Cricket Canada, its CEO, and NCL, its new GT20 partner, are under increased scrutiny after an ICC letter

9

Salman Khan was appointed Chief Executive in January, just weeks before he and former league treasurer Syed Wajahat Ali were accused by Calgary Police of stealing and defrauding the Calgary & District Cricket League of about CAD 200,000 that vanished between 2014 and 2016. The International Cricket Council has written to Cricket Canada to request an explanation. The letter dated May 2, 2025, which Cricbuzz was able to view, also requests that the board outline the due diligence it conducted and the corrective actions it has taken after the claims were made public.

As per the correspondence, the ICC requests a comprehensive explanation of the hiring procedure, verification of whether directors were informed of the accusations prior to Khan’s appointment, the precise moment the board became aware of the inquiry, and specifics of any disciplinary or governance measures that have already been implemented. It emphasized the gravity of the accusations made against the CEO, especially those pertaining to his actions as a cricket administrator.

Although Cricket Canada declared in April that it was starting an investigation into the accusations made against Khan, the Board has not released any additional information or updates.

Khan has called news of his detention “completely false” and denied any wrongdoing. A board is now being challenged to demonstrate that it exercised appropriate care, despite the fact that the Calgary matter had been discussed in local cricket circles long before the accusations were brought, according to several provincial administrators who spoke to Cricbuzz.

An unusual employment contract

Concerns have been voiced regarding Khan’s appointment circumstances. For starters, Khan was voted to the Board in June 2023, but he left his honorary two-year term early to take a paid job as CEO. Given the board regulations’ requirement that any director legally charged with a felony leave, some people assume that the early resignation was preemptive.

According to sources, Khan’s nomination as CEO was negotiated and finalized by Board Chair Amjad Bajwa and Director Imran Rana without informing the other directors of the specifics of the contract. Crucially, the five-year deal that was drafted does not include an at-will termination clause, an exceptionally protective clause that might make Cricket Canada responsible for the full amount if he is fired early.

Significant Commercial Changes

Soon after Khan was appointed CEO, Cricket Canada struck important business agreements. The board signed a new long-term arrangement with National Cricket League (NCL) Canada to run the GT20 brand after a 25-year contract with GT20 owners Bombay Sports was terminated in December 2024.

According to three directors, the new contract with the troubled NCL was authorized without circulating the entire conditions to the whole board, despite the ICC’s decision last December to prevent the NCL from receiving penalties for future events due to recurrent rule violations. Furthermore, the Board was never presented with an alternative proposal from the UAE-based ILT20, an ICC-sanctioned league, for review and approval.

Timeline of key events

June 2023 – Khan elected a Cricket Canada director.

January 2025 – Khan resigns directorship and is appointed CEO on a five-year no-termination contract.

12 Mar 2025 – Calgary Police charge Khan and Ali with theft and fraud over CAD 5,000.

13 Mar 2025 – Cricket Canada says it is “consulting legal and governance experts” in light of the charges.

14 Apr 2025 – Board announces GT20 partnership with NCL Canada, despite the ICC’s ban on NCL events elsewhere.

2 May 2025 – ICC issues its formal query to Cricket Canada.

Governance experts point out that if associate members don’t satisfy ICC standards, they may be subject to administrative action or budget restrictions. Cricket Canada has fourteen days to respond to the four inquiries. Whether the situation is resolved with clarification or progresses to disciplinary action will depend on how comprehensive its response was and whether there is any proof that the directors were adequately informed.