The T20 Cricket World Cup 2026 is already in jeopardy—without a single ball being bowled.
The reason? Off-the-field dramatics and political partisanship, which seem to be seeping into sport just as they have into every other aspect of our lives.
If the coffee we drink and the cola we sip are seen as markers of our alignment with a cause, a movement, or even our political vote, then why leave out cricket—the lifeline every Pakistani lives by, even when they pretend they don’t?
Wars may be fought on battlefields, in the air, or—as we increasingly see today—on screens. But sipping a Starbucks Frappuccino or being seen with a bottle of Coca-Cola can apparently cement one’s political leanings. So, it seems, can the PCB’s decision to play India in the first T20 World Cup qualifier.
Why, you may ask. Is there not enough controversy in the world already—from award shows to Snow White, from Pakistan to the USA—for us to now stir the pot once more with a stance clearly designed to do exactly that? (Ahem. Sarcasm is a gift—please get the drift before deciding to agree or disagree.)
But no event can be judged in isolation, as historians will tell you, until the backstory is taken into account. This holds true for every war ever fought on the battlefield—including October 7, 2023. Let that sink in.
So, to put things in perspective and not beat around the bush any longer: in another world, India refused to play Pakistan in Pakistan for the same T20 World Cup scheduled to kick off in February 2026. Following this, the Indian team was permitted to shift all its matches to neutral venues. One such match—India vs Pakistan—was scheduled for February 15, 2026, in Colombo.
Hence, if a spade is a spade and every participating team can exercise the same rights within a tournament, then when Bangladesh called for a change of venue for its matches in India, shouldn’t the treatment have been the same?
But we live in unusual times.
Instead of granting Bangladesh the option to play at a neutral venue, the ICC chose to remove Bangladesh from the tournament altogether and asked Scotland to step in as a replacement.
The PCB is now reportedly pondering its decision to play India on February 15 in Colombo, considering a possible protest over Bangladesh’s removal.
It must be noted that a match boycott is only one of several options available to the PCB. Another is a formal verbal protest. If Pakistan were to boycott the India match, it would cost them two crucial group-stage point but it could also inflict significant financial damage on the ICC, for whom the Pakistan–India clash represents a major revenue driver of the T20 World Cup.
One is left wondering why other participating countries have remained silent on Bangladesh’s removal. There may be more at play than mere “double standards.” The inclusion of Scotland could be an attempt to diversify the tournament’s commercial portfolio. With Ireland, England, and Scotland participating, the ICC may be banking on increased viewership and financial returns from the region. Interestingly, English audiences have gravitated more towards football in recent years—could this be an effort to draw them back to cricket?
But if so, is it worth running the tournament like a military dictatorship, seemingly at the whims of one country—India?
It must also be noted that former Australian player and coach Jason Gillespie was among the first to question the ICC’s decision publicly. Taking to X (formerly Twitter), Gillespie highlighted the inconsistency surrounding Bangladesh’s replacement by Scotland.
The now-deleted tweet read:
“Has there been an explanation from the ICC why Bangladesh could not play their games outside of India? From memory, India refused to play Champions Trophy matches in Pakistan and they were allowed to play those games outside of Pakistan. Can someone make this make sense?”
Gillespie later deleted the tweet, citing social media toxicity:
“Because I got abused for asking a simple question, that’s why.”
Subsequently, former Pakistani cricketer Shahid Afridi has echoed the same question. One hopes that the matter will be taken up by influencers and public figures of the game—particularly spokespersons of participating teams—who must demand accountability for such blatant high-handedness.
What truly drives this decision?
Is Bangladesh considered expendable in favour of a team with greater commercial traction?
Was a neutral venue genuinely unavailable at short notice? (Reports suggest Sri Lanka was an option.)
Or is the reason darker still—that fairness has no place in either cricket or war, even when played in the name of the “spirit of the game”?
Higher powers rule cricket today. Powers that may have little to do with the game itself—and perhaps everything to do with war.
Sources: Dawn, Financial Express
Comments 1