competition would not produce the broadcast revenue that the task force had projected.

The Alternative Structures

With the two-tier proposal dead, the alternative structures under consideration include an extended WTC cycle with more fixtures, a redesigned FTP with guaranteed minimum fixture counts for each board, and an enhanced ICC Test funding mechanism that supports the smaller boards. None of the alternatives is at the formal proposal stage.

The most likely outcome is a status-quo FTP with marginal adjustments to the fixture count distribution. The structural reform that the two-tier proposal would have produced is not on the agenda.

What the Disbanding Says

The disbanding of the ITT task force is a quiet but significant moment for Test cricket governance. The two-tier idea has been on the table for two decades and has now had its most formal proposal rejected. The structural reform agenda for Test cricket has been effectively closed for the foreseeable future.

The lower-tier boards will continue to receive fewer Test fixtures than the top-tier boards. The commercial gap between the two tiers will continue to widen. The structural alternative is no longer on the agenda.

What to Watch Next

The next FTP review at the ICC executive committee meeting — whether the fixture-count distribution gets any marginal adjustment in favour of the lower-tier boards or whether the status quo is locked in for the 2027-31 cycle.