The one clash powering most of the international cricketing commerce will not happen. On Sunday, in a tweet, the Pakistan government said that their team will take part at the World Cup but will not take the field to play India.
A look at the implications, what the International Cricket Council (ICC) can do and why this is just the latest in a series of worrying moves between two Asian cricketing powers.
Can Pakistan legally play the World Cup but still boycott a game?
They are free to do as they please. While the ICC hasn't officially released the Playing Conditions for this year's edition, the one from 2024 will likely hold for 2026 as well. In it, there are provisions if a team wants to forfeit.
Under Clause 16.10.9, the rules say: "In circumstances where a match (and the points for such match) is awarded to a team as a result of the other team’s refusal to play, either by the match referee in accordance with playing condition 16.2 or in accordance with the provisions of the relevant event agreements signed by the participating teams, the net run rate of the defaulting team shall be affected in that the full 20 overs of the defaulting team’s innings in such forfeited match shall be taken into account in calculating the average runs per over of the defaulting team over the course of the relevant portion of the competition.
"For the avoidance of doubt the runs scored and overs bowled in such forfeited match will not be taken into account when calculating the net run rate of the team to whom the match was awarded."
Unless the ICC have explicit agreements in place with the Pakistan Cricket Board, they cannot do anything to force the PCB to play. They can threaten them with sanctions and levy huge penalties but PCB will argue that they have allowed partial boycotts previously with no significant penalties. In 1996, both Australia and West Indies refused to travel to Sri Lanka for their World Cup matches. In 2003, England and New Zealand didn't travel to Zimbabwe and Kenya respectively.
What's the BCCI stance?
This is an ICC event. So, to be honest, this will not affect them. If anything, they will get their two points as long as they travel to Colombo arrive at the ground at the appointed hour and fulfil their part of the bargain.
What will the commercial implications be?
There were earlier misgivings between JioHotstar and ICC over media rights for these events. The former felt that the existing rights deal was inflated. Without this game, they will definitely feel that way and may even demand the ICC to return some of the money they received from the broadcaster. Because an India vs Pakistan game is the crown jewel in all ICC events.
Other matches may grab eyeballs but this is the only match capable of generating the revenues eight figures on its own. For example, at the Asia Cup, ads were sold for well over `12 lakh for a 10s second slot. For a World Cup, you can probably double that and then some.
The broadcaster may be insured for a loss arising out of boycotts or abandonments but it remains to be seen if that's the case here. You can also make a case for saying that this one match sustains the cricketing ecosystem in the associate world as most of them rely on ICC funding to keep the lights on at work.
Why have Pakistan taken this decision?
It's very ironical that their government announced this the day both their Under-19 teams were facing each other at the U19 World Cup. In their eyes, it's two totally different things although it's very clearly a political ploy to curry favour with Bangladesh.
You can draw a straight line from what happened with Mustafizur Rahman to Sunday's decision by Pakistan government. There is also unconfirmed speculation but it cannot be printed here.
Will this constitute as 'government interference'?
This is a line the ICC may take in their informal communication with the PCB in the days to come. Considering the Pakistan government took this decision — the announcement came from their handle — could this be seen as government interference? It's up to the lawyers.
What about India's decision to not play in Pakistan you ask? Wasn't that government interference? If the Indian government decided India's tennis players could go and play there, surely they could have said it was safe for the cricket team to go and play there. Again, these things are hardly black and white.
