It is cricket’s and perhaps world sport’s most valuable international fixture. And yet, on February 15, when India are due to meet Pakistan in the Twenty20 World Cup, the game will not take place at all. Instead, Pakistan have forfeited the match; the marquee fixture of the first round will be a blank, leaving broadcasters to fill a four-hour vacuum instead.
The fiasco is a microcosm of a broader crisis facing international cricket in 2026. Like all sports, cricket has always reflected geopolitical headwinds. But increasingly, these headwinds are stopping the action from taking place at all.
Advertisement
Indeed, at least Pakistan are still competing in this year’s T20 World Cup. That is more than can be said for Bangladesh, who withdrew from the tournament altogether, leading to Scotland being summoned in their place. Following a collapse in political relations between Bangladesh and India, Bangladesh pulled out of the World Cup when the International Cricket Council (ICC) refused to permit their fixtures to be moved to Sri Lanka.
All Pakistan’s matches – including the final, should they advance that far – are already guaranteed to be staged in Sri Lanka. The arrangement follows the precedent of all of India’s Champions Trophy matches last year taking place in the UAE, rather than Pakistan, the official hosts. Such is the chaos that has become normalised in international cricket.
For all their failings, the ICC’s saving grace, it was long said, was their ability to organise a fine event. But as a second consecutive men’s tournament begins in a state of farce, the judgment urgently needs revising. When an ICC statement last week declared, “ICC tournaments are built on sporting integrity, competitiveness, consistency and fairness, and selective participation undermines the spirit and sanctity of the competitions”, the words had an Orwellian feel.
Jay Shah, the chairman of the ICC, has been encouraged to redistribute money to poorer Test-playing nations – Noah Seelam/Getty Images
From the bread and circuses of ancient Rome, politics has always intruded on sport. Rarely has this relationship been as unavoidable as today. Consider how the last Football World Cup was in Qatar, the next will be jointly held in the USA – where Donald Trump was recently awarded FIFA’s inaugural “Peace Prize” – and the 2034 competition will be in Saudi Arabia. Yet even football has never had to contend with what now faces international cricket.
Advertisement
ICC dependent on broadcast deals
Rigmarole over whether fixtures will have to be moved, or whether they will be fulfilled at all, has become routine. Now, the sport’s most lucrative match of all will not happen during the T20 World Cup, barring a late u-turn from Pakistan.
The consequences for world cricket can hardly be overstated. The India-Pakistan fixture is so valuable that – in a situation unique in international sport, and antithetical to the values of “sporting integrity” that the ICC now espouse – the draw for competitions is fixed to ensure that the two foes always meet.
India defeated Pakistan, the hosts of the tournament, in Dubai in the Champions Trophy last February – Getty Images/Alex Davidson
This T20 World Cup is the 12th consecutive men’s global event in which India and Pakistan have been paired together. While other sports have transparent draws for global events, which can be followed live, groups for cricket tournaments are more like a negotiation: start with India and Pakistan in the same pool, and then work the rest out.
Advertisement
The guarantee that India and Pakistan will meet is an essential feature of the ICC’s broadcasting contract. JioStar pay around $3bn for the Indian rights to the 2024-27 cycle, which equates to nearly 90 per cent of what the ICC generates. Insiders suggest that perhaps 10 per cent of the ICC’s total broadcasting value from 2024-27 ($250m) is based on the guarantee of an India-Pakistan match each men’s tournament. Should this year’s match not happen, would the broadcasters be due a rebate? Even if not, broadcasters’ inclination to spend as much in the future would collapse.
The impasse between India and Pakistan comes as international cricket is already braced for significant financial cutbacks. The merger between Jio and Star, India’s two main sports broadcasters will lead to dramatically less competition for the next batch of ICC rights, for the 2028-31 cycle. This will drive the value of the rights down dramatically.
Triopoly to continue
The ICC have already “warned to expect a 30 per cent revenue decrease in 2028 when their media contracts come up for renewal,” according to a telling line buried in the new Netherlands cricket annual report. Understandably, given the source, the words were easily overlooked. But some insiders fear that the broadcasting cuts could be even more swingeing – perhaps as much as 50 per cent, a decrease in the region of $1.5bn over a four-year cycle.
Advertisement
Such cuts will be seismic for international cricket. For Australia, England and India, ICC cash only comprises around 10 per cent of their overall revenue – they would be able to endure an ICC haircut relatively unscathed. The ECB, for instance, earned £319m in the last financial year; £30m (9.4 per cent) came from the ICC.
But for the nations outside the big three, the consequences of a major ICC cut will be debilitating. “The real risk is to the ‘middle-class’ and emerging nations who rely heavily on ICC distributions,” observes Edward Fitzgibbon, a former ICC employee who is now a board member for Wisden. “Their margin for error is disappearing.”
Fitzgibbon has calculated how much all boards depend upon the ICC for revenue. West Indies earn 44 per cent of their revenue from the ICC. That figure soars to 52 per cent for New Zealand and Bangladesh, and 68 per cent for Sri Lanka. Many of the sport’s 96 Associate nations earn in the region of 90 per cent of their income from the ICC.
With radically less money, what all countries outside the Big Three – even South Africa, the current World Test champions and finalists in the last T20 World Cup – are able to afford will diminish. Less ICC cash will mean that teams cannot afford to pay players as much, making their stars more vulnerable to missing matches for franchise cricket or even retiring prematurely from international cricket altogether.
Advertisement
Less money will mean that teams cannot afford to invest in infrastructure, training facilities and their domestic programmes. It will also mean that they cannot afford to stage as many fixtures that lose money: that is, home Test matches against all opponents bar England and India. South Africa, who won last year’s World Test Championship final at Lord’s, did not play a single Test last home summer.
Countries are increasingly readying themselves for a future in which the Bank of the ICC is less generous. Indeed, a central reason for the creation of Hundred was England’s desire to reduce their dependence upon international cricket for revenue, and to develop a competition that would generate cash every year. Even emerging countries are realising that they must develop their own sources of income.
While Australia would be largely unaffected by a downturn in ICC finances, peripheral countries like the Netherlands would struggle – Sameera Peiris/Getty Image
The Nepal Premier League is well established and commercially viable; the European T20 Premier League, featuring sides from Ireland, Netherlands and Scotland, is finally slated to launch this year. In the years ahead, bilateral matches outside Australia, England and India will be ever-more marginalised.
Advertisement
This future seems inexorable, and is being accelerated by the tumultuous geopolitical climate. Thirty years ago, a combined India-Pakistan team played a game in Colombo to show a World Cup co-hosted by India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka was safe.
Cricket’s “Asian bloc” collapsed long ago. It is just possible that political pragmatism will lead to some relationships thawing: India and Bangladesh are meant to co-host the 2031 one-day international World Cup, which seems incredible given the current situation. But altogether more likely is that the scheduling debacle of this T20 World Cup will be a harbinger of more to come.
The irony is that the real winners of the T20 World Cup might not be any of the international sides competing. Instead, they will be the owners of franchise sides in short-format competitions around the world. The more disorder engulfs international cricket, the more that franchise cricket can position itself to broadcasters as the safer bet.
