Sri Lankan Cricketers Challenge Tax Classification: Court Battle Over ‘Employee vs Service Provider’ Status Heats Up

A new off-field battle has emerged in Sri Lankan cricket—one that doesn’t involve bat or ball, but the fine print of income tax laws.

The legal challenge doesn’t just represent a tussle with the Sri Lanka Cricket Board (SLC) or the Department of Inland Revenue (IRD); it symbolizes a larger push by athletes for financial independence and recognition as professionals who operate outside the traditional “employee” mold.

Cricketers Take Their Case to Court

In March 2025, a group of Sri Lankan cricketers formally filed a petition in the Court of Appeal, challenging their classification as employees of Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC). Instead, they argued that they work as independent service providers, and thus, deserve to be taxed differently.

The petition included high-profile names like Dhananjaya de Silva, Charith Asalanka, and women’s team stars Chamari Athapaththu and Anushka Sanjeewani. Their argument centers around the nature of their professional engagement: they don’t receive monthly salaries like traditional employees. Instead, they sign performance-based contracts, provide their services to multiple leagues or tournaments, and negotiate terms independently.

The Cricketers’ Argument: Not Employees, But Professionals

The players emphasized that they offer specialized professional services—coaching, playing, mentoring—based on contracts, match performances, and selections. They don’t enjoy traditional job benefits like pensions, job security, or standardized working hours, which typical employment contracts provide.

By asking the court to recognize them as contractual service providers, these cricketers want to avoid being subjected to the same personal income tax regulations that apply to salaried workers. They contend that the current classification results in unfair and excessive taxation on their earnings.

This demand doesn’t imply that the cricketers want to evade taxes. Instead, they seek just treatment under the relevant legal framework, arguing that the current tax system doesn’t reflect the reality of their professional lives.

SLC and IRD: Where Do They Stand?

In fact, SLC supported the athletes’ assertion that they operate as independent professionals. This support adds significant weight to the players’ case, given that SLC is the very body accused of employing them.

However, the Department of Inland Revenue (IRD) seems to view things differently. The IRD has classified the players as employees for tax purposes, which requires them to pay higher taxes and limits their deductions and exemptions.

This difference in opinion between SLC and the IRD has now brought the matter into the judicial domain.

Why Does This Matter for Athletes?

Globally, the legal classification of professional athletes has long remained a grey area. While some sports bodies treat their players as full-time employees, others offer them temporary or freelance-style contracts. In Sri Lanka’s case, cricketers argue that their relationship with SLC closely resembles that of a client and contractor—not an employer and employee.

Here’s why the distinction matters:

• Tax Implications: Employees pay taxes on gross income with fewer deductions. In contrast, service providers can claim expenses like travel, training, and equipment.
• Legal Rights: Employees receive labor protections, insurance, and job security. Contractors negotiate their terms independently.
• Professional Identity: Many athletes consider themselves entrepreneurs who manage personal brands and market value—not workers clocking 9-to-5 shifts.

For the players involved, this case is about more than just taxes—it’s a question of dignity, independence, and professional recognition.

Broader Implications for Sri Lankan Sports

If the court rules in favor of the cricketers, the decision could create a landmark precedent affecting athletes across disciplines—be it rugby, athletics, or football. It may also impact coaching staff, physiotherapists, and sports consultants, many of whom operate under similar contractual arrangements.

Additionally, sports organizations might need to restructure their agreements with players, ensuring they comply with updated tax classifications. That could also bring clarity to financial planning, insurance policies, and retirement planning for professional athletes.

Public Support and Industry Reaction

The cricketing community has shown overwhelming support for the players. Fans believe that cricketers, who dedicate their lives to national pride and glory, deserve transparency and fairness in how the system treats them. Many social media voices even applauded the cricketers for taking a brave and necessary stand.

Legal experts, too, see the case as an opportunity to bridge the gap between outdated tax laws and the realities of modern professional sports. Several lawyers highlighted the need for a specialized sports taxation framework in Sri Lanka, modeled after those in countries like Australia or the UK.

Athletes as Freelancers: A Growing Global Debate

Many international athletes already operate as freelancers or business entities. For instance, Indian cricketers like Virat Kohli run personal companies that manage endorsements and commercial projects. Tennis players, golfers, and even Olympic athletes often create business structures to handle taxation and legal affairs efficiently.

If Sri Lanka recognizes its players as independent service providers, it will align with this international trend—where athletes enjoy more control over their careers, finances, and legal identity.

What Comes Next?

The Court of Appeal will now assess legal arguments, review contractual arrangements, and weigh existing tax laws before passing judgment. The court’s ruling could take weeks or months, depending on the complexity and documentation involved.

But off the field, they remain united in their demand for fairness and professional acknowledgment.

Conclusion: Cricketers Take Control of Their Narrative

This legal battle isn’t just a matter of numbers or clauses. It represents a powerful moment where athletes demand agency over how institutions treat them. By moving to court, Sri Lankan cricketers have highlighted the urgent need to rethink outdated frameworks and create a sports ecosystem that respects their unique role.

If the court agrees with their stance, the result could reshape not only how cricket functions in Sri Lanka but how all sports professionals engage with governing bodies. This could be the dawn of a more transparent, fair, and empowering era for Sri Lankan athletes.

Join Sports Samachaar for all things cricket and never miss a moment of the action!