EDITORIAL: The ICC’s decision to reject Bangladesh’s request to move its T20 World Cup matches out of India has exposed, yet again, how international cricket is governed in practice. Faced with legitimate political and security concerns, Bangladesh was told that a schedule change was “not feasible”.
When Dhaka declined to play under those conditions, it was quietly replaced. The episode has little to do with logistics and everything to do with power, and it explains why Pakistan’s response now matters far beyond a single tournament.
India’s dominance of world cricket is structural. The BCCI’s financial clout underpins a large share of the ICC’s revenues, and that leverage has steadily translated into influence over decisions that should, in theory, be collective and rules-based.
Over time, this imbalance has normalised a hierarchy in which Indian preferences are treated as immovable facts, while the concerns of other boards are treated as negotiable or expendable. Bangladesh’s exit is only the latest illustration of this reality.
Pakistan’s decision to back Bangladesh is therefore both necessary and principled. Silence would have signaled acceptance of a system that can marginalise one body today and another tomorrow.
Islamabad’s position reinforces a broader point Pakistan has made consistently: cricket governance cannot pretend to be apolitical when political considerations already shape venues, travel and participation. Standing with Bangladesh is not an emotional gesture. It is an assertion that smaller and mid-sized boards cannot be treated as collateral damage in a commercially skewed system.
READ MORE: Bangladesh meet with ICC to request relocation of T20 World Cup matches
That said, principle without strategy can be costly. Calls for Pakistan to boycott the entire T20 World Cup risk weakening the very leverage Islamabad has carefully built in recent years.
Pakistan’s most significant recent gain at the ICC came through persistence rather than provocation: securing neutral venues for future India-Pakistan matches after India’s refusal to travel to Pakistan. That outcome demonstrated that sustained, rational engagement can still produce results, even in an uneven system. A full withdrawal from the tournament would dilute that position and risk isolating Pakistan from other boards that may share its concerns but are unwilling to escalate openly.
A narrower, more targeted response is therefore the wiser course. Boycotting the group-stage match against India, while remaining in the tournament, would draw a clear line without inflicting unnecessary damage on Pakistan’s broader interests.
It would register protest where it belongs, against the power imbalance embodied by India’s role, while avoiding the self-inflicted harm of abandoning a global event altogether. Such a step would also keep international attention focused on the governance issue rather than allowing the debate to be reframed as Pakistan disengaging from world cricket.
India’s behaviour over recent years has already raised questions internationally. Refusals to play bilateral series, symbolic gestures on the field, and the steady politicisation of cricketing moments have eroded claims of sporting neutrality.
Pakistan’s measured responses to these episodes have often worked in its favour, slowly shifting perception. Preserving that credibility matters. A calibrated boycott strengthens Pakistan’s moral position; a blanket withdrawal would muddy it.
More importantly, Islamabad should use this episode to quietly build consensus among other boards that are increasingly uneasy with a system where financial weight substitutes for fair process. Institutional reform will not come from dramatic exits, but from collective pressure that makes continued imbalance harder to defend.
Cricket’s legitimacy depends on more than television rights and revenue streams. It rests on the belief that rules apply evenly and that no single board can bend the system at will.
India may be the financial centre of gravity, but that does not entitle it to set the terms unilaterally. Pakistan’s task is to challenge that reality without surrendering its own position.
Supporting Bangladesh, staying in the tournament, and refusing to play India under the present circumstances achieves that balance. It asserts principle without self-sabotage and signals that power may dominate world cricket, but it will not go unchallenged.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2026