Cricket, once heralded as a unifying sport that transcended borders and tensions, now seems to be losing its credibility on the global stage. As other sports continue to capture global audiences and inspire unity, cricket finds itself increasingly embroiled in political controversies and logistical dilemmas that cast doubt on its ability to sustain its standing among premier global sports. This decline is not just a result of evolving preferences or the rising popularity of other sports; it is deeply rooted in the way cricket administration has allowed political conflicts and inconsistency in policy-making to mar its legitimacy.

One recent example starkly illustrates the politicization that now taints cricket. The 2025 ICC Champions Trophy is set to take place in Pakistan, a decision that has since provoked intense diplomatic and logistical debates. India, a prominent cricketing powerhouse, has informally refused to play in Pakistan, citing security and political concerns. The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) conveyed this stance to the International Cricket Council (ICC), which forwarded the matter to the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) and the Pakistani government for consideration. Pakistan, facing mounting political tension over the issue, proposed a “hybrid model” that would allow India to play its matches at a neutral venue, while the rest of the tournament proceeded in Pakistan. Yet, this suggestion met with resistance, and the ICC is now reportedly considering moving the entire tournament to a different country altogether.

This back-and-forth reflects a deeper issue: cricket’s governing bodies have increasingly permitted politics to dictate the sport’s administration, eroding its credibility and appeal. Cricket has always been a sport with political undertones, particularly in regions where historical conflicts exist, such as India and Pakistan. But until recent years, it was largely able to balance political concerns with the spirit of competition. Today, however, political influences are steering the sport in ways that overshadow the game itself, turning matches into ideological stand-offs rather than pure contests of athleticism.

The refusal of India to play in Pakistan is not an isolated incident but part of a larger trend where cricket’s top governing bodies adopt inconsistent policies when dealing with politically sensitive situations. Consider the examples from previous World Cups: in 1996, the West Indies and Australia refused to tour Sri Lanka; in 2003, New Zealand did not play in Kenya, and England declined to play in Zimbabwe due to political reasons. Yet, in those cases, the ICC did not offer a “hybrid model” or suggest changing the venue. So why has cricket’s governing body recently adopted such a flexible stance for India? The inconsistency in handling such matters only reinforces the perception that cricket’s rules and policies are vulnerable to political and commercial pressures, favoring certain countries over others based on economic and political alliances.

This favoritism dilutes cricket’s essence and erodes fan trust, especially as other sports like football and basketball continue to grow their appeal worldwide by championing inclusivity and consistency. In contrast to cricket, these sports have maintained strong administrative stances on political neutrality. FIFA, for instance, holds firm on its principle that nations must set aside political issues during international tournaments. This policy has been pivotal in making football a truly global game. In contrast, cricket’s governance appears far less stringent, with political and economic considerations often overriding the need for a unified and consistent policy. Such laxity in administration has put cricket at risk of losing its international audience, as fans are increasingly disappointed with the political entanglements that overshadow the sport’s integrity.

Moreover, cricket’s credibility suffers not only from these politically charged decisions but also from the selective application of rules for some of its more prominent members. India, due to its considerable economic influence and viewership, often holds leverage over ICC decisions. This was evident when the ICC acquiesced to a hybrid model for the Asia Cup, where India refused to play in Pakistan and played its matches in Sri Lanka instead. While this allowed the tournament to proceed, it set a concerning precedent that cricket events could be restructured to accommodate the political hesitations of certain countries. This practice of bending rules undermines cricket’s legitimacy and fairness. How can the ICC, or any governing body, claim to administer a fair and unbiased tournament when some nations are given concessions that others are not?

The PCB’s reaction to India’s stance on the Champions Trophy exemplifies the frustration that such biases breed. Pakistani authorities have openly considered withdrawing from the Champions Trophy altogether if the tournament is moved from Pakistan. Such a step, while drastic, could prompt a broader reflection within cricket’s governance on the need for fair treatment across member nations. Furthermore, a withdrawal would not only affect the sport’s image but also its financial viability, as such tournaments rely heavily on the participation of major teams like India and Pakistan.

For cricket to regain its credibility, it must adopt a consistent and transparent approach to politically sensitive issues. The ICC should establish and enforce rules that are uniformly applied, regardless of political pressures or financial influences. Additionally, cricket administrators must prioritize the sport’s integrity over national and political considerations. As it stands, the sport’s governing bodies are giving fans more reasons to tune out of cricket and into other sports that prioritize fairness, competition, and unity.