Over a WhatsApp call from London, Ehsan Mani, the former ICC president, rued politics’ infiltration in cricket. India and Pakistan used to be brothers-in-arms during his time in the world body. But between 2003 and 2026, things have changed. Geopolitics is different. The conversation took place in the wake of the Pakistan government’s selective-participation decision at the upcoming T20 World Cup, and its directive to the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) to boycott the group league fixture against India in Colombo on February 15. Excerpts:
Q: By refusing to play the group league match against India, isn’t Pakistan breaching the Members Participation Agreement?
A: Every participating cricket board signs the Members Participation Agreement for ICC events. But there’s something called “subject to government approval”. India cited not getting the government approval when they didn’t travel to Pakistan for the Champions Trophy last year and their matches were played at a neutral venue. This time, Pakistan, also, is going by the government directive.
Q: But the two situations are different. Pakistan had already agreed to play against India at a neutral venue during the current cycle, and it was approved by the ICC Board. Pakistan are travelling to Sri Lanka, which means that there are no security threats. So, by choosing selective participation, isn’t the PCB undermining the spirit and sanctity of the tournament?
A: Did the Pakistan government spell out a reason for boycotting the India game in its directive to the PCB? I need to go through the whole text before I can comment on this.
Q: The Pakistan government didn’t give any reason. It just said “the Pakistan Cricket Team shall not take the field in the match scheduled on 15th February against India”. If things don’t change over the next fortnight, what are the consequences that the PCB might face?
A: I think the PCB would use the government directive as a shield. They will say India followed the government directive in the Champions Trophy. Here, we are doing the same. There have been precedents of teams forfeiting matches at the World Cups. Australia and the West Indies did it in 1996, when they refused to travel to Sri Lanka. England didn’t go to Zimbabwe in 2003. Apart from losing points and net run rate from those games, I don’t think they faced any other consequences.
Q: The India versus Pakistan game is said to be valued at $38 million, broadcast rights, advertisement revenue, sponsorship commitments — all combined. If Pakistan stick to their stand of not playing the group league game against India, then isn’t the PCB staring at a potential $38 million (or more) lawsuit?
A: The broadcasters can’t sue the PCB. They will take the matter to the ICC and could seek compensation. Their agreement is with the ICC and not the PCB. The ICC in turn might impose pecuniary sanctions against the PCB. They might consider deducting the amount from the PCB’s revenue share. But once again, the PCB will use the government directive as a shield, and then we go into a legal wrangle.
Q: Can the ICC take measures like suspending the PCB or withholding its revenue share for selective participation?
A: At the 2003 World Cup, when I was the ICC chair, England not going to Zimbabwe to play their match was not a British government decision. The decision was taken by the ECB. I remember a member of the British Parliament coming to me and asking if we would ban Zimbabwe. I told him we couldn’t do that, for the ICC’s aim was to foster inclusivity. I asked him if the British government would issue a directive as regards England not travelling to Zimbabwe. He said they wouldn’t do that.
The ECB barred the England team from going to Zimbabwe. England forfeited points and eventually they failed to qualify for the semi-finals. After that, at the ICC we discussed if the ECB should suffer the financial consequences in terms of its revenue share. But we decided to move on. As I said, there have been precedents of teams forfeiting games at the ICC events. But the respective cricket boards didn’t face sanctions. The team just lost points and the net run rate.