Point-scoring politicians hurt international game already under siege

Pulling out of fixtures, as Bangladesh did a week ago and as Pakistan have now done is nothing new. In the 2003 World Cup, England refused to play in Zimbabwe and New Zealand did not travel to Kenya; Australia and West Indies did not fulfil fixtures in Sri Lanka in 1996. In the main, withdrawals were because of security concerns and teams forfeited points as a result. The difference now is that politics has taken centre stage and the game and the players are being used for political ends.

To understand the back-drop to the present crisis, you have to go back to the Champions Trophy in early 2025, when India were given dispensation not to fulfil their fixtures in Pakistan, who were the hosts. India refused to go on government advice and were allowed to play all their fixtures in Dubai, which gave them an obvious advantage, as well as setting a precedent which has been referred to frequently in recent weeks.

The cricketing impasse between India and Pakistan is long-standing. The two countries have not competed in a bilateral series since 2012-13. It is only in global events, when the draw is neatly manipulated so they always play against each other, where they meet on the field. In January, though, Bangladesh added another layer to this complex and fractious situation by also refusing to travel to India for the T20 World Cup, also on government advice.

This move, at the behest of politicians and administrators rather than cricketers, was in response to an instruction from the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to Kolkata Knight Riders in early January to tear up the contract of Mustafizur Rahman, one of the franchise’s overseas players and the only Bangladeshi cricketer with a contract to play in the Indian Premier League in 2026.

This came amid worsening relations between the two countries, after the former Bangladesh Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina, fled to India for safety after being ousted from office. The rise of anti-Indian sentiment in Bangladesh as a result, and violence against the Hindu minority there, prompted sharply worded statements from a variety of politicians from India’s ruling party after KKR’s purchase of Mustafizur in the IPL’s December auction.

The BCCI moved swiftly and Mustafizur’s substantial contract was duly cancelled. This prompted a knee-jerk response from Bangladesh — “the days of slavery are over,” fumed one Bangladeshi politician — which, effectively, reasoned that if the safety of one player could not be guaranteed, then nor could that of the team. It may be neatly summarised thus: if you play politics, don’t be surprised when the other side does as well.

Once the ICC determined, after independent assessments, that there was no threat to Bangladesh’s security, it was only going to end one way. Bangladesh were eventually replaced by Scotland after a near-unanimous vote at the ICC, wary no doubt of setting a precedent — even though one had already been set the year before — and hamstrung by how close to the tournament this move came.

Predictably, it was at this point that Pakistan used the dispute to stir the pot. Five months before, during the Asia Cup, India’s players refused to shake hands with Pakistan’s and refused to accept the Trophy, which was due to be presented by the chairman of the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB). India’s prime minister, Narendra Modi, likened India’s victory in the Asia Cup to Operation Sindoor, the military response to the terrorist attacks in Kashmir in April last year, a further indication of how politicised the game had become.

Bangladesh’s predicament, then, presented an opportunity for some point-scoring in return. Pakistan, led by Mohsin Naqvi, chairman of the PCB and also a government minister, publicly supported Bangladesh’s position not to travel to India and indicated that their own presence in the World Cup was in the balance. Just as nobody really thought that Bangladesh would pull out of the tournament, nobody really thought that Pakistan would forfeit the fixture against India. That much has now come to pass.

There are immediate consequences for this World Cup, if things do not change. Pakistan will forfeit points. One assumes that if they were to meet India in the knock-out stages they would also refuse to play (but who knows?). The financial consequences for the broadcasters, and, therefore, in turn, for the game will be substantial in the immediate term as the India v Pakistan game is the most lucrative of any in world cricket.

More significantly, that fixture is the foundation of the massive $3billion (£2.2billion) ICC rights deal struck by JioStar, the host broadcaster, which includes an India v Pakistan fixture in every event — the biennial T20 World Cup, the quadrennial 50-over World Cup and Champions Trophy. JioStar will likely use the leverage of all this uncertainty to push down prices in the future, which will hit the less financially secure countries (basically all but India, England and Australia) including Pakistan.

It is unclear, yet, what the ICC’s response will be, though their immediate written statement urged Pakistan to reconsider. The absence of a reason given by Pakistan will likely bring stronger sanction than a mere points forfeiture. Nobody imagines the ICC to be a disinterested party here, either, given that it is led by Jay Shah, the former secretary of the BCCI and the son of Amit Shah, India’s minister of home affairs. It is unlikely the Pakistan government will want the loss of face that would come with reconsidering their position and if Pakistan are hit with punitive measures it will be an act of self-harm.

The breakdown of relations among a significant proportion of the full-member countries will have more profound and long-lasting ramifications, though, given how much more central (and lucrative) ICC events have become to the landscape. One of the less remarked upon ironies of the recent spat between India and Bangladesh, for example, is the identity of the co-hosts of the 50-over World Cup in 2031. You guessed it: India and Bangladesh.

It’s a long way off and who knows what political machinations will be in play then, but it is unlikely that there will be a similar spirit of co-operation to that which drove the subcontinent’s first two World Cup bids in 1987 and 1996, when India and Pakistan worked together for the first of them, and along with Sri Lanka for the second. It is unimaginable to think of India and Pakistan combining in such a way now — and on even terms as they did then.

Four decades ago, it was very much a case of the Asian bloc fighting its corner together against the rest. Jagmohan Dalmiya, the main driving force of that early joint bid, recalled an ICC dominated at that time by England, Australia and New Zealand, with South Africa still in exile. “It was more a colony or more a small kind of club and we felt it was necessary to change all that,” he said. And how, to the extent where the ICC is now dominated by India’s voice above all.

The fault lines are so much more complex and dangerous now. India will not travel to Pakistan; Pakistan will not travel to India; Bangladesh will now not travel to India, either. Players from Pakistan and Bangladesh are not welcome in the Indian Premier League. It makes organising ICC events a logistical nightmare and threatens the most obvious bulwark against the advance of the franchise leagues, given each global event has become something of a referendum on the basic premise that international cricket is the peak of the game and worth preserving and fighting for.

A number of other factors, not just the political point-scoring, threaten to reduce their attractiveness as well. One is their sheer frequency. This will now be the fourth T20 World Cup since 2021. Add to that a 50-over World Cup in 2023 and another to come next year — and a Champions Trophy in 2025 — and the description “World Cup” starts to lose some of its meaning. What other sport has five World Cups in as many years? One senses a weariness with this overkill in England, although this may not be the case in the subcontinent given the enthusiasm for the game there.

So here we are, T20 World Cup 2026 almost upon us, the tenth iteration since 2007 and touted to be the most global of all ICC tournaments, with 20 teams competing from all around the world, including Italy for the first time — yet without Bangladesh for reasons beyond the control of their cricketers and now without the tournament’s most commercially attractive fixture. The international game continues to fracture and weaken, as franchise cricket advances and strengthens.

Click here to read article