Champions Trophy Dispute: A Hollow Decision

Let’s start by giving cricket a well-deserved nod for finally wrapping up what once seemed like an endless saga. Initially, it appeared to be a matter that might quietly fade away due to widespread indifference. Yet here we are, with every stakeholder claiming a piece of victory. The PCB can boast about securing what they consider a fair and equitable agreement, reinforcing their sense of being treated as equals among cricket’s powerhouses. Meanwhile, the BCCI got exactly what they wanted all along—avoiding a tour to Pakistan. The ICC gets to host a tournament, ensuring steady revenue streams for all participating members. Fans, too, might dream of a future triangular or quadrangular series featuring India and Pakistan.

A Saga of Wins or a Loss for Cricket?

But here’s the catch: if you believe this outcome represents a win for cricket, you may not truly have the sport’s best interests at heart—regardless of what anyone claims.

Take the ICC’s response as an example. Their official statement about this resolution consists of merely six paragraphs—or, less generously, six sentences. Two of these outline the decision, while the rest are filler about forthcoming schedules and participating teams. That’s all. No justification, no deeper context as to why this hybrid hosting model is even necessary. Why is Pakistan, awarded the tournament three years ago, now only partially hosting it? Why does this arrangement stretch to 2027?

Adding to the absurdity, this was the ICC’s only statement since November 9, when the BCCI informed them of India’s refusal to travel to Pakistan. Not a single comment was made during months of uncertainty surrounding one of their marquee events. An event hijacked by the sport’s two largest boards, whose rivalry is also the ICC’s greatest asset. At this point, even Stockholm Syndrome seems mild compared to the ICC’s passive acceptance.

The ICC: Leadership in Name Only

Once, the ICC was mockingly called an event management company after Malcolm Speed’s ousting as CEO. If that label was harsh then, what can be said now, given its mishandling of both the 2023 World Cup and the fallout from the T20 World Cup? Has it devolved into an event management entity that can’t even manage events effectively?

If you suspect this chaos stems from a vacuum of leadership, you wouldn’t be entirely wrong. But the situation becomes clearer through Greg Barclay’s recent interview. The outgoing ICC chair sounded more like a casual observer than a leader. His tone implied that cricket has lost its way and could use a helping hand. However, there was no urgency or responsibility in his words. It felt like a shrug, as if he was helpless.

And so, under this detached leadership, cricket hasn’t grown; it’s unravelled. Pulled in every direction, the sport risks losing its essence. Yet the ICC seems content to sit back, nodding in agreement, as if saying, “Yes, it’s challenging. Too bad nobody’s addressing it.”

Adding a touch of irony, the ICC finds itself caught in the middle of the PCB-BCCI conflict—a feud less about cricket and more about their respective governments scoring political points. Mohsin Naqvi has repeatedly claimed that politics should stay out of sports. But coming from someone who serves as both the PCB chair and Pakistan’s influential interior minister, this stance feels more like joking than sincerity.

Politics and Power: Cricket’s Greatest Rivalry

Meanwhile, in India, the ties between cricket and politics are inseparable. The BCCI’s secretary had direct access to the home minister, yet the government conveniently avoided public statements, leaving the BCCI to issue vague claims of security concerns in Pakistan. Oddly enough, these concerns were never raised at ICC meetings, nor by the eight Full Members who’ve toured Pakistan since 2019.

The farce continued with Jay Shah’s sudden transition from representing the BCCI’s interests to advocating for the ICC as its chair. Overnight, he was expected to prioritise global cricket’s welfare—a jarring shift, considering how deeply entrenched he was in the BCCI’s agenda. This paradox perfectly encapsulates the ICC: a body where members actively undermine the collective good while lamenting the very actions they enable.

In the end, it seems everyone walked away with a win. But if this is what victory looks like in cricket, perhaps it’s better not to imagine what defeat would entail.