Scheduling of major cricket events is a battle that will not go away

If ever the spectrum of stakes faced by men’s international cricket teams needed to be viewed at its extremes, current events provide a vivid illustration. At one end is the imbroglio around who is prepared to play whom and where in the Champions Trophy in 2025. At the other end are the qualifying tournaments to decide who will play in the 2026 T20 and 2027 One Day World Cups.

Ever since the International Cricket Council announced in November 2021 that Pakistan would host the 2025 Champions Trophy, trouble has been brewing. The country has not hosted a global tournament since the 1996 World Cup, which it shared with India and Sri Lanka. Terrorist attacks on the Taj Hotel in Mumbai in November 2008, and directly on the Sri Lankan team’s bus in Lahore in March 2009, ensured it would be a long time before international cricket returned to Pakistan.

In preparation, the Pakistan Cricket Board and government have embarked upon a major rebuilding program of its main stadiums. Whether these will be used for the Champions Trophy remains in the balance. It never seemed likely that the Indian government would authorize its cricket team to play in Pakistan, even though Lahore was identified as the most suitable venue given its proximity to the border. The possibility was quashed in unceremonious fashion last week.

After requests from the PCB for clarification about India’s intentions, a letter was sent by the Board of Control for Cricket in India to the ICC, which formally forwarded it to the PCB. The letter confirmed what most people had long anticipated: India will not travel to Pakistan for the Champions Trophy. In turn, the PCB sought advice from its government. Immediately, it dug its heels in, rejecting a compromise situation that has been used before — a hybrid model. This would see India playing its matches in a neutral location, possibly the UAE.

Previous compromise situations differ from this one. Pakistan is the nominated host. Since 2021, there have been at least 10 ICC board meetings. There is no report which indicates that concerns were raised about security issues and Pakistan is investing heavily in the event. Although it is understood the tournament budget has a provision for partial relocation of matches, Pakistan stands to lose significant, much-needed income from hosting, rumored to be $65 million.

India’s reasoning for not authorizing travel to Pakistan is on security grounds, which has riled the PCB. Security visits undertaken by ICC representatives have been positive. It is understood the PCB has a “master security plan,” shared with the BCCI on Oct. 10 and which does not appear to have faced any objections at the ICC’s October board meeting. The PCB is keen to show that Pakistan’s insecure reputation is in the past. It points to the fact that England, Australia and New Zealand have all toured there recently without incident.

Relations with India are of course different, based on deep-seated acrimony and tensions. These factors have been encapsulated in confusion over exactly where in Pakistan the actual trophy will be displayed on its tour of participating countries. The PCB had announced visits to cities in what India refers to as Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. The ICC was very quick to reject this itinerary and announced an amended one.

Currently, the ICC is in a state of management change. On Dec. 1 it will have a new chair, Jay Shah, who has been secretary of the BCCI since 2019. It is understood he raised strong objections with the ICC on the PCB’s plans to take the trophy tour to Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. There do not seem to have been any comments from the outgoing ICC chair and, in this hiatus, the ICC is receiving blame for not being sufficiently pro-active.

It is between a rock and a hard place. India now has so much power in global cricket that, without its participation in major ICC events, commercial success would be significantly diminished. India can refuse to play in Pakistan, but if Pakistan refused to play in an ICC tournament it could be hit with ICC sanctions. No wonder Pakistan feels hard done by. Furthermore, the original release date of the tournament schedule has been delayed, hindering PCB’s organizational planning.

Shah’s position is an anomalous one. It feels as if he is writing letters to himself — as BCCI secretary to his future self as ICC chair, and another as incoming ICC chair to the PCB warning it not to upset his previous employers. So much for the ICC role being designated as independent.

No doubt he would have wanted the Champions Trophy issues to have been resolved before Dec. 1. The options seem to be that: a) Pakistan relents and agrees to the hybrid model; b) the event is moved out of Pakistan, with compensation for them, but huge loss of face; c) the tournament is postponed. In the latter case, there is the significant issue of media contracts not being fulfilled.

The Champions Trophy seems to be a tournament which generates more problems than positives. It is not so much the case with world cups.

These are tournaments in which ICC members aspire to play. Qualifying pathways, though complex, are delineated. Last week, six teams battled in Group B of the Challenger Cup in Uganda as part of the route to the 2027 ODI World Cup. They have two more round robin events to complete before the top two teams emerge. Currently, Uganda and Italy top the pile.

This week, seven teams compete in Qatar for the right to progress towards the 2026 ICC Men’s T20 World Cup. One is Saudi Arabia, which is pitted against Qatar, Bahrain, Bhutan, Cambodia, Thailand and the UAE. The top two will progress to a regional final in August 2025. The gulf between the dreams of these teams and the geopolitics of the India-Pakistan stand-off is stark. India’s brinkmanship and Pakistan’s intransigence have combined to stretch the stakes to breaking point.