Cricket and Blockchain: A New Innings in the Game's Economy

When I first heard about blockchain-based ticketing from a seat in the Eden Gardens stands in Kolkata, I assumed it was just another marketing gimmick. But when an IPL franchise launched NFT tickets in 2026, my thinking changed. Scanning a QR code to enter the stands and instantly receiving a digital collectible ticket on my phone felt like the start of a quiet revolution in cricket's economy. Fake tickets, black-marketing and ticket touting suddenly seemed irrelevant. I have been closely watching this meeting of blockchain and cricket ever since. Cricket has long been a technology-friendly sport. Hawk-Eye, Snicko-meter, DRS — every innovation has made decision-making more transparent. But the economy outside the game — ticket sales, broadcast rights, player contracts and the revenue management of domestic boards — still runs on old structures in many places. That is where blockchain's real potential lies. A blockchain is a decentralised ledger in which every transaction is permanently recorded and cannot be altered. Globalised cricket moves hundreds of millions of dollars every year. In Bangladesh, Pakistan and India, player payment disputes and ticket black-marketing are long-standing problems; there blockchain can become a credible alternative. The key question is: how is blockchain entering cricket's different layers? I see the answer in four layers. First, fan tokens. In football, clubs such as Barcelona and PSG sell tokens to supporters through the Socios platform and give them a voice. This trend has now reached cricket. Several IPL franchises and domestic T20 leagues are planning fan tokens. Token holders can vote on jersey colours, cultural events and even certain tactical decisions. It turns supporters from consumers into genuine stakeholders. Second, NFTs. Digital collectible versions of iconic moments — Sachin Tendulkar's hundredth hundred, Kapil Dev's innings of 175, Shane Warne's ball of the century — are being created. Platforms such as Rario and FanCraze are partnering with cricket boards and players to produce and sell these digital collectibles. When a fan buys an NFT, he is not just buying an image; he gains ownership and a certificate of authenticity permanently recorded on the blockchain. This technology opens new revenue streams for smaller boards that own a treasure of historic moments but never had a way to monetise them. Third, smart contracts. Match fees, contract bonuses and advertising income can all be made transparent with smart contracts. These are self-executing agreements in which payment is released automatically once conditions are met, without human intervention. Suppose a domestic cricketer is due a bonus after playing his 50th match. The blockchain can verify his match count and release the money directly to his wallet. Intermediary costs fall and player trust rises. There have been long-standing complaints about player payments in Bangladesh's domestic cricket; smart contracts could be a practical solution there. Fourth, ticketing and identity verification. Blockchain-based tickets can reduce fake ticketing almost to zero. Each ticket has a unique digital signature that becomes invalid once used. Player identity, age and nationality can also be stored on the blockchain, preventing fraud during international transfers. An unauthorised contract would be detected immediately. This decentralisation can also regulate the resale market, because every transaction remains permanently recorded. But the tide also has an ebb. Observers of this sector know that blockchain is not a perfect solution. The first problem is price volatility. When cryptocurrency prices suddenly fall by 30 percent, board revenues held in those currencies shrink. If a board sells fan tokens and keeps the money in crypto, a market crash threatens its balance sheet. The second problem is regulatory uncertainty. Bangladesh Bank, the Reserve Bank of India and many other central banks take a strict line against cryptocurrencies. How boards will decide in this regulatory risk remains unclear. The third problem is access. Consider rural cricketers in Bangladesh — they have smartphones but not enough internet access or digital wallets. When blockchain creates benefits mainly for urban, educated and tech-savvy audiences, it can deepen inequality in the game. In a club trial on the outskirts of Dhaka, we introduced digital payments; at least 40 percent of the players lacked proper ID or a bank account. Technology became a barrier rather than a benefit. Moreover, blockchain transparency is not always transparent. On public blockchains the size of transactions is visible, but who is conducting them can remain completely anonymous. This pseudonymity can create opportunities for crimes such as money laundering. Before taking that risk in a regulated sport, the ICC and national boards must create strict policies. The quality of data is also a major issue. If a board uploads data on its own, decentralisation becomes meaningless. The question of data source and authority is blockchain's most complex puzzle. One thing keeps returning in my analysis: the first shape is a promise; the second shape is the invoice. Blockchain's cost is not only money; it is technological complexity, regulatory expense and skilled human resources. Smaller boards lack the capacity to build blockchain infrastructure. For them, this technology may become a new headache — bringing back the very problem it came to solve. After this tactical and technological analysis, my conclusion is that blockchain can transform cricket's economy, but it will happen step by step, not in a single innings. The first moment of verification is whether any national board begins paying domestic players through blockchain. If a board in Bangladesh or Pakistan does so, it will prove that this technology is not just a marketing tool but a real way to strengthen the game's foundations. The second sign is blockchain's use in the ICC's data systems. The day international scorecards move onto blockchain, the technology's acceptance will be finally proven. From my 29 years of observing cricket, I can say one thing with confidence: cricket has never avoided technology. When Hawk-Eye first arrived, many said it would destroy the game's traditions. Today Hawk-Eye is essential to decision-making. The same history could repeat with blockchain. But the path of caution is equally important. Whatever technology arrives, if the two principles of player welfare and game transparency remain intact, the technology is worthwhile. This blockchain innings is still in its first over; the question is who is bowling.