Cricket has changed.
Player care has to catch up.

Cricket no longer follows one employer, one season and one medical team.

An elite player might move from international duty to a franchise league, spend a week at home with a private practitioner, join another tournament and return to a national squad. Each group receives the same player, but often sees only one part of the year.

A recent 19 Yards analysis described players retiring from international cricket, changing eligibility or moving between national and franchise systems in search of better pay, opportunity and control.

Sports science and sports medicine need to respond to the same shift.

The multi-employer player is normal

The World Cricketers' Association now describes elite cricket as a multi-employer, transnational system. Its 2024 global player survey found 84% of respondents supported protected scheduling windows to reduce clashes between international cricket and major domestic leagues.

This is more than a commercial problem. It creates a clinical one.

One medical team sees the scan. Another controls the gym programme. A bowling coach sets the skill volume. A franchise records match overs but misses warm-up deliveries. A private physio treats symptoms between contracts. The player manager knows the full travel schedule, while the board learns about the next tournament after a contract is signed.

Everyone holds part of the story. Few people hold the complete picture.

I have worked across national teams, domestic programmes, franchise cricket, academies and short tournaments. The recurring problem is rarely a lack of effort or expertise. Most staff want a healthy player performing well and available for important cricket.

The problem is fragmented information, unclear authority and late communication.

• Board. International priorities, central medical history, long-term pathway and selection needs.
• Franchise. Short-term performance, daily training exposure, match demands and immediate availability.
• Manager. Contracts, travel, future opportunities and the only calendar spanning every employer.
• Medical team. Diagnosis, treatment, rehabilitation criteria and independent advice to the player.

More data has not solved the problem

Elite cricket collects bowling balls, overs, running distance, high-speed running, gym load, wellness scores, sleep, soreness, imaging, treatment notes and match availability.

The problem is separation.

Bowling volume sits in one system. Strength work sits in another. Medical notes remain with a franchise. A board receives an availability label without the reasoning behind it. Symptoms live in a WhatsApp message. A new team then starts its assessment from the beginning.

Research in fast bowlers has repeatedly linked workload patterns with injury risk. Prospective studies have reported greater injury risk after high short-term workloads, sudden increases and poorly prepared spikes in bowling exposure. The precise relationship differs by tissue and player, so a single threshold does not settle the matter.

The practical lesson is less glamorous: history matters, context matters and the next team needs enough information to make a sensible decision.

A workload system with missing data is not a workload system. It is a guess with a dashboard.

Availability is a shared outcome

Boards want their best players available. Franchises want the same. Players and managers want longer careers, strong performances and access to valuable opportunities.

These interests do not need to collide every time.

Availability should mean coordinating exposure, recovery and rehabilitation so the player reaches priority competitions ready to perform. It should not mean squeezing the player into every match until the schedule makes the decision for everyone.

Sports science provides a usable view of total demand. Sports medicine provides diagnosis, treatment, risk assessment and independent clinical judgement. Both need to serve the player, not the loudest organisation in the room.

The IOC's medical guidance places athlete health and welfare above competitive, economic and political interests. Any shared-care model needs to preserve this clinical independence.

Player managers need a defined role

Medical teams sometimes treat player managers as outsiders. In modern cricket, excluding them leaves a useful part of the system unused.

A good manager often has the best view of the player's year. They know which contracts are being considered, when travel starts, where rest exists and which commitments remain negotiable. Each detail affects preparation and injury risk.

Managers should support calendar planning, contract communication and practical coordination. They should not direct treatment, choose which diagnosis gets disclosed or pressure a clinician into clearance.

With the player's informed consent, a manager should know:

• the expected return-to-play window
• the broad training restrictions affecting travel or contract decisions
• the next clinical review date
• which organisation owns each part of the rehabilitation plan
• which competitions remain realistic priorities

They do not need every clinical note, unrelated health detail or private conversation.

• Share routinely (green). Availability, current restrictions, workload history, rehabilitation stage and next review.
• Share when relevant (amber). Diagnosis, imaging summary, medication and clinical detail needed for safe care.
• Keep private (red). Unrelated health information, personal discussions and records with no current care need.

Information sharing needs informed consent, role-based access, secure transfer and a clear clinical purpose.

A shared player-care system

Cricket does not need another large committee. It needs a small number of agreed processes used whenever a player moves between teams.

