PCB’s boycott of India exposes ICC’s double standards, cricket’s broken revenue model

NN Desk

In cricket’s ever-political landscape, February 2026 has come to be described inside governing circles as a watershed moment.
According to a senior source with direct knowledge of deliberations, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to brief the media, Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) chairman Mohsin Naqvi’s public statement reflected far more private frustration than it revealed. When Naqvi told cameras, “You can’t have double standards. You can’t say for one country they can do whatever they want and for the others to have to do the complete opposite,” insiders say this sentiment had been circulating within multiple boards for months.
The context, sources say, was explosive behind closed doors. Bangladesh had just been expelled from the T20 World Cup after refusing to play matches in India over security concerns
— a decision one ICC official privately described as “unprecedented and deeply controversial.” Pakistan’s response was even more startling: an unprecedented boycott of their February 15 match against India in solidarity with Bangladesh, a fixture that multiple board members privately acknowledged as the most commercially valuable match in world cricket.

The Mustafizur Trigger
According to multiple officials familiar with internal discussions, the crisis began when India’s Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) instructed Kolkata Knight Riders to release Bangladesh pace spearhead Mustafizur Rahman from their IPL 2026 squad. The left-armer had been purchased for INR 9.20 crore just weeks earlier — a fact that stunned even senior franchise executives.
The BCCI’s official line cited “recent developments,” but a well-placed source told this publication that the decision was directly linked to deteriorating India-Bangladesh relations following the August 2024 ouster of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. “Everyone inside the system understood what ‘recent developments’ meant,” the source said.
Bangladesh Cricket Board (BCB) president Aminul Islam Bulbul then posed a question that, according to insiders, left many in the ICC boardroom uncomfortable: if Indian authorities effectively deemed one Bangladeshi cricketer unsafe for their tournament, how could they justify demanding an entire national team, support staff, and thousands of supporters travel to India?
The BCB formally requested that the ICC shift their T20 World Cup matches to co-host Sri Lanka — the same accommodation that had been granted to India months earlier when they played the entire Champions Trophy in Dubai rather than travel to Pakistan.

What followed, according to minutes reviewed by insiders, was a decisive 14-2 board vote rejecting Bangladesh’s request. Only Pakistan stood with them. Within days, Bangladesh was removed from the tournament and replaced by Scotland — a move one ICC staffer privately described as “brutal but politically inevitable.”
Bulbul’s public comment that “the ICC’s double standards have been exposed” was, according to sources, milder than what he expressed in private.

Pakistan’s Costly Solidarity
Pakistan’s support for Bangladesh, sources say, was not taken lightly. The PCB receives approximately $34.51 million annually from ICC’s revenue distribution — structural funding that underpins much of Pakistan cricket’s budget.
By boycotting the India match, Pakistan knowingly risked ICC sanctions and jeopardized the single most lucrative fixture in any global cricket tournament. One senior PCB official, speaking off the record, admitted: “This was not a decision about money. It was about precedent.”
Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif publicly called the boycott “a considered stance to support Bangladesh,” but insiders suggest the decision was preceded by heated internal debate. Some PCB executives reportedly warned that taking on India — and by extension the ICC — could have long-term financial consequences.
Yet beneath the political theater, sources say there was genuine frustration with an ICC governance structure that many boards privately believe is designed to benefit one member above all others.

The Revenue Injustice
Bangladesh’s World Cup exclusion, according to financial projections seen by officials, carries devastating consequences. The BCB stands to lose approximately $27 million — roughly 60% of its annual budget — through lost ICC revenue share, evaporated sponsorship deals, and cancelled bilateral series with India.
What has particularly angered smaller boards, sources say, are the stark figures under the 2024–2027 revenue distribution model. According to internal ICC documents:
● India’s BCCI receives 38.5% of the ICC’s $600 million annual earnings — about $230 million per year.
● Bangladesh receives 4.46%, approximately $26.74 million.
● Pakistan receives 5.75%, or $34.51 million.

One board representative, speaking anonymously, described this as “not just inequality, but institutionalized dominance.”

Insiders argue that the system is self-reinforcing: India’s massive share funds superior domestic structures, which produce stronger teams, which drive global viewership — which is then used to justify India receiving even more money.
Pakistan’s stance, according to sources, implicitly raised an uncomfortable question within the ICC: shouldn’t Bangladesh receive compensation despite not playing? The debate, one official admitted, “exposed the moral fault lines of cricket governance.”

A Home for the Outcasts
Within days of Mustafizur’s IPL exclusion, Pakistan made a symbolic move that insiders say was carefully calculated.
Lahore Qalandars signed Mustafizur for the Pakistan Super League (PSL) 2026 for PKR 6.44 crore. Owner Sameen Rana publicly said, “Once a Qalandar, always a Qalandar,” adding that Mustafizur was “not just a player; he’s a brother.”
Privately, PSL officials described the signing as both a sporting and political statement. While IPL franchises reportedly deemed Mustafizur unwelcome due to geopolitical tensions, the PSL positioned itself as a league that judges players purely on merit.
This contrast resonated strongly in Pakistan, where players have been systematically excluded from the IPL since 2008. Despite being among the world’s top T20 talents, stars like Shaheen Shah Afridi and Babar Azam have never played in the tournament.
Sources note that this exclusion has extended beyond India. IPL franchise owners with teams in leagues in the UAE, South Africa, and the UK have reportedly adopted similar informal policies. The 2025 Hundred draft, for instance, saw zero Pakistani players selected despite 45 registering.
By welcoming Mustafizur, PSL officials privately described their league as “cricket’s meritocracy.”

The Hosting Desert
Bangladesh’s international calendar, according to analysts, highlights another structural imbalance: access to elite opposition.
While cricket’s major powers regularly play each other, Bangladesh has struggled to secure bilateral series against top-tier teams. Australia’s last bilateral visit to Bangladesh was in 2008
— 18 years ago — for just three ODIs.

Despite successfully hosting the 2014 T20 World Cup and boasting infrastructure such as Dhaka’s Sher-e-Bangla Stadium, Bangladesh remains underutilized as a venue. ICC tournament hosting allocations, according to insiders, consistently favor India, with Australia and England picking up many other marquee events.

Pakistan’s advocacy for Bangladesh receiving more hosting rights, sources say, is not purely altruistic. Both nations face similar challenges in securing hosting opportunities that generate revenue, development, and global visibility.

The Uncomfortable Truth
According to multiple board members who spoke confidentially, this crisis forced cricket to confront a harsh reality: precedent applies selectively.
India’s refusal to travel to Pakistan led to a hybrid hosting model. Bangladesh’s nearly identical request was rejected outright — a contradiction that even some ICC officials privately acknowledged as difficult to defend.
With Jay Shah — son of India’s Home Minister and a close ally of Prime Minister Narendra Modi
— now leading the ICC, several administrators told this publication that the organization’s neutrality is under unprecedented scrutiny.
Fourteen boards voted to exclude a full member from a World Cup over a venue dispute that had been creatively resolved for India just months earlier — a decision one official described as “politically pragmatic, but ethically questionable.”

What Comes Next
Pakistan’s boycott, insiders say, sent shockwaves through the tournament. The ICC has warned of “significant implications,” but several officials privately admit that sanctions alone will not resolve the underlying tensions.
According to sources aligned with Pakistan and Bangladesh, their demands extend beyond this single incident:
● Compensation for Bangladesh: The BCB and its players suffered tangible financial losses. They want the ICC to establish clear compensation frameworks for similar cases in the future.
● Revenue redistribution: Many boards argue that a model granting India 38.5% while Bangladesh receives 4.46% requires fundamental reform balancing commercial power with developmental fairness.
● Standardized neutral venues: If hybrid hosting is acceptable for India-Pakistan, smaller boards insist it should apply universally where security concerns exist.
● Hosting rights diversification: Bangladesh and Pakistan believe they deserve more ICC tournaments and bilateral hosting opportunities.
● Player protection: Several administrators argue that cricketers should not be excluded based on nationality rather than performance.

The Crossroads

According to insiders, Pakistan could have chosen the safer path — played India, avoided sanctions, and preserved revenue. Instead, the PCB deliberately chose principle over profit, amplifying Bangladesh’s grievances and risking financial stability to challenge what they see as an inequitable system.
One senior official summed up the moment starkly: “This is bigger than one match. It’s about who cricket is really for.”
Cricket, sources say, now stands at a crossroads. One path leads to continued concentration of wealth and influence in a single nation. The other points toward genuine reform — more equitable revenue distribution, transparent governance, and meaningful representation for countries like Bangladesh and Pakistan.
For now, insiders say, Pakistan and Bangladesh have sent a clear message: they will no longer accept what they perceive as institutional double standards.
As one board member told this publication, “The ball isn’t just in the ICC’s court — the future of the game is.”