The South Asian Pivot: How Bangladesh and Pakistan Outmaneuvered Cricket’s Power Axis

For nearly two decades, global cricket’s power map has been drawn along a predictable axis: India for money, Dubai for governance. The financial dominance of India’s cricket economy, combined with the ICC’s structural dependence on Indian broadcast revenue, has created an ecosystem where most boards operate within quiet constraints. Compliance has often been safer than confrontation.

But the fallout from the 2026 T20 World Cup standoff may mark the first credible disruption of that order. In what increasingly looks like a calculated geopolitical play rather than a reactive boycott, Bangladesh and Pakistan demonstrated that financial power is not the same as strategic leverage.

This was not just resistance. It was maneuver warfare.

The “No-Penalty” Doctrine: Bangladesh’s Strategic Breakthrough

Bangladesh’s refusal to travel to India could, under traditional ICC logic, have triggered a cascade of punishment, fines, funding cuts, or even temporary isolation from ICC revenue pools. Instead, something unprecedented happened: nothing.

- No fines.

- No administrative sanctions.

Full tournament payments despite non-participation.

That outcome matters far beyond one tournament. It establishes a soft but powerful precedent, that sovereign or security-linked decisions can override purely commercial participation obligations.

The Bangladesh Cricket Board did not simply avoid punishment; it reshaped the language of enforcement. By pushing the ICC toward “facilitative support” rather than disciplinary action, Bangladesh effectively carved out a diplomatic escape hatch for member boards operating under government directives.

In a sport where commercial commitments have often trumped political realities, this was a structural shift.

Pakistan’s Financial Checkmate

If Bangladesh created the opening, Pakistan executed the decisive move.

By quietly linking their participation, especially in the India–Pakistan fixture, to Bangladesh’s treatment, Pakistan forced the ICC to confront an uncomfortable truth: the global tournament economy is not built only on Indian cricket. It is built on Indian rivalries.

The India–Pakistan match is not just another game. It is the tournament’s financial spine. Remove it, and the broadcast model fractures.

The estimated threat, roughly ₹2000 crore in projected losses, was not theoretical. Broadcasters, sponsors, and advertisers structure entire campaign cycles around that single fixture.

Pakistan understood something crucial:

Power in cricket is not only about who generates the most money.

It is about who can withdraw the most money from the system.

That is leverage. And it worked.

The symbolic image of senior ICC leadership travelling to Lahore to negotiate signaled something deeper than crisis management. It suggested recognition, however reluctant, that Pakistan remains a central power broker when it chooses to assert itself.

Turning Exclusion into Strategic Gain: The Hosting Dividend

Perhaps the most tangible outcome of this standoff is the reported commitment to allocate Bangladesh a standalone ICC event before the 2031 ODI World Cup cycle.

If this holds, it represents a quiet institutional bypass of the traditional bidding hierarchy. Normally, hosting rights are fought over through multi-year lobbying, infrastructure audits, and political negotiation.

Bangladesh appears to have achieved through leverage what others pursue through process.

From a strategic standpoint, hosting rights are not just about matches. They are about:

• Stadium modernization

• Government investment flows

• Tourism branding

• Long-term integration into global scheduling priority

In effect, Bangladesh converted short-term exclusion into long-term structural inclusion.

That is textbook strategic negotiation.

The Rise of South Asian Bloc Politics in Cricket

The most overlooked element of this episode is regional coordination.

With Pakistan applying financial pressure and Sri Lanka playing mediator, the dispute briefly resembled a coordinated South Asian negotiating bloc. Historically, South Asian cricket has been fragmented by bilateral tensions and competing economic interests.

This time, history, including memories of regional solidarity moments like the 1996 World Cup, appears to have been leveraged as diplomatic capital.

The message was subtle but unmistakable:

If India is the market, the rest of South Asia is still the ecosystem.

And ecosystems can resist monopolies.

The New Power Equation: Market Size vs Collective Leverage

The biggest myth this episode challenges is the idea that cricket’s hierarchy is permanently fixed.

Yes, India remains the financial epicenter. That is unlikely to change. But financial centrality does not automatically translate into uncontested political control, especially when other boards act in coordinated fashion and target structural vulnerabilities in tournament economics.

What Bangladesh and Pakistan demonstrated is that:

• Participation is leverage.

• Rivalries are currency.

• Collective positioning can offset financial asymmetry.

This is not the collapse of cricket’s old order. But it may be the beginning of a negotiated order.

The Verdict: A Psychological Shift More Than an Institutional One

Institutions change slowly. Power perceptions change quickly.

And perception often precedes structural change.

The ICC and BCCI still hold enormous influence. But for the first time in years, two other boards showed they can force the system to adjust, not through rhetoric, but through calculated risk.

Bangladesh and Pakistan did not just resist pressure.

They rewrote the terms of engagement.

And in global cricket politics, that alone is a revolution.

Thank You 

Faisal Caesar 

Cricket Under Hegemony: How India Turned a Regional Game into a Power Instrument

In South Asia, power has never been exercised only through borders, armies, or treaties. It has flowed through trade routes, water sharing, media, and quietly but decisively through cricket. What we are witnessing today is not a sporting dispute but the consolidation of regional hierarchy, with India at the apex and the rest of South Asia forced into varying degrees of compliance.

Pakistan’s Defence Minister Khawaja Asif’s call for an alternative global cricket body was quickly dismissed by Indian commentators as political theatrics. Yet such calls emerge only when institutional pathways collapse. His accusation that the International Cricket Council has become “hostage to Indian political interests” reflects a deeper South Asian anxiety: that multilateral platforms no longer function as neutral spaces when India’s interests are involved.

From Regional Power to Regional Enforcer

India’s dominance of cricket mirrors its broader regional posture assertive, asymmetrical, and increasingly intolerant of dissent. The Board of Control for Cricket in India is no longer just a sporting body; it is a strategic actor projecting Indian power across South Asia.

Under the current ICC revenue model, India controls nearly 40% of global cricket income. This financial concentration replicates a familiar regional pattern: economic dependency used to discipline neighbours. Smaller South Asian nations, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka are structurally discouraged from challenging Indian preferences because the costs are existential.

In such an environment, “choice” becomes theoretical.

Pakistan: Too Big to Obey, Too Risky to Exclude

Pakistan occupies a unique and uncomfortable position in this hierarchy. Unlike smaller neighbours, it cannot be easily absorbed or ignored. Its boycott threat ahead of the T20 World Cup was not an act of withdrawal but a geopolitical signal, participation without consent.

This is precisely why Jay Shah, wearing both ICC authority and Indian institutional legacy, was pushed into reluctant diplomacy. The India–Pakistan fixture is not just a match; it is the single most valuable commodity in global cricket. Excluding Pakistan would fracture the commercial spine of the tournament.

The ICC’s response, dispatching Deputy Chair Imran Khwaja for quiet back-channel talks, exposed the truth: the institution cannot enforce neutrality when its biggest shareholder is also a regional hegemon.

Bangladesh and the Cost of Defiance

If Pakistan represents resistance, Bangladesh represents vulnerability.

The BCCI’s unilateral decision to release Mustafizur Rahman from the IPL, citing “political developments” - triggered a chain reaction that ended with Bangladesh refusing to tour India and being replaced by Scotland. This was not a scheduling issue; it was disciplined by substitution.

In South Asian terms, the message was unmistakable: defiance invites isolation. This is how hierarchy is maintained, not through overt bans, but through quiet rearrangements that punish without announcing punishment.

Normalising the Unthinkable

Former Indian cricketer Harbhajan Singh openly declared that India does not need Pakistan and can survive without it. Such statements matter not because they are policy, but because they reveal a mindset where exclusion is considered a legitimate option.

This is how dominance becomes normalised. First rhetorically. Then administratively. Finally, structurally.

South Asia has seen this pattern before, in trade negotiations, river water disputes, and regional diplomacy. Cricket is simply the latest arena.

The ICC as a Hollow Multilateral Shell

In theory, the ICC is a global institution. In practice, it resembles many South Asian multilateral frameworks where one power sets the rules while others adapt. When India controls revenue, scheduling, hosting rights, and broadcast windows, neutrality becomes impossible.

The result is a system where:

Smaller South Asian nations hesitate to speak.

Pakistan is managed as a “problem” rather than a stakeholder.

Decisions are framed as commercial inevitabilities rather than political choices.

This is not governance; it is a managed imbalance.

The Long-Term Cost for the Region

India’s approach may deliver short-term control, but it carries long-term risks. A region where sport mirrors political hierarchy will eventually fracture. Associate nations will stagnate. Bilateral distrust will harden. And cricket, once South Asia’s rare shared language, will become another theatre of rivalry and resentment.

You cannot build regional legitimacy on unilateral power.

If the ICC continues to function as an extension of Indian dominance rather than a counterbalance to it, South Asia will not see a golden age of cricket but a familiar story of centralised authority, silenced peripheries, and institutional decay.

Cricket does not need a new empire. It needs a genuinely plural order. Without it, the game will survive, but only as a reflection of power, not as a contest of equals.

Thank You 

Faisal Caesar