1. One named health coordinator

Each player should have one clinician responsible for maintaining the complete health and workload picture across the year. The role might sit with a national board, primary franchise, independent doctor or agreed lead physiotherapist.

This clinician does not control every decision. They maintain continuity and stop important decisions occurring in isolation.

2. A player-approved minimum dataset

Every organisation does not need the full medical file. Each organisation needs enough information for safe care.

The minimum dataset should cover current availability, relevant injury history, recent bowling and physical exposure, active rehabilitation goals, medication relevant to care, objective progression criteria, review dates and the lead clinician.

Access should match the person's role and end when the clinical or contractual need ends.

3. A standard entry and exit handover

Every transfer between franchise and national duty should trigger a short handover before arrival and another before departure.

The entry handover states where the player is now. The exit handover records what happened, what changed and what comes next. A standard form and a short clinician-to-clinician discussion would remove a surprising amount of confusion.

4. A whole-season availability plan

The board, franchises, player and manager should map the likely year before the busiest period begins. Include priority competitions, travel, recovery blocks, bowling build-ups, physical preparation, medical reviews and likely conflicts.

The plan will change. Its value lies in finding conflicts while choices still exist.

1. Plan the year
2. Record exposure
3. Review response
4. Handover
5. Adjust priorities

Shared care is a continuous loop. It should not begin after an injury.

5. Clear decision rights

Problems grow when advice, selection and commercial influence become mixed.

Person or group	Primary responsibility	Boundary
Player	Participates in decisions and gives informed consent for health-information sharing.	Receives clear risk information without being left to coordinate the whole system alone.
Treating clinician	Assesses, treats and provides independent clinical advice.	Does not make selection or contract decisions.
Team medical lead	Determines medical availability within the team's environment.	Explains reasoning and respects relevant external clinical information.
Coach and selector	Selects from players judged medically available.	Does not override clinical restrictions.
Manager	Coordinates contracts, calendar, travel and commercial communication.	Does not direct treatment or clearance.
Board or franchise	Provides qualified staff, safe systems and an escalation route.	Does not allow a tournament deadline to replace clinical judgement.

6. An independent escalation process

Disagreement is inevitable. One team accepts a risk another team rejects. A player wants to return sooner. A franchise questions a board's restriction.

The answer should not depend on who pays the largest contract.

The system needs a pre-agreed independent clinician, a defined review timeframe and written documentation. Escalation should occur before the player reaches the ground, not during the warm-up.

7. Measure the process

Injury rates matter, but they are slow and affected by many factors. Organisations should also track the quality of the shared-care process.

• Handover completion. How many player transfers included a timely entry and exit handover?
• Missing exposure days. How often did bowling, running or strength history disappear between teams?
• Time to one plan. How long after an injury did every relevant party receive an agreed management plan?
• Unexpected availability changes. How often did late information disrupt selection, contracts or rehabilitation?
• Duplicated care. How often were assessments or imaging repeated because earlier information was unavailable?
• Player trust. Does the player understand who sees their information and who holds each decision?

Duty of care does not stop between contracts

The weakest period is often the gap between formal environments. A player leaves one tournament, travels independently, trains for the next event and arrives with symptoms nobody has assessed.

Boards, leagues and franchises need written agreements covering responsibility during travel, rehabilitation and contract gaps. Areas include access to care, insurance, emergency support, anti-doping responsibilities, mental health support and return-to-play communication.

Legal duties differ across jurisdictions and contracts. The operating principle is still clear: no player should enter an administrative gap where each organisation assumes another one is looking after them.

The same standard should cover migrant, heritage-eligible and associate players. They often move between countries, clubs and health systems with less institutional support than centrally contracted players.

The performance benefit is straightforward

Good player care is not separate from performance.

Teams get better planning, fewer surprises and clearer selection information. Clinicians receive proper context. Managers make contract decisions with realistic timelines. Players spend less time repeating their history and more time preparing.

Most importantly, the best players have a better chance of being available when the cricket matters.

The sport has accepted multi-team careers, mobile players and overlapping employers. Its health systems still often behave as if each player belongs to one organisation for twelve months.

Cricket does not need one organisation to control the player. It needs each organisation to accept responsibility for its part, share the information required for safe care and respect the limits of its authority.

No single board, franchise, manager or clinician sees enough alone. The standard of care will depend on how well they work together.

References and further reading