On Tuesday, August 19, the board of USA Cricket (USAC) voted to terminate its landmark 2019 commercial agreement with American Cricket Enterprises (ACE), the private consortium that owns Major League Cricket (MLC). Multiple insiders with direct knowledge confirmed the decision to cricexec. The move, years in the making and months in open dispute, represents a dramatic escalation in a power struggle that has defined American cricket for the past half-decade. It comes against a backdrop of USAC’s internal governance battles, financial struggles, and looming questions over its Olympic and ICC recognition. While termination in theory strips ACE of its exclusive rights to operate professional T20 tournaments in the United States — including sanctioning for the Major League Cricket tournament itself — in practice, the immediate consequences are far less clear. ACE’s deep-pocketed backers, which include billionaires, media conglomerates, and IPL franchise owners such as CSK, Mumbai Indians, Delhi Capitals (GMR), and Kolkata Knight Riders, now face a choice: renegotiate, comply with the contract, or litigate. Some will call the decision reckless and unwise. Others will hail it as courageous. What is beyond dispute is that USA Cricket has crossed a Rubicon. A drastic but deliberate step Board members who spoke to cricexec in recent weeks foreshadowed this outcome. They said they “could not continue any longer with the current situation” and called it “years in the making.” They described the governing body as having been “very restrained in the past,” but ultimately left with no choice. Several directors privately described the relationship with ACE as, at times, “abusive.” Yet they were quick to stress that their move was not an attack on Major League Cricket itself. “We remain supportive of Major League Cricket and its success,” one said. “But that does not absolve ACE from meeting its contractual obligations” said another. The step is bold but not final. With nine months before the next edition of MLC, many insiders believe the timing is calculated: disruptive enough to force a renegotiation, but early enough not to derail the league’s sponsorship cycle or international recruitment plans. The grievances: years of tension, now at breaking point The 2019 Term Sheet between ACE and USAC (which as has been highlighted is not a definitive longform agreement) promised a billion-dollar transformation: six ICC-standard stadiums by 2024, high-performance centers, direct funding for national teams, and a 5% revenue share for USAC. In return, ACE was granted sweeping exclusivity over all men’s cricket under five hours in duration. According to board documents, breach notices, and independent reporting from The Hindu and cricexec, USA Cricket alleged that ACE failed to meet multiple obligations: Stadium delivery failure – Six venues were promised by 2024. Only Grand Prairie, Texas, is operational. Morrisville, Lauderhill, and Oakland are incomplete or not ACE-controlled. Timelines have slipped to 2028, well outside the contract. Revenue share dilution – USAC’s 5% cut of gross revenues risks shrinking as ACE devolves local sponsorships and media deals to franchises. Unapproved expansion – ACE pursued a Toronto franchise and tie-ups with New Zealand Cricket without USAC sign-off. Player and staff payment lapses – USAC cites $606,189 unpaid for 2024 and $647,603 for 2025. ACE claims MLC draft salaries should count toward obligations — a position USAC rejects as “essentially using USA Cricket to fund its player salaries.” High-performance center delay – Promised by 2020, still undelivered. ACE claims Grand Prairie suffices; USAC disagrees. Governance interference – USAC alleges ACE used its “good faith discretion” to influence athlete elections and national team selections by privileging MLC-contracted players. Control of ICC funding – As Chairman Venu Pisike has repeatedly warned, “No external party should control ICC funding.” Yet under the 2019 agreement, ACE had discretion over increases in ICC grants, which Pisike says violates ICC membership criteria. Antitrust risk – Exclusivity over all short-form cricket, Pisike argues, exposes USAC to litigation. “That level of exclusivity is a significant antitrust risk.” In July, USAC formally communicated its concerns in a press release: “Our partnership with ACE also carries certain obligations for MLC to assist as a partner in the development of American cricket,” USA Cricket said. “We remain committed to ensuring that all parties and partners meet their contractual obligations to advance and grow the game of cricket in a mutually beneficial way.” ACE has denied wrongdoing, insisting its obligations have been mischaracterized. In response to The Hindu’s investigation, ACE said: “The questions you have raised reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the Term Sheet and the relationship between USAC and ACE, and are both inaccurate and misleading.” The broader governance