I refused to watch this particular final of the Champions Trophy held in Dubai. It was a boycott that umpteen other friends in many places around the country also adopted. Nor did I jump up and down as Sunil Gavaskar did after seeing India snatch victory. I asked myself how he could behave like a little boy after having his team possibly read all the criticism about the venue and schedule of the tournament. A big name like him, who tends to be critical about all things, lost himself.
Out of all the teams that participated, India’s support came from just one country – Nepal. There is palpable resentment about the way the BCCI bulldozed the ICC into toeing their line. Gavaskar had proudly proclaimed that India foots 90% of the ICC budget. So what? Will that, one day, give us the right to qualify for the finals without going through the competitive rounds? Will we take our pitch with us, the balls, and the umpires too – including the Third Umpire?
Clearly, this was a farcical schedule. Of all the teams in this Champions Trophy, New Zealand had to cope with the toughest travel schedule. They began their tournament in Karachi, went to Rawalpindi next, arrived in Dubai to play India in their final group game, played a semi-final in Lahore, and travelled back to Dubai for the final. The lack of logic defeats any sane-thinking cricket fan. Cricket is a sport. The most important thing – and we were taught this in school – is participating, not winning. The BCCI must have missed out on school.
The influence of money in cricket is a longstanding issue, and India’s economic clout has undoubtedly given it significant leverage in the cricket world. India’s economic power emanates from the fact that it has the largest cricket market. India has marketing dominance in terms of viewership, sponsorship, and revenue generation.
One could argue that major cricket shows (“Broadcast Shows” are what cricket has turned out to be) with the Indian Premier League (IPL) being one of the most lucrative T20 leagues worldwide. India’s broadcasting rights are highly sought after. Corporates are significant sponsors of international cricket events, giving India considerable influence based on their sponsorship and advertising.
Just look at the asymmetry in international cricket administration. The ICC’s revenue model is based on a sharing formula, where a significant portion of revenue goes to the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI). India has hosted several high-profile ICC events, generating significant revenue for the ICC.
The ICC has now degenerated into a non-democratic set-up, paying obeisance to the BCCI rather than being an autonomous body. The BCCI has significant voting power within the ICC, allowing it to influence decision-making. The ICC’s reliance on Indian revenue and the BCCI’s significant voting power raises concerns about the ICC’s independence. Critics argue that the ICC shows nepotism towards India, citing examples such as the 2025 Champions Trophy scheduling controversy. Players of eminence have openly spoken about this.
A former South African player spoke words to this effect: “Regardless of what happens, India will win all the finals.” They will settle comfortably in the same city, same hotel, play on the same pitches, and have no strenuous travel. The ICC’s decision-making processes and revenue distribution models have been criticised for lacking transparency and being one-sided. Indeed, New Zealand had to overcome an awkward travel schedule.
All said and done, India and their opponents did not play on a level playing field. To cover up the inevitable result, Ravichandran Ashwin, normally known to be fair-minded and someone who shoots from the hip, came up with a lame excuse. He dismissed the claims of an unfair advantage, stating: “Tournaments are won based on performances, not excuses.” Oh really, Ashwin? And we, the public, many of whom have played cricket in one form or another, or watched it intensely as we grew older, are supposed to swallow that huge pill of yours? Bluffing is not a good post-retirement occupation!
In the midst of this raging debate and resentment for India’s cricket ‘colonialism’, the ICC maintains that it operates independently. Yet, the influence of Indian money and the BCCI’s significant voting power undoubtedly raises concerns about the ICC’s impartiality.
The Champions Trophy was scheduled for Pakistan this time around. It was relocated by the ICC, citing security and ‘neutral venue’ concerns. That argument does not hold water for those who understand the world. Every country knows that it was India’s influence that forced the ICC’s hand in this decision. Instead, Pakistan, which has a huge fan base, had to suffer revenue losses for the Pakistan Cricket Board.
India is now correctly viewed as the ‘tantrum boy’ of the ICC, who threatens to take their toys and go away if they don’t get their way. Citing security factors is absurd. It is simply not accurate to make a blanket statement that India is unsafe in Pakistan. Many areas in Pakistan are considered safe for tourists and visitors, such as Lahore, Karachi, and Islamabad. Is India safe for even its own citizens? Look at our crime and terror rates. In 2024, India’s crime rate stood at 445.9 per 100,000 people.
I can’t think of a better way to put it than Ian Pont, a renowned fast bowling coach: “To maintain the integrity of the ICC and any future tournaments, we cannot have any one single team completely dictating the logistics of the competition as has happened in the Champions Trophy. We either play the game with fair rules for all – or we don’t bother at all.”
India stands discredited. Jay Shah must unpack his power mongering.
