Efforts to shift the governance structure of Cricket South Africa (CSA) have been temporarily paused, though the underlying friction between provincial affiliates and the national board remains unresolved. At the heart of the dispute is a push by the presidents of CSA’s 15 provincial affiliates to reduce the number of independent directors on the organization’s board.
The current constitution mandates a board consisting of eight independent members and five non-independent members, with the chair required to be an independent. Some provincial presidents are now advocating for a narrowing of this gap, while others seek a majority of board seats to be held by their own ranks. This desire for a return to a non-independent model echoes the era prior to February 2013, when the board was entirely composed of provincial representatives.
The shift toward an independent-heavy board was originally triggered by a 2013 scandal involving USD 555,000 in improperly declared bonuses paid to CSA by the IPL for hosting the 2009 tournament. Further reforms were later accelerated by a series of organizational failures during the tenure of former president Chris Nenzani and CEO Thabang Moroe, culminating in the current governance framework established in June 2021.
Critics of the current board argue that provincial leaders feel sidelined and irrelevant, particularly as the successful SA20 league operates outside their direct influence. One anonymous insider noted that these presidents feel they have lost control and are attempting to regain relevance by seeking more power, even at the risk of harming the game’s stability.
Outgoing Gauteng president Earl Glennistor, who serves on the members council, stated he is not actively pushing for a return to the old system, though he acknowledged the topic has been circulating since he joined the council in May 2020. Glennistor expressed a conflicted view, noting that the effectiveness of a board depends on its specific members rather than just the ratio of independent to non-independent directors.
The debate often draws comparisons to other South African sports bodies. For instance, the South African Rugby Union reported a loss of USD 1.9 million for 2025, which was USD 300,000 more than the South African Football Association. Despite these financial figures, rugby is widely viewed as having deeper professional roots and greater international success, with the Springboks claiming four men’s World Cup titles compared to the limited success of the national football team, Bafana Bafana.
Financial disparities among cricket provinces further complicate the issue. Only the Northerns, Gauteng, and KwaZulu-Natal—representing the Titans, Lions, and Dolphins—are considered financially stable. The remaining 12 provinces, including those at historic venues like Newlands and St George’s Park, rely heavily on financial support from CSA.
Provincial presidents argue that they require a greater voice to ensure that the needs of their regions are met. One president emphasized that a strong CSA depends on strong affiliates and clubs, arguing that the current system prioritizes financial metrics over the broader cricket ecosystem. Conversely, a veteran administrator pointed out that the provincial frustration stems from a perception that independent directors prioritize fiduciary duties and financial sustainability over the development of the game at the grassroots level.
The changing landscape of professional cricket has also rendered some traditional provincial roles obsolete. Industry insiders suggest that the under-19 setup is now a more effective pathway to the Proteas than provincial cricket, and that participation in the SA20 has become essential for white-ball selection. This reality has left some provinces feeling disempowered, as their role has shifted primarily toward development rather than high-level commercial competition.
The current board, bound by fiduciary responsibilities, has taken firm action against struggling provinces, including placing Border and the Northern Cape under administration. Such interventions would have been unlikely under the old system, where provincial solidarity often prevented accountability. As CSA prepares for its annual meeting on September 26, the tension between maintaining professional governance and addressing the concerns of provincial stakeholders remains a critical challenge for the sport. The report also notes that moves that could lead to cricket in South Africa being plunged back into the administrative and financial chaos of not many years ago have been put on hold. The report also notes that but that doesn’t mean they have gone away. The report also notes that an era that ended in February 2013, they can only dream of how things werewithout any independents. The report also notes that diluting the board’s independent component would likely raise the alarm among sponsors as well as those concerned with sound governance along with the cricketminded public. The report also notes that they would worry that the game was about to regress after several years of progress on multiple fronts. The report also notes that “Because they’ve lost control and they don’t like it,” an insider with first-hand knowledge of the situation said on condition of anonymity. The report also notes that but he added that the idea to do so wasn’t new: “When I got to the members council [in May 2020] it was there already.” Did he think it should happen.
Comments