We are here again. Not for the first time and probably not the last.
With under 100 days to go for the 2025 Champions Trophy, scheduled in Pakistan, the ICC has still not formally announced the dates for the tournament. The schedule, too, has not been finalised. Why? India, one of the eight participating countries, will not travel to Pakistan - a decision taken by the Indian government, according to the BCCI in its communication to the ICC.
We have been here, not once but twice, as recently as 2023. Take your memory back to last year's Asia Cup and ODI World Cup and you will see a similar pattern. In the first instance, the PCB was forced to loosen its stance that the event would be held solely in Pakistan after the BCCI said India did not have permission from their government to travel across the border. Eventually it was Pakistan, the hosts, who ended up boarding flights to and from Sri Lanka, where India played all their matches, including the final. At the World Cup, the PCB pushed to get the ICC to adopt the hybrid model, but Pakistan eventually travelled to India. They travelled, it has since emerged, despite deep reservations within the Pakistan government.
Twelve months later we are once again in familiar territory: the BCCI has made its move, comfortably standing in one corner, arms folded. At the opposite end, the PCB stands steadfast, refusing to blink or budge. The ICC, in theory the adjudicator, remains tight-lipped. It is a shambolic situation.
Who actually gains from this brinkmanship? That is only part of the question. The more important question, though, one that never gets asked properly is: who is responsible for this standoff? Unequivocally the answer is the ICC, the game's governing body, which has once again escaped scrutiny. To be precise, the ICC leadership: the ICC board.
In November 2021 the ICC board allocated hosting rights for various global events in the 2024-31 rights cycle to several boards. The PCB, which had bid for two events, was allocated the 2025 Champions Trophy. The ICC board approved the hosts based on recommendations drawn up by a smaller working group that included Sourav Ganguly, then the BCCI president, and Ehsan Mani, the former PCB chair and ICC head. That ICC board was headed by Greg Barclay. Ganguly, one would assume, had the backing of the Indian board, whose secretary was Jay Shah (who takes charge as ICC chairman from December 1).
As a reminder, the ICC board comprises directors who represent the 12 Full Members, along with an independent director, three directors representing the Associates, and the ICC chairman and CEO. So this was a collective call. If there was even a single voice of caution three years ago when it came to allotting the Champions Trophy to Pakistan, details of it have never emerged. Did nobody see this coming? Maybe they did but opted to look down or the other way instead?
In the fraught political climate that has existed between the two neighbours since the Mumbai terror attacks of November 2008, you didn't need to be a fortune-teller to raise a red flag about whether India would actually travel to Pakistan in 2025. More than one person involved in the bids allocation process said that one reason the ICC board believed conditions might be favourable for India to visit for the Champions Trophy was if Pakistan went to India for the 2023 World Cup - which they did. And once they did, the PCB must have assumed India would reciprocate.
However, in a professional environment, you need accountability instead of relying on good faith. Why did the ICC, in 2021, not attach a few conditions when it allotted the Champions Trophy to Pakistan, starting with an official timeline including deadlines, with one specifically for the BCCI: communicate well in advance to the ICC whether India would travel to Pakistan? Such a hard stop could have been put in, say, a year before the actual event. In the absence of any such cutoff, the BCCI's first communication to the ICC that India would not travel was relayed around November 6. That is just over three months before the scheduled start of the tournament on February 19.
But more crucially, what plan was in place to deal with the outcome that was always likely? In a perfect and equitable world, global tournaments could go ahead without teams that are unable to participate in the prescribed way, but no ICC tournament is commercially tenable without India's participation, a fact that was emphatically underlined during the last broadcast deal. Why wasn't a hybrid option part of the contingency plan if India failed to travel to Pakistan? Or was it assumed that the PCB would once again fall in line and acquiesce to a hybrid model?
As it turns out and as was pointed out to them recently by a senior official from an overseas board, the PCB might have a little leverage by dint of their team being part of the most watched and most lucrative match in an ICC event. It might have been unacceptable to the PCB to accept the hosting rights with a hybrid option attached as a contingency. But it would have been the most pragmatic and clear-minded approach, since it is beyond the ICC to persuade the Indian government to allow the Indian team to travel to Pakistan. Instead, the ICC leadership has opted to kick the problem down the road, hoping it will somehow resolve itself.
In our increasingly divided and divisive world, strong leadership is required to maintain equilibrium. The ICC board in the past has shown it is capable of doing that. Now it needs bold solutions for the future.