Over the past two weeks this column has observed the storm clouds gathering menacingly above the 2025 ICC Champions Trophy. Mostly, they gave dim hope of clearance. Suddenly, on Dec. 6, they rolled back and light seemed to shine through.
Avoidance of the head-on collision between India’s unblinking refusal to play in Pakistan and the latter’s refusal to accept a hybrid model seemed possible, allowing preparations to proceed.
India’s inalienable position, based on security fears, provided it with the balance of negotiating power, quite apart from its commercial strength. Pakistan backed itself into a corner by failing to accept the hybrid model. Under that proposal, India will play its matches on neutral territory, possibly the UAE.
Pakistan’s logic for denial was expressed by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif who, in discussion with chair of the Pakistan Cricket Broad and Minister of Interior Mohsin Naqvi, said: “Pakistan’s honor comes first, and everything else follows.”
The only way out of this deadlock, other than the nuclear options of postponement, cancellation or total change of location, was a shift in stance. The first was the PCB’s suggestion that its players would not be safe in India. This was rebuffed by India, as Pakistan played there in 2023. Secondly, the PCB proposed an extended hybrid model by which Pakistan would not travel to India to play in two future ICC tournaments hosted there — the Women’s 2025 ODI World Cup and 2026 Men’s T20 World Cup, to be co-hosted with Sri Lanka. In these tournaments, the PCB seeks to be treated on the basis of equality and respect.
This translates into repudiation of “one-sided arrangements,” whereby Pakistan traveled to play in ICC events in India, such as the 2023 ODI World Cup, but India did not reciprocate by playing in Pakistan. It is a bold call, seeking to challenge India’s pre-eminent position in cricket’s power politics.
Some may argue that it is overdue. It is unlikely the PCB has forgotten the humiliation which it suffered in the Narendra Modi Stadium in Ahmedabad in the 2023 ODI World Cup group match. The 132,000-capacity arena was populated entirely by blue shirted, partisan Indians.
It seems a little bit of respect might resolve the issue but it is slow to emerge. In an attempt to have the extended hybrid model codified, the PCB is understood to have requested a written assurance from the ICC that it would be implemented for events to be hosted by India up to 2027. The request has caused ridicule on Indian social media and an impasse in relations between parties.
There have been abundant behind the scenes meetings, cancelled meetings, negotiations and discussions between ICC and country board members. The crisis is a drama featuring a new chair and a new order at the ICC, entwinement of board chairs and politicians, deep, long-lasting nationalist pride and sentiment, power and influence and, not least, money, driven by broadcasting contracts.
Somewhere in all of this lies the game. Cricket gives the appearance of having been hijacked by national, commercial and self-interests. The ICC’s outgoing chair does little to dispel that judgement.
Greg Barclay was in post for four years. During his tenure, the international game has become impossibly congested, a “mess” in his words. Even he admitted being unable to keep abreast of all the matches and tournaments taking place simultaneously.
The feeling is shared. This is the price of growth, so coveted by the game. It is not going away because there is nothing to stop it, other than the removal of funding.
Earlier in the year, Barclay described the ICC as not fit for purpose, a remarkably forthright indictment of the impotency of the organization he led. The view seems to be based on concerns over an outdated financial model which may fail to generate sufficient funds to sustain growth.
Furthermore, internal change is hampered by an imbalanced structure which comprises 12 full members and 96 associates, each with an agenda, three more dominant than the others and possessing superior voting rights. The ICC is unlikely to dissolve itself, so the future lies along the same structure but now with a highly connected Indian in charge.
In this context, Pakistan’s lone wolf approach must be judged. Naqvi has said: “We will do whatever’s best for cricket” and “We need to settle this once and for all.” What may be best for cricket can be interpreted in several ways. Attempting to curb India’s power may be one. A lack of desire to rock the boat too energetically in return for some respect may be another. Recognition that the only real solution is a hybrid model tempered by commensurate compensation for Pakistan is most plausible.
Meanwhile, the tournament’s schedule is still to be released. The parting of clouds was temporary and the ICC was unable to capitalize on the opportunity. In that vacuum, mischief appeared on Dec. 9 in a promotional feature released by the tournament broadcaster, Star Sports, which failed to mention Pakistan as the host nation. Unsurprisingly, social media tensions were inflamed to boiling point.
Despite Pakistan’s push back, the power balance remains firmly with India. The national and diplomatic tensions between the two spill over into relations between the respective cricket boards. Having been granted hosting rights, Pakistan has its pride and aspiration to protect, as well as infrastructure investment. In attempting to exercise its rarely given hosting rights, it has challenged the status quo, a risky venture.
A believer in conspiracy theory might suggest that India laid a trap by delaying, or being allowed to delay, its decision not to travel to Pakistan until the last minute. Pakistan does seem trapped, assailed by Indian media. It stands to lose heavily if it does not participate in the tournament. Last week, common sense might have saved the situation. This week, respect is required to avoid Pakistan being shrugged off.
The mess to which Barclay referred is not limited to the international schedule. It clearly applies to the Champions Trophy.
