Efforts to overhaul the governance structure of Cricket South Africa (CSA) have been placed on hold, temporarily averting a return to the administrative instability that previously plagued the organization. Despite this pause, the underlying friction between provincial leadership and the national board persists, with significant implications for the future of the sport in the country.
Currently, the CSA constitution mandates a board composition of eight independent directors and five non-independent members, with the chair required to be an independent. However, internal discussions have revealed a concerted effort among the presidents of CSA’s 15 provincial affiliates to shift this balance. Some advocates are pushing for a reduction in the number of independent directors, while others argue for a majority of the board to be drawn directly from the provincial ranks, reminiscent of the era prior to February 2013.
An insider familiar with the internal dynamics described the motivation behind this push as a reaction to perceived loss of influence. “Because they’ve lost control and they don’t like it,” the source stated. The frustration is compounded by the success of the SA20 league, in which these provincial bodies have no direct involvement, and the fact that two provinces have recently been placed under administration. The source added that these officials believe regaining board power will restore their relevance, though critics warn such a move could severely damage the sport.
Outgoing Gauteng president Earl Glennistor, who serves on the CSA members council, confirmed that the push for structural change is not a new development. “When I got to the members council in May 2020, it was there already,” he noted. While Glennistor stated he was “not pushing” for a return to the old system, he expressed ambivalence regarding the ideal board composition, pointing to the varying success levels of other South African sporting federations like rugby and soccer, both of which operate under non-independent control.
The contrast between South African rugby and football is often cited in these debates. Despite financial challenges—the South African Rugby Union reported a USD 1.9 million loss for 2025, exceeding the South African Football Association’s deficit—rugby maintains a higher level of professional stability. The Springboks have secured four men’s World Cup titles, whereas Bafana Bafana have struggled to make an impact on the global stage, failing to qualify for the finals five times and advancing past the group stage only once.
Financial viability remains a central point of contention. Currently, only the Titans (Northerns), Lions (Gauteng), and Dolphins (KwaZulu-Natal) operate on a firm financial footing. The remaining 12 provinces, including those at historic venues like Newlands and St George’s Park, rely heavily on funding from CSA. Provincial presidents argue that their lack of board representation leaves them marginalized, while proponents of the current system emphasize that independent oversight has been crucial in attracting unprecedented sponsorship levels.
The shift toward independent governance was catalyzed by a major scandal involving improperly declared bonuses of USD 555,000, paid by the IPL to CSA following the 2009 tournament. This was followed by a period of systemic failure under former president Chris Nenzani and CEO Thabang Moroe, which ultimately forced the transition to the current board structure in June 2021.
Modern cricket demands a different approach, according to industry insiders. The rise of the SA20 and the shift in player development pathways mean that provincial cricket no longer holds the same commercial or professional weight it once did. “We’re living in a totally different environment compared to five or 10 years ago,” one source explained. “Provincial cricket is development cricket. It has no commercial value.”
As CSA prepares for its annual meeting on September 26, the debate highlights a fundamental divide. While provincial leaders seek to reclaim a voice they feel has been silenced by fiduciary-focused independent directors, the broader consensus remains that any dilution of independent oversight risks undoing years of progress. For now, the status quo holds, but the pressure for structural change continues to simmer beneath the surface. The report also notes that the non-independents tend to be provincial presidents — some of whom are calling for a narrowing of the gap in those numbers. 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 and they can’t handle that, they’ve become irrelevant. The report also notes that but, by every other measure, rugby in the country is in starkly better shape than football.
