Cricket Boards Are Not Foreign Ministries
Cricket boards were created to run a sport, not to act as unofficial foreign ministries. Yet today, cricket is being dragged into political signalling so routinely that the line between governance and geopolitics is collapsing in plain sight. Two recent episodes make this impossible to ignore. Bangladesh’s refusal to tour India, without any ICC sanction or cricketing rationale, and the increasingly political conduct of Pakistan Cricket Board chairman Mohsin Naqvi, a serving Chief Minister, together expose how dangerously normalised political interference has become. If the ICC does not intervene now, this will not remain an exception. It will become the operating model.
Bangladesh’s decision to avoid touring India was not a scheduling issue, nor a cricketing one. It was a political signal dressed up as administrative discretion. By allowing such behaviour to pass without consequence, the ICC has effectively told member boards that bilateral cricket can be weaponised for domestic or diplomatic consumption. Once one board does this and gets away with it, others will follow. Cricket calendars then stop being sporting instruments and start becoming political bargaining chips.
The problem deepens when political power enters cricket administration directly. Mohsin Naqvi is not a retired politician or a background figure. He is a serving executive authority, controlling police, bureaucracy, and public administration, while simultaneously heading the Pakistan Cricket Board. His public statements and conduct have repeatedly blurred security narratives, political positioning, and cricket administration. At that point, pretending that he is acting in a purely “individual capacity” becomes an insult to basic governance logic. When a Chief Minister speaks, he does not speak as a private citizen. The weight of the state follows automatically.
The International Cricket Council was built on the principle that sport must be insulated from government control. That principle was meant to preserve fairness, competitive integrity, and trust between nations. Over time, however, the ICC has diluted this standard by focusing narrowly on paperwork while ignoring conduct. As long as a board’s constitution claims autonomy on paper, the ICC looks away from the obvious reality on the ground. Ethics have been replaced by technical compliance, and behaviour no longer matters unless it leaves a legal paper trail.
Cricket boards are governing bodies, not diplomatic instruments. Their job is to organise competitions, develop players, and protect the integrity of the game. They are not meant to signal foreign policy positions, amplify security narratives selectively, or act as extensions of state power. Once boards start behaving like foreign ministries, trust between teams collapses. Opponents stop being sporting rivals and start being political adversaries. That is the point at which cricket ceases to function as a global sport.
This is why a structural reset is unavoidable. Bilateral cricket can remain optional. Countries may choose not to play bilaterals for commercial or logistical reasons. But participation in multinational ICC tournaments must be compulsory and unconditional. No team should be allowed to selectively opt out, demand neutral venues, or hide behind political discomfort while still enjoying the revenue and prestige of global competitions.
The same logic must apply to hosting rights. Hosting is not an entitlement. Any country that claims it cannot host a particular team for political or selectively framed security reasons should automatically lose the right to host ICC events. Neutrality is the minimum price of hosting global sport. If that neutrality cannot be guaranteed, the hosting privilege should be withdrawn without debate.
Most importantly, accommodation must end. If a team refuses to play in a particular country, the burden should fall on that team alone. Automatic forfeiture must replace neutral venues, rescheduled fixtures, and diplomatic juggling. Accommodation rewards political brinkmanship and punishes compliance. Forfeiture restores consequences, and consequences are the only language institutions respect.
The ICC must act decisively. Serving politicians must be barred from holding senior cricket board positions. Participation in ICC tournaments must be mandatory, without political exemptions. Hosting rights must be tied to unconditional neutrality. Boards that politicise cricket must be penalised, not protected.
The cost of continued silence is obvious. Bangladesh-style boycotts will multiply. Naqvi-style politicisation will spread. Tournaments will fragment, calendars will be negotiated like treaties, and cricket will slowly lose the credibility that makes it worth watching in the first place.
Cricket cannot survive if every geopolitical discomfort is allowed to rewrite schedules, venues, and governance norms. The ICC must decide whether it exists to protect the sport or merely to manage its decline. Reform is no longer optional. It is existential.
