Selective Boycotts Are Not Protest: ICC Must Act Against Pakistan
Pakistan’s decision to boycott only its match against India while remaining part of the ICC tournament is not a political protest. It is a selective refusal that undermines the very structure of international sport. By granting permission to travel, accepting tournament participation, and remaining eligible for prize money and commercial benefits, Pakistan has already committed to the competition. Opting out of a single marquee fixture is not principle. It is convenience.
This is where the responsibility squarely shifts to the International Cricket Council. The issue is no longer about India and Pakistan. It is about governance, consistency, and whether international cricket can function under a common rulebook.
In sport, a boycott has a clear meaning. It is a total withdrawal based on stated principles, with full acceptance of consequences. What Pakistan has attempted instead is partial participation. That is not recognised anywhere in serious international competition. You do not get to enjoy the benefits of a tournament while refusing its obligations.
Allowing this behaviour creates immediate competitive distortion. Points tables are affected. Scheduling fairness is compromised. Other teams are indirectly penalised. Fans and broadcasters are left with a broken product. Most critically, the authority of the tournament organiser is weakened.
The contradiction becomes even clearer when viewed alongside Pakistan’s Under-19 team playing India without objection. If the reasons were security, dignity, or principle, that match would not have happened. The fact that it did exposes the selective nature of the senior team’s stance. Junior cricket went ahead because the political cost was low. Senior cricket was avoided because the political risk of defeat was high.
That distinction matters, because it reveals intent. This is not about values. It is about narrative management.
Silence from the ICC is not neutrality. It is weakness. Governing bodies do not preserve credibility by avoiding decisions. They preserve it by enforcing rules consistently, especially when doing so is uncomfortable.
If this selective boycott is allowed to pass without consequence, it sets a precedent that will haunt international cricket. Tomorrow another board will refuse to play a particular opponent. Another will cite domestic politics. Another will demand exemptions. Very quickly, tournaments will become a series of conditional appearances rather than genuine competitions.
This is why financial penalties are essential. Not symbolic warnings. Not closed-door understandings. The Pakistan Cricket Board must face consequences that reflect the seriousness of the violation. Heavy fines. Loss of prize money share. Commercial revenue penalties. These are the only deterrents that work in modern international sport.
The ICC must also make the principle explicit. Either a team plays all scheduled matches, or it withdraws from the tournament entirely. There is no third option. There cannot be one.
Cricket is not a diplomatic sandbox. It is a regulated international sport with fixed commitments and shared obligations. If those obligations can be bent for political convenience, then the ICC ceases to be a governing body and becomes a passive event manager.
This moment is not a test for Pakistan. It is a test for the ICC. And tests like these define institutions long after the headlines fade.
