The turmoil surrounding Bangladesh’s exclusion from the upcoming ICC T20 World Cup is more than an administrative dispute; it is a revealing snapshot of how power is exercised — and abused — in international cricket. At its center sits the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), an institution whose financial muscle has too often translated into unchecked political influence, distorting the game’s governance and eroding the idea of a level playing field.
Pakistan’s decision to publicly support Bangladesh, as articulated by Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi in his briefing to Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, should be understood in this broader context. It is not merely an act of regional solidarity, nor a reflexive response to yet another India-related controversy. Rather, it reflects the reality that Pakistan, through repeated experience, has found itself with little choice but to oppose a system in which the BCCI routinely gets its way — whether on scheduling, venues, or the interpretation of “security concerns.”
The immediate issue is Bangladesh’s refusal to tour India amid strained political relations, followed by the ICC’s refusal to accommodate a venue shift despite allowing such flexibility in other circumstances. The replacement of Bangladesh with Scotland may be procedurally defensible, but it is politically telling. Decisions framed as logistical inevitabilities rarely feel so inevitable when Indian interests are at stake. When smaller or less powerful boards raise concerns, however, the door tends to close quickly.
This imbalance has long plagued global cricket. The BCCI’s dominance of broadcasting revenues and sponsorship deals has effectively made it the ICC’s principal shareholder in all but name. With that dominance comes leverage — and with leverage, the temptation to conflate national interest with the good of the game. The result is an international structure where rules appear elastic for some and rigid for others.
Pakistan’s stance, then, is not rooted in altruism alone. It is born of hard lessons. Over the years, Pakistan has seen tours cancelled, neutral venues imposed, and bilateral cricket with India held hostage to politics — all while being reminded, implicitly and explicitly, of where power truly lies. Supporting Bangladesh is also an assertion of principle: that cricket cannot survive as a credible global sport if participation is dictated by one board’s preferences.
There is also a strategic realism at play. India may posture as indifferent, but the commercial truth is undeniable: India–Pakistan matches remain cricket’s most lucrative property. They draw unparalleled global audiences and underpin the financial success of ICC tournaments. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous. If the BCCI wishes to enjoy the benefits of a global marketplace, it must also accept the responsibilities that come with it — including compromise and fairness.
Cricket does not need further fragmentation. The warning from the World Cricketers’ Association should be taken seriously. If the sport continues down a path where power eclipses principle, it risks alienating players, fans and nations alike. Pakistan’s support of Bangladesh is a reminder that, at some point, making a stand is not only worth it — it is necessary.