crisis This contractual showdown comes at a perilous moment for USA Cricket’s governance. At the ICC Annual Conference in July, the board narrowly avoided suspension, receiving a three-month extension to complete overdue elections and comply with U.S. Olympic & Paralympic Committee (USOPC) standards. Cricket’s inclusion at the Los Angeles 2028 Olympics makes recognition by both bodies non-negotiable. As cricexec reported last month, USAC Chairman Venu Pisike has resisted calls for wholesale board resignation. “We are not stepping down,” he said bluntly. “We are confident we can fast-track and complete all elections within three months.” But Pisike has also been candid that the ACE agreement lies at the heart of the crisis. “We strongly believe the contract violates the Ted Stevens Act and ICC membership guidelines,” he told The Hindu. “It grants ACE inappropriate control over ICC funding, infrastructure, and even player contracts.” The ICC has so far declined to intervene in U.S. commercial contracts. But the USOPC has made clear that autonomy, transparency, and athlete representation are mandatory for Olympic certification. The ACE deal, critics argue, undermines all three. Financial fragility Beneath the governance turmoil lies a fragile financial foundation. USA Cricket ended 2023 with just $52,000 in cash against $615,000 in liabilities. Nearly half its receivables — $439,000 — were tied to ACE. Its auditors warned of “negative cash flows from operating activities” and raised doubts about USAC’s ability to continue as a going concern. In effect, USAC has been financially dependent on the very partner it accuses of breach. That leverage imbalance shaped the past half-decade. The termination vote is an attempt to reset it. Olympic stakes The stakes are Olympic-sized. Cricket will return to the Summer Games at LA28, with the U.S. guaranteed a place as host. But recognition by the USOPC as the official national governing body is essential. Without it, the ICC and the IOC could appoint an alternative entity to field U.S. teams. That prospect, however unlikely, underscores why autonomy is paramount. As The Hindu put it: “A contractual dispute between ACE — a private consortium — and USA Cricket threatens the board’s Olympic certification, its standing with the ICC, and its authority over the very game it is meant to govern.” What happens next? Termination is not the endgame but the opening gambit of a new phase. The board must now formally communicate its decision to ACE. From there, several scenarios loom: Renegotiation – With nine months until MLC 2026, there is time to hammer out a long-form agreement that restores balance. Many insiders believe this is the likeliest outcome. Compliance – ACE could begin meeting contractual obligations in earnest: delivering stadiums, funding national teams, and increasing transparency. Litigation – ACE could dispute the grounds for termination, triggering arbitration or court action. With its wealthy backers, ACE is well-resourced for a legal battle. Technically, ACE has already lost its sanctioning rights. Other tournaments, such as the U.S. Premier League (USPL), may seek approval. In practice, however, USAC has enforced exclusivity selectively, and few expect an overnight collapse of MLC’s operations. The ACE/MLC perspective While ACE/MLC did not comment in response to the Hindu investigation, in recent months the MLC has highlighted the depth and extent of its investment in and commitment to cricket in the USA. In his first interview with cricexec, new MLC CEO Johnny Grave described MLC as “part of a billion-dollar investment” on the part of ACE and outlined plans to expand from six to ten teams, build local fan bases, and position the U.S. national teams as Olympic medal contenders. “The goal is to create a clear, visible pathway for boys and girls across the country,” Grave said. “So they can see that playing for Team USA is a real, tangible opportunity.” Thus whether publicly, behind closed doors or in legal proceedings, ACE is likely to highlight these steps and investments Courage or gamble? For USA Cricket, the decision is a high-wire act. Critics warn that taking on ACE and its billionaire backers could backfire, isolating USAC and jeopardizing MLC’s momentum. Supporters counter that without autonomy, Olympic recognition, or financial transparency, USAC risks ceasing to function as a legitimate governing body. What all sides agree on is that the old status quo was unsustainable. “This has dragged on for years,” one director told cricexec, stating that the board needed to act. Conclusion: a long fight ahead By voting to terminate the ACE agreement, USA Cricket has made the boldest move in its modern history. Whether it proves reckless or visionary will depend on what follows: negotiation, compliance, or confrontation. For now, the clock is ticking — on governance reforms, on financial survival, and on the road to Los Angeles 2028. The ball is now in ACE’s court.