The NOC question Sri Lanka Cricket must address
By Hishan Welmilla
At what point does a professional cricketer’s right to pursue lucrative opportunities overseas come into conflict with his responsibility to represent Sri Lanka? That is a question Sri Lanka Cricket can no longer afford to treat merely as an administrative matter.
The No-Objection Certificate, or NOC, may appear to be little more than a formal permission granted by a national board. In the modern game, however, it has become a significant instrument in the relationship between international cricket and the rapidly expanding franchise economy. For a Sri Lankan player, an NOC can open the door to some of the world’s most lucrative and prestigious T20 competitions. For Sri Lanka Cricket, however, granting that permission must also be weighed against national commitments, contractual obligations, player workload and the interests of the national team.
The fundamental question is therefore straightforward: When competing interests arise, where should the primary responsibility of a nationally contracted player lie?
Nobody would seriously suggest that Sri Lankan cricketers should be prevented from maximising their relatively short professional careers. Franchise cricket provides financial security, international exposure and valuable experience, while players also have legitimate professional interests that deserve recognition. But national contracts carry responsibilities. A player cannot reasonably expect the privileges associated with being a centrally contracted international cricketer while treating national commitments as negotiable whenever a more attractive franchise opportunity becomes available. That principle needs to be established clearly and applied consistently.
NOC is permission, not entitlement
Sri Lanka Cricket has already recognised that overseas opportunities must be subject to conditions. In 2022, the board introduced restrictions concerning NOCs for retired national players, including a six-month waiting period following retirement and an 80 per cent domestic participation requirement for retired players seeking eligibility for the Lanka Premier League. More recently, SLC has strengthened fitness requirements for players seeking participation in overseas franchise competitions.
The principle is therefore already evident: an NOC is not an automatic entitlement. The question is whether the same philosophy should extend beyond fitness and include a player’s overall commitment to Sri Lankan cricket.
A player who consistently makes himself available for national duty, fulfils contractual obligations, maintains his fitness, participates in required domestic cricket and contributes meaningfully to the national side presents a different set of circumstances from a player who repeatedly misses national or domestic commitments. That distinction does not necessarily mean that one player should automatically receive an NOC while another should not. It means that there should be objective criteria by which the decision is made.
Shanaka case raises wider question
The issue became particularly relevant following the disciplinary action taken against Dasun Shanaka in February 2025. SLC fined Shanaka US$10,000 after determining that he had breached contractual obligations. According to the board, Shanaka had left a domestic three-day match after submitting a medical certificate recommending rest, but subsequently travelled to Dubai and participated in a franchise competition. Shanaka acknowledged the breach and expressed regret.
The incident should not become a permanent judgment on an individual player. It does, however, raise an important institutional question: What is the practical value of a national contract if its obligations can be set aside when a more attractive franchise opportunity arises? Equally important is another question: Are the same standards applied consistently to every player?
An NOC system can retain credibility only if players, selectors and administrators understand the criteria and have confidence that those criteria are applied without favour or exception.
Performance matters — but form cannot become a punishment
There is also a danger in making performance the sole basis for granting or withholding NOCs. Cricket is inherently volatile. A batsman can endure a poor run and recover with a decisive innings, while a bowler can struggle for several matches before rediscovering his rhythm.
A player’s recent lack of runs or wickets should therefore not, by itself, become grounds for preventing him from playing franchise cricket. Indeed, overseas leagues can provide valuable competitive exposure, access to different coaching environments and the opportunity to play alongside some of the world’s leading cricketers.
The issue is therefore not simply whether a player is performing well at a particular moment. The more appropriate question is whether his overall professional conduct and contribution are consistent with the responsibilities attached to his national contract.
What should SLC actually consider?
Sri Lanka Cricket needs a clearly published NOC framework based on objective, transparent and consistently applied criteria. Before granting an NOC, the board should consider whether the player has made himself consistently available for national selection and fulfilled his contractual obligations; whether he has maintained the required level of fitness; whether he has participated in domestic cricket when required; and what his broader recent contribution to the national team has been.
His record of withdrawing from national or domestic commitments should also be considered, together with whether the proposed franchise tournament clashes with an important Sri Lankan series, his workload and injury history, his potential importance to an upcoming ICC tournament and his compliance with previous SLC agreements. Such an assessment would provide a considerably stronger basis for decision-making than reputation, commercial value or individual relationships.
Other Boards are confronting same challenge
Sri Lanka is not alone in attempting to establish a sustainable relationship between international cricket and franchise cricket. Afghanistan introduced a policy in January 2026 limiting leading players to a maximum of three overseas franchise competitions annually while also requiring participation in domestic cricket. The Afghanistan Cricket Board said the policy was intended to address workload and ensure player availability for national duty.
New Zealand has taken a different contractual approach. Mark Chapman moved from a central contract to a casual contract to facilitate participation in Australia’s Big Bash League while retaining eligibility for national selection. Other New Zealand players have also moved into similar arrangements.
These approaches demonstrate that there is no universal solution. What matters is that the contractual relationship between the player and the national board is clearly defined.
Sri Lanka cannot afford inconsistent standards
This may ultimately be the most sensitive aspect of the NOC debate. If a player is required for national duty, SLC must have the authority to make that requirement clear. If an NOC is granted, the basis should be understood, and if an NOC is refused, the reasons should likewise be defensible.
Otherwise, every decision risks becoming a source of speculation about favouritism, influence or unequal treatment. Sri Lankan cricket has experienced enough disputes over governance and trust. The NOC system should not become another arena in which uncertainty replaces policy.
The emergence of the Sri Lankan Professional Cricketers’ Association also provides an opportunity for constructive dialogue between players and administrators over issues such as contracts, workload and franchise participation. That dialogue should not be viewed as a confrontation. It should be part of building a more professional cricketing structure.
Real danger is not franchise cricket
The argument should not be framed as international cricket versus franchise cricket. Sri Lankan players should have opportunities to build their careers through franchise cricket, and the financial realities of the modern game cannot simply be ignored.
The real danger arises when national cricket becomes the second priority. If a player wishes to make franchise cricket the principal focus of his professional career, that is a legitimate career decision. But the contractual relationship with Sri Lanka Cricket should then reflect that decision.
What should not become acceptable is a system in which players expect the security, facilities, medical support, coaching, selection opportunities and other benefits associated with national cricket while regarding national obligations as optional when franchise opportunities arise. At the same time, SLC must recognise that responsibility works both ways. Players are entitled to clear contracts, transparent selection processes, consistent NOC rules and fair treatment.
Time for NOC Charter
The time may have come for Sri Lanka Cricket to introduce a formal NOC Charter. Every centrally contracted player should know the conditions before the franchise season begins. There should be no ambiguity and no need for informal negotiations behind closed doors. There should be no perception that one player’s commercial value gives him privileges unavailable to another. There should simply be a set of clearly defined standards applicable to everyone.
One principle should remain fundamental: For a player under a national contract, representing Sri Lanka must remain the primary sporting responsibility when national duty is required. Franchise cricket can complement an international career, but it should not quietly replace it.
The Lanka Premier League itself provides Sri Lankan players with an important domestic platform. SLC’s 2026 LPL draft included 179 Sri Lankan players across national, domestic and emerging categories, demonstrating that the country has a broad pool of players seeking competitive opportunities.
The challenge, therefore, is not to close the door on franchise cricket. It is to establish where that door should stand in relation to the national team. Sri Lanka Cricket should not ask whether a player is famous enough, commercially valuable enough or influential enough to receive an NOC. It should ask whether the player has fulfilled the responsibilities attached to representing Sri Lanka.
The answer should be determined by transparent rules, not personalities. Because an NOC is far more than a piece of paper. It is an expression of the balance between a player’s professional freedom and his obligations to the national team that has invested in his career.
Sri Lanka Cricket now has an opportunity to define that balance properly — and it should do so before the next NOC becomes another controversy.
Be the first to comment