No One Kills the Golden Goose: Why India-Pakistan is back in the T20 ICC Men's World Cup

Here’s a cricket boardroom in the sky in which Jagmohan Dalmiya is having an almighty chuckle. For days spilling into weeks now, cricket has been trying to untangle a mess of its making. India and Bangladesh were the immediate participants, with Pakistan morphing from being a significant outside party to central to the issue.

By putting the India vs Pakistan fixture on the line — putting at risk something in the range of $175 m - $250m depending on whom you believe — the wider cricket world was sucked right into the vortex of a beef that was never theirs. At last count, 104 members of the International Cricket Council (ICC) had a major chunk of their revenue on the line.

Top government officials of multiple countries got in on the act, each trying simultaneously to solve the impasse, or, failing that, at least earn brownie points with their respective domestic audiences. And yet, it appeared hopeless. Cricket was facing a point of reckoning, we thought, somewhat naively as it turned out.


Pakistan withdrew their threat to boycott, and there’s Dalmiya up above, shaking his head and telling you it was always going to be this way. And he would have been right, because this kerfuffle would not have unfolded in his time or under his watch. Jaggu da, with one rotary phone and the Rolodex in his head, would have activated his Asian counterparts, and behind closed doors, the entire drama would have been averted with the rest of the world being none the wiser.

Today, sections of the cricket world will be shaking their heads at how things have panned out. In Australia or England, it is inconceivable that the premier of a country would announce a boycott of a match in a global tournament, only to back down with none of the reasons for the action having changed significantly. All the cricket world that was outraged on behalf of Bangladesh and Pakistan, against the big bad Indian cricket board, have been given a reminder of how these things are worked out in the region.

Bangladesh refused to play in India because Mustafizur Rahman was pulled from the IPL for no reason that would stand up to pre-agreed governance standards. Mustafizur has not been reinstated, Bangladesh will not play in the World Cup, and yet their board feels like they have come out of this better off.

The ICC made some concessions: Bangladesh would not be penalised in any way for its action. Realistically, what more could be taken from them? They refused to be part of a World Cup, and the establishment moved quickly along. Bangladesh will be granted hosting rights for an ICC tournament before 2028; all the major events, the money spinners are already slotted, and they will get an Under-19 tournament at best, which will be a loss-leader but a face-saver.

Pakistan’s role in this and their gains are even more notional. Their boycott was not based either on solidarity with Bangladesh or against India’s near-complete control of cricket. It was a testing of waters, a reminder to the mighty BCCI and the ICC that they were one half of the most lucrative game in town. And that they were more than willing to cut the nose to spite the face.

The India-Pakistan match not happening would have hurt India the least financially, because they have enough in reserve to chug merrily along, with other money spinners, such as the IPL and series against Australia and England, to fall back on.

From the outside, it appears the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) gains nothing from this while suffering serious reputational damage: delivering ultimatums without being able to stick to them is never a good idea. But, by doing what they did, the PCB has confirmed what has been a widely held belief: nobody in the cricket world can afford to stand on principle when it comes to their golden goose.

When America’s giant financial institutions that failed in the crash of 2008 were bailed out, there was anger on the streets, as it seemed the government was bailing out the fat cats who made the mess in the first place while leaving the man on the street out in the cold. The truth is, allowing those institutions to collapse entirely would have had a devastating impact on the larger ecosystem, and, as always, the ones at the end of the food chain would have been hurt the most.

It is much the same here. The India-Pakistan fixture is back on, not because any issues have been resolved or lessons learnt. Rather, the cold logic of the market has spoken.

In all this, Jay Shah, the ICC boss, comes out as the man who averted the crisis. Again, Dalmiya will allow himself a wry smile, because an administrator of his vintage would have never allowed things to come to such a pass in the first place.