The boycott in Pakistan shows a growing gap between cricket’s commercial needs and political realities | Taha Hashim

The announcement on Sunday was fittingly made by the Pakistani government, a reminder that this episode goes far beyond a game of cricket. In a post on

“The Pakistan cricket team will not take the field in the match scheduled for February 15, 2026 against India,” the statement said. The disintegration of this global tournament continues, with that one line raising serious concerns for the economics of the sport. No further explanation was given.

There’s a lot of untangling required here. When the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) ordered Kolkata Knight Riders to release Bangladesh’s Mustafizur Rahman in early January amid escalating tensions between the two countries, it triggered the first boycott of this World Cup.

Follow Bangladesh Cricket Board’s refusal to travel to India, citing security concerns and government advice. The statement did not match safety assessments commissioned by the International Cricket Council (ICC), and the governing body refused to budge: Bangladesh would not have their matches shifted to Sri Lanka, co-hosts of the tournament. Scotland were told to fill their bags and hop over.

For Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) chairman Mohsin Naqvi, the removal of Bangladesh was an “injustice”. a show of ‘double standards’ that favored India. He would take the matter to his government. India obviously did not travel to Pakistan for the Champions Trophy last year. It was a decision that the ICC saw no need to explain publicly when it announced in December 2024 that it would adopt its hybrid model for tournaments from now on: Pakistan would not visit India and vice versa.

Naqvi, who wants “sports and politics to be kept separate,” is Pakistan’s interior minister. The ICC is headed by Jay Shah, former secretary of the BCCI and son of India’s Home Minister Amit Shah. It was during Shah’s reign at the BCCI that India hosted the Men’s Over-50s World Cup in 2023 when, in the words of journalist Sharda Ugra, “cricket became a platform for the political ideology of the ruling Bharatiya Janata. [Indian People’s] Party”. In the midst of all this, the two countries occasionally play a game of cricket, breaking viewing records in the process.

It’s somewhat funny how important this match is now that the match has become so one-sided, as India have only lost once to Pakistan in a men’s World Cup. The difference in quality between the two teams is currently enormous. But the commercial benefits remain – the match is said to be a key part of the ICC’s $3 billion rights deal with media conglomerate JioStar – and so they face each other at every tournament barring a legitimate draw. The two sides have met comfortably in the group stages of every ICC men’s event over the last thirteen years. It is shocking when the governing body subsequently announces its events “are built on sporting integrity”.

“It’s all about maximizing eyeballs and tournament revenue,” Sami Ul Hasan, former head of media and communications at the ICC, told Al Jazeera last year. “When the ICC plans a global event, the organizers do not take rankings or other factors into account. The point is to ensure that India and Pakistan play each other at least once.”

The potential absence of the fixture threatens these revenues, something the ICC alluded to in its response to Pakistan’s appeal. It said the “decision is not in the best interests of the global game or the well-being of fans around the world, including millions in Pakistan”. The statement added: “The ICC hopes that the PCB will consider the significant and long-term implications for cricket at home, as this is likely to have implications for the global cricket ecosystem, of which it is itself a member and beneficiary.”

The welfare of the “millions in Pakistan” is a fascinating point to discuss. Last year’s Champions Trophy marked 29 years since the country last hosted a global event, but the hybrid model used by the ICC saw those supporters miss a final in Lahore, while India’s presence forced the match to be played in Dubai. Pakistan ultimately played only one match on home soil; they flew out for their fight in India only to see rain ruin their encounter with Bangladesh in Rawalpindi. Even if the boycott of Pakistan does not continue, Indian fans will still be denied a home match between the two, which is destined for the R Premadasa Stadium in Colombo.

Meanwhile, people around the world have seen the game become toxic due to the chauvinism at play. Take Narendra Modi, the Prime Minister of India, who compares their Asia Cup victory last year to Operation Sindoor, a series of military attacks on Pakistan and Pakistani-administered Kashmir. “Operation Sindoor on the playing field,” Modi posted on X. “The result is the same: India wins!”

News of Pakistan’s boycott filtered through during England’s second T20 win against Sri Lanka at Pallekele, one of the venues for the upcoming tournament. During the rain break there was quite a salutary scene as supporters, home and away, danced on the lawns and stands, something you like to see at a World Cup. That will happen even more in the coming weeks and the action itself will drown out much of the noise.

But questions remain: Will Pakistan be open to meeting India later if they meet in the knockouts? What does the ICC mean by ‘long-term consequences’? What does a “mutually acceptable solution” look like when the answer last time was that damned hybrid model? Why is it that a sport is so dependent on one specific competition? For now, this tournament is something to endure.