The ICC's Future Tours Programme — a binding schedule mandating which nations tour which — was introduced to guarantee cricket's commercial coverage but became a straitjacket that prevented bilateral series flexibility, forced unwanted tours, and contributed directly to the Big Three governance crisis.
Before the FTP, bilateral cricket was arranged ad hoc — boards negotiated tours privately with varying success. Smaller nations often struggled to arrange high-value tours against India or Australia. Broadcasters couldn't plan around a schedule that changed unpredictably.
The FTP solved the broadcaster problem definitively. But the solution created new problems: cricket became a schedule, not a sport. Teams toured without enthusiasm; series lacked context; the FTP mandated tours regardless of cricketing relevance or commercial sense.
The FTP's tensions became most visible when India's growing commercial power made certain mandatory tours economically irrational from the BCCI's perspective. India touring Zimbabwe or Bangladesh generated minimal revenue. The BCCI argued the FTP's equal-treatment approach was incompatible with the realities of cricket's commercial structure.
Introduced around 2001, the Future Tours Programme was a binding multilateral agreement determining every bilateral Test and ODI series for six-year cycles. Countries were assigned specific tours — home and away — and could not opt out without ICC penalty. The programme guaranteed broadcasters that high-value series (India vs Australia, England vs Australia) would take place on predetermined schedules. In practice, it prevented smaller nations from scheduling additional bilateral series that might have developed their cricket commercially, locked India into tours of less commercially valuable countries even as the BCCI's market power grew, and created resentment that contributed to the 2014 governance restructure. The FTP was significantly relaxed from 2023 as the ICC moved toward a more flexible framework.
2001: FTP introduced — binding bilateral schedule for all Test-playing nations
2008-2012: BCCI increasingly frustrated with mandatory lower-value tours
2014: Big Three governance restructure partly motivated by FTP rigidities
2017-2019: ICC reviews FTP structure; moves toward World Test Championship context
2023: ICC moves toward hybrid FTP — mandatory WTC and CWCSL games, bilateral flexibility within
2001
FTP introduced — binding six-year bilateral schedule
2009-2014
Growing tensions; BCCI non-compliance in some scheduling matters
2014
Big Three restructure addresses FTP's commercial inequities
2019
WTC replaces FTP as primary framework for Test context
2023
Hybrid FTP: mandatory WTC fixtures, flexible bilaterals
“The FTP provides commercial certainty that broadcasters require. Without that certainty, the revenue that funds cricket would not exist.”
“The FTP was designed for a different era. India's market has changed cricket's commercial structure. The programme must adapt to reflect that.”
The WTC and Cricket World Cup Super League (CWCSL) structures replaced the FTP's most problematic aspects. Teams now play mandatory WTC and CWCSL fixtures, providing guaranteed context to bilateral series, while having flexibility on non-qualification matches.
The result is more commercially logical — India tours are fewer but higher-value; smaller nations have guaranteed qualification contests through the Super League rather than random FTP fixtures.
The FTP in its original form was a commercial success — it guaranteed high-value series — but a governance failure for smaller nations and a flexibility failure for cricket's long-term development. Its partial replacement with a more flexible system in 2023 acknowledged that binding six-year schedules could not adapt to cricket's changed landscape.
The FTP's history shows how well-intentioned scheduling can become counterproductive when commercial realities change. Its eventual replacement reflects cricket's belated acknowledgement that the sport needed to organise itself around meaningful competition rather than mandatory tours.
ICC vs Cricket World
2005-07-07
The Super Sub rule, introduced in 2005, allowed ODI teams to replace one player mid-match — creating a massive tactical imbalance that rewarded the toss winner and was abandoned within 18 months as one of cricket's most embarrassing regulatory failures.
ICC vs Cricket Community
2016-06-01
The ICC's 2016 proposal to divide Test cricket into two tiers — with promotion and relegation — was opposed so ferociously by India, the BCCI, and virtually every player that it was abandoned before implementation, but the debate it sparked about Test cricket's future continues.
ICC vs Bowlers Worldwide
2020-07-08
The ICC's temporary COVID-era ban on using saliva to shine the cricket ball became permanent in 2022, eliminating a century-old ball-maintenance practice and permanently disadvantaging bowlers — a decision that continues to divide the sport.