Explained: Why Ben Stokes has only signed a one-year England central contract

In a landmark announcement that is in part due to the increase in lucrative alternatives available to top players on the franchise circuit, several players have agreed to multi-year contracts for the first time in English cricket.

Harry Brook, Joe Root and Mark Wood are the only three players to accept three-year deals while 15 have agreed to two-year deals. The 15 on two-year contracts include several seamers in the infancy of their international careers, including Gus Atkinson, Brydon Carse, Matt Potts and Josh Tongue.

Conspicuous by his absence on the list of multi-year contracts is the Test captain Ben Stokes, who accepted a one-year deal which has prompted a degree of speculation over his medium-term future as an England player.

There is no suggestion that his decision to reject a multi-year contract speaks of a desire to end his international career any time soon. Firstly, the contract he has accepted is no different to what has essentially been a rolling one-year contract for the best part of a decade already and secondly, just last month Stokes reiterated his desire to remain an England player for at least “the next three to four years”.

Speaking to the BBC following the announcement, Rob Key, the managing director of England men’s cricket, said that Stokes’ decision came from wanting to negotiate a more lucrative deal in 2024. “By no means is it Ben Stokes saying, ‘I don’t want to play for England’,” said Key.

“All he talks about is being completely committed to playing for England and also captaining that Test team – planning for India, planning for the Ashes, planning for West Indies and Sri Lanka next summer. I don’t think it has crossed his mind not playing for England for the next four, five, six years.

“Ben, quite rightly, feels when the next memorandum of understanding starts and the contract cycle changes he will be in a stronger position. Other players have gone for that security.”

It has been reported that Stokes is not the only player to reject a three-year deal; others who were offered those deals have accepted two-year contracts. It seems that players like Stokes who are highly likely to be offered similar deals in the future have been reluctant to lock themselves into contracts that might be more lucrative in the near future.

It is also worth noting that of the three players to accept three-year contracts, none are cast-iron guaranteed picks in the IPL. Brook was a headline signing ahead of this year’s tournament but despite an unbeaten hundred against KKR was dropped later in the tournament after a run of low scores. Similarly, Root and Wood, both in their thirties, have eight career IPL appearances between them.

Stokes has previously spoken of respecting any player’s decision to reject national contracts in favour of financially more appealing offers from franchise cricket. Reacting to reports that his England teammate Mark Wood might turn out in the ILT20 over England’s Test tour to India in early next year, Stokes said: “We’ve got to understand, and I’ve got to understand as a captain, that there might be some decisions players make and I’m very comfortable and aware that something like that might happen.

“But it’s up to the individual and I think having a good and clear understanding that the landscape of cricket is changing in front of our eyes very quickly makes things like this a bit more easy to understand, if players were to choose to do something like that.”