ICC backed off, not Pak, ex-PCB chief claims on U-turn over India match

By Admin

11 Feb, 2026

Introduction

The much-anticipated India-Pakistan clash at the 2026 T20 World Cup is back on track. After days of intense negotiations and political posturing, the February 15 group match in Colombo will now proceed as scheduled.

However, the narrative around the dramatic U-turn has taken a fresh twist. Former Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) chairman Najam Sethi has claimed that it was not Pakistan that stepped back but the International Cricket Council (ICC). His comments have sparked renewed debate over who truly blinked first in one of cricket’s most politically sensitive standoffs.

The Standoff That Shook the Tournament

Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) had earlier announced that Pakistan would boycott the group-stage match against India in Colombo. The move cast uncertainty over what is widely considered the commercial centrepiece of the tournament.

The impasse triggered urgent discussions involving the International Cricket Council (ICC), the Bangladesh Cricket Board (BCB), and PCB officials.

Bangladesh had already been under scrutiny for refusing to play in India earlier, citing security concerns. The ICC faced a delicate balancing act protecting tournament integrity while maintaining governance standards.

After nearly ten days of uncertainty, the Pakistan government withdrew its boycott call, and the match was reinstated.

Najam Sethi’s Bold Counterclaim

Najam Sethi offered a sharply different interpretation of events in an interview with Rajdeep Sardesai.

According to Sethi:

• The ICC “backed off” to give Bangladesh breathing space.
  
  

• Pakistan had consulted top lawyers domestically and internationally.
  
  

• There were legal precedents suggesting no severe sanctions would follow.
  
  

• At worst, Pakistan risked losing a single point in the standings.
  
  

He further claimed that ICC Deputy Chairman Imran Khawaja played an active role in initiating negotiations once the ICC realised Pakistan’s legal footing was strong.

Sethi described the 15-day notice issued by Pakistan as a calculated diplomatic strategy rather than a reactionary move. He argued that Pakistan’s objective was partly to shield Bangladesh from potential sanctions and protect its revenue share.

What Did Bangladesh Gain?

One concrete outcome of the negotiations was the ICC’s confirmation that Bangladesh would face no sanctions. Instead, the BCB will be awarded an ICC event during the 2028–2031 cycle most likely the Under-19 Men’s World Cup.

While the ICC’s official statement did not specify any direct gains for PCB, Sethi believes Pakistan achieved part of its strategic objective by ensuring Bangladesh remained protected within the ICC structure.

Meanwhile, current PCB chairman Mohsin Naqvi stated that Pakistan agreed to play only after securing “respect” for Bangladesh.

Financial Stakes: Was Pakistan Really Safe?

Sethi also claimed that Pakistan no longer depends heavily on ICC revenue, stating that the PCB now earns more from its domestic T20 competition, the Pakistan Super League (PSL), than from ICC distributions.

According to reports:

• Pakistan’s share in the ICC’s 2024–27 financial cycle is approximately USD 144 million.
  
  

• PCB could receive up to USD 38 million annually at the highest payout rate.
  
  

• The PSL generates around USD 42 million in franchise fees starting from its 11th edition, boosted by the addition of two new teams.
  
  

However, a PTI report suggested that had the ICC’s governing board opted for strict penalties, PCB might have faced serious financial consequences.

This raises a crucial question: Was Pakistan truly insulated from risk, or was the ICC equally cautious about disrupting one of cricket’s most lucrative rivalries?

Behind the Scenes: Unmet Demands

Sources indicate that Pakistan entered negotiations with broader demands, including:

• Urging India to resume bilateral cricket.
  
  

• Proposing a tri-series involving India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.
  
  

The ICC, bound by its constitution, reportedly did not entertain these requests as it cannot intervene in bilateral matters between boards.

Instead, the resolution focused on:

• Protecting Bangladesh from sanctions.
  
  

• Ensuring revenue stability.
  
  

• Preserving the tournament schedule.
  
  

A Strategic Pause or Tactical Retreat?

Sethi suggested that more concessions may surface in the coming months, hinting at possible developments around March. His assertion that “Pakistan does not rely on ICC revenue anymore” adds another layer to the power dynamics between member boards and the global governing body.

The ICC and Pakistan government confirmed late Monday that the February 15 fixture in Colombo will proceed, officially ending the ten-day deadlock.

Conclusion

The India-Pakistan encounter remains the marquee event of the 2026 T20 World Cup, both commercially and emotionally. While the deadlock has been resolved, conflicting narratives continue to