Sri Lankan quick Nuwan Thushara has taken Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC) to the Colombo District Court after the board refused to hand him the no-objection certificate (NOC) he needs to turn out for Royal Challengers Bengaluru in this year’s IPL.
At the centre of the row is timing. Thushara’s national contract lapsed on 31 March and, according to papers filed last week, he intended to step away from international duty once that date passed. He argues that enforcing an NOC after his contract has ended is neither reasonable nor lawful, and that the decision blocks a major source of income.
The suit names SLC president Shammi Silva, secretary Bandula Dissanayake, treasurer Sujeewa Godaliyadda and chief executive Ashley de Silva. The matter is due back in court on 9 April, the earliest available date after the Easter recess. Realistically, even a speedy first hearing will leave the 30-year-old fast bowler sidelined for at least a fortnight of the tournament, which began on 28 March.
Why SLC said no
Under ICC rules a home board must issue an NOC before a player can appear in an overseas league, but the ICC leaves the criteria to each board. SLC’s current policy revolves around a new set of mandatory fitness markers – introduced by the Pramodya Wickramasinghe-led selection panel following last year’s disappointing T20 World Cup – as well as a limit on the number of foreign leagues a player can join.
Thushara did not meet the revised fitness thresholds at his most recent test. The programme involves five elements: a two-kilometre run, 20-metre sprint, 5-0-5 agility drill, skin-fold measurement and a counter-movement jump. Players earn up to 29 points, with 17 the pass mark; the two-kilometre run and the skin-fold reading carry the greatest weight. “If you fair poorly in those two, it will be very hard to pass,” a SLC source said.
Timeline of events
• 15 March – Thushara makes an initial verbal request for an IPL NOC.
• 23 March – Written follow-up is lodged.
• 24 March – SLC formally declines, citing unsatisfactory fitness results.
• 28 March – Player sends another letter; no written reply, though he claims to have been told informally the answer remains no.
• 31 March – Central contract expires.
• 1 April – Lawsuit filed, alleging the board is unlawfully restricting his right to work.
Income at stake
An IPL deal can be life-changing for a Sri Lankan player; match fees and retainers dwarf those on offer at home. Thushara’s camp points out that, with no central contract in place, the pacer is effectively a freelance professional. Preventing him from honouring a pre-arranged franchise contract, they say, amounts to restraint of trade.
What the lawyers will test
The case turns on whether SLC retains the power to refuse an NOC once a player is out of contract. Local statutes and the board’s own player-agreement clauses will be pored over, and the decision will almost certainly set a precedent for others eyeing overseas leagues.
SLC officials have so far declined public comment, noting the matter is before the courts. Thushara, likewise, is keeping counsel on the advice of his solicitors, though friends say he still hopes to join RCB should the paperwork arrive in time.
Wider implications
If the fast bowler wins, boards worldwide may need to revisit how long their influence lasts after a contract ends. Lose, and players could find themselves having to remain in peak condition – to someone else’s standards – long after they have stopped wearing national colours.
For now, Thushara watches the IPL on television, training in Colombo, waiting for 9 April and a judge’s first word on whether a national board can still say no when a national contract says goodbye.
