INDIA’S dominance over world cricket has been evident for nearly two decades, underpinned by its vast population and the commercial power of its domestic market.
The launch of the Indian Premier League in 2008 only entrenched that advantage, enabling the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to amass unprecedented financial influence.
That influence has seldom been questioned, even when it appeared to undermine competitive balance. The elephant in the room — that international cricket increasingly operates on terms set by India — is no longer being ignored.
The controversy surrounding Pakistan’s decision to boycott its T20 World Cup group match against India has drawn rare public backing from senior voices in cricket commentary, who have questioned the International Cricket Council’s consistency and the growing influence of commercial and political considerations on the game.
HUSSAIN, ATHERTON FLAG INCONSISTENCY
Former England captain Nasser Hussain, speaking on the Sky Cricket Podcast alongside Michael Atherton, said Pakistan and Bangladesh were justified in pushing back against what he described as selective enforcement of ICC rules.
“At some stage someone has got to say enough is enough — can we just get back to playing cricket?” Hussain said, arguing that the central issue was consistency rather than politics. He questioned whether the ICC would have adopted a similarly rigid stance had India been unable to travel due to government directives.
Hussain praised Bangladesh for defending its position after being dropped from the tournament when the ICC declined to relocate its matches from India to Sri Lanka, and described Pakistan’s boycott of the India fixture as a necessary stand against a system increasingly shaped by financial and political power.
Atherton echoed those concerns, pointing to previous instances in which India was allowed to play at neutral venues after refusing to tour Pakistan. Denying Bangladesh similar flexibility, he warned, risked undermining the credibility of international cricket’s governance.
“If allowances have been made before, you can’t suddenly decide not to make them now,” Atherton said.
Former England batter Mark Butcher went further, calling Pakistan’s selective boycott a “masterstroke” that exposed the tournament’s financial fragility. By targeting only the India match — the most commercially valuable fixture in world cricket — Butcher said Pakistan had highlighted the extent to which broadcasters, the ICC and co-host India depended on a single contest.
“The whole thing rests on that game,” he said.
SHEHBAZ DEFENDS DECISION
It was against this backdrop that Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif publicly defended the decision, saying Pakistan would not play the match against India while continuing to participate in the rest of the tournament.
Addressing a federal cabinet meeting on Wednesday, he said Pakistan stood with Bangladesh and that while sport should remain free of politics, principles of fairness could not be ignored.
In Bangladesh, the move was welcomed. Bangladesh Cricket Board president Nazmul Hassan thanked Pakistan for its support, calling it a principled stand against preferential treatment and double standards.
Former Pakistan captain Shahid Afridi also weighed in, urging the ICC to ensure equal treatment of all member boards and arguing that cricket should serve as a bridge when politics divides nations.
Not all former players, however, supported the boycott. Former Australia fast bowler Brett Lee said he hoped the match would still go ahead, calling for politics to be kept out of the game.
“Let’s get the politics out of it,” Lee said on the Mr Cricket UAE podcast. “I really hope the match happens. The whole world watches when India and Pakistan play one another.”
Pakistan’s decision, however, does not come without risk. The ICC has warned of potential long-term consequences for Pakistan cricket, including sanctions, withheld revenue distributions and compensation claims from broadcasters. Some observers question whether the gesture, however principled, adequately accounts for the financial asymmetries that already favour India.
