Once again, we find ourselves revisiting a recurring saga, one that has played out before and will likely surface again.
A Familiar Stalemate in Cricket’s Calendar
With less than 100 days to the 2025 Champions Trophy in Pakistan, the ICC has yet to announce the tournament dates or finalize its schedule. The delay stems from India’s firm stance, as the BCCI has informed the ICC that their team will not travel to Pakistan—a decision attributed to directives from the Indian government.
This isn’t an unfamiliar story. A similar situation unfolded in 2023 during the Asia Cup and ODI World Cup. Initially, the PCB stood firm on hosting the Asia Cup solely in Pakistan, but the BCCI, citing government restrictions, refused to cross the border. The compromise saw Pakistan hosting some matches, while India played all their games, including the final, in Sri Lanka. For the ODI World Cup, the PCB proposed a hybrid model to the ICC, but in the end, Pakistan reluctantly travelled to India under significant reservations voiced by their government.
Unanswered Questions and Missed Opportunities
Fast-forward a year, and the same standoff is in play. The BCCI has staked its position with an air of certainty, while the PCB remains resolute. Meanwhile, the ICC—the supposed mediator—remains silent, leaving questions unanswered. What’s gained by this power struggle? More importantly, who is responsible for this recurring deadlock? The answer lies with the ICC board, which has once again evaded accountability.
In November 2021, the ICC board allocated hosting rights for major tournaments from 2024 to 2031. Pakistan was awarded the 2025 Champions Trophy, a decision made by a working group that included key figures like Sourav Ganguly, then BCCI president, and Ehsan Mani, the former PCB chair. This decision was endorsed collectively by the ICC board, which includes representatives from Full Members, Associates, and an independent director. If anyone foresaw potential challenges with granting Pakistan hosting rights, they either stayed silent or chose to ignore the risks.
Given the strained political relationship between India and Pakistan since the 2008 Mumbai attacks, it wouldn’t have taken a clairvoyant to predict trouble. Some involved in the decision-making process believed Pakistan's participation in the 2023 World Cup would pave the way for India to reciprocate in 2025. While Pakistan fulfilled their part by travelling to India, the expectation of mutual cooperation was, in hindsight, overly optimistic.
In a professional setup, assumptions and good faith are no substitutes for concrete accountability. Why didn’t the ICC attach specific conditions when awarding the tournament to Pakistan, such as a clear timeline requiring the BCCI to confirm India’s participation well in advance? Instead, the BCCI informed the ICC of its decision to abstain just over three months before the tournament’s scheduled start—an unacceptably short notice.
The ICC’s Leadership Challenge
The ICC also failed to plan for an outcome that was always a possibility. Without India, no ICC tournament can sustain its commercial viability, as demonstrated during the last broadcast rights deal. Why wasn’t a hybrid model considered as a contingency from the outset? Perhaps the ICC assumed the PCB would eventually concede to such terms again. But the PCB’s growing leverage, stemming from its team’s critical role in high-profile matches, complicates this assumption. Accepting hosting rights tied to a hybrid model might have been unpalatable for Pakistan, but it would have been a pragmatic solution considering the political climate.
Instead of addressing the problem head-on, the ICC leadership appears to have kicked the can down the road, hoping for a resolution to emerge on its own. But in an increasingly polarised world, strong and decisive leadership is essential to maintain balance. While the ICC board has demonstrated such leadership in the past, it now faces the challenge of finding bold, forward-thinking solutions.
For cricket to thrive amid these divides, the ICC must rise to the occasion, ensuring that its decisions prioritise clarity, equity, and accountability.