Less bilateral cricket, more context and an acceptance of T20s as a major part of the game's future were the three major takeaways from international players' body FICA's 2016 review. In a 42-page document compiled from surveys, players revealed that their biggest concern is the conflict in schedule and difference in remuneration between international cricket and domestic T20 leagues. They called for "rebalancing" of the structures to reflect modern realities.

The cricketers interviewed - which exclude those from India, Pakistan and Zimbabwe, who do not have player associations - recognised that while international bilateral cricket remained the major source of the game's revenue, it was "rapidly losing its attractiveness". In order to remain valuable, players advocated ways to improve the game by centralising global competitions in all three formats while creating distinct windows for domestic T20 cricket.

Players want less Tests and "significantly" less ODI cricket overall, but more international T20Is. They want to keep the longest format concentrated in countries "where the market and a strong four-day structure exists" and confine ODI cricket to a league culminating in a global event, such as the World Cup, and removing all other bilateral fixtures. They also want T20 cricket to be played in a league format with a headline event, similar to the qualification process for the 2017 Champions Trophy.

Startling statistics off the field 49.1% of players would consider rejecting a national contract if they were paid significantly more to be a free agent and only play T20 leagues. Of those 58.6% came from New Zealand, Sri Lanka, South Africa, West Indies and Bangladesh, but only 39.3% were from England and Australia.

Approximate average international player earnings from bilateral cricket based on retainer, 10 Tests, 15 ODIs and 5 T20Is year: England: US $852,765; Australia: US $792,570; South Africa: US $346,494; Sri Lanka: US $234,500; New Zealand: US $231,000; West Indies: US $225,625; Bangladesh: US $ 67,935; A player who plays in three domestic T20 leagues a year can expect to earn an average of US $510,000 a year.

57% of players think Test cricket has neither improved nor worsened.

93.8% of players said the use of DRS should be standardised across all international cricket.

This more condensed structure will, according to FICA, preserve the value and generate interest in bilateral cricket which has become "a poor sporting product" that "delivers limited context and narrative beyond results against rivals and benchmarking against history", and is not "part of an easy-to-understand clear competitive structure". The current rankings are regarded as so confusing that 72% of the players interviewed admitted to not understanding them.

Players believe leagues will also unclutter the cricketing calendar which currently makes them feel "forced" into choosing between formats and testing their loyalty to their countries "like never before". The current time:wage ratio of international cricket is seen as skewed - it demands a high time commitment versus low salary income. The opposite is true for domestic T20 cricket contracts, which offer low time commitment but higher salaries. As a result, many players consider leaving the international game for T20s because that enables them to "optimise" earnings.

Players from so-called less wealthy countries are more at risk than those from countries that pay better, and the disparity in wages is also a concern for FICA. For example, players from England and Australia earn almost four times more than players from West Indies, Sri Lanka and New Zealand, and almost thrice as much as players from South Africa. This makes it more likely that a player from one of the lesser-earning countries will consider early international retirement. FICA would like to see a situation where that conflict does not exist for any player and believes building some form of free agency into national contracts will aid that.

However, FICA warned that as lucrative as T20 cricket is for players it cannot prop up the whole game. Most countries rely on bilateral international cricket and the ICC for their income, while domestic cricket provides limited financial contributions. That means that in the short to medium-term domestic T20 cricket "does not appear to be a viable alternative to support the entire economy of the global game". That could change in the long-term but as thing stand, domestic T20 leagues have to exist alongside international cricket.

FICA would also like to see T20 cricket used as the vehicle to grow the game, a process it believes has stagnated because "there is no documented clarity ... or viable pathway for Associate nations to enter into the current bilateral cricket framework". It is in favour of considering cricket for inclusion as an Olympic sport and revisiting the number of teams that will compete in the World T20 and World Cup.

The body would also like to see the role of the Champions Trophy reviewed and wants greater consistency applied to the use of technology, changes to playing conditions, the idea of day-night cricket and other innovations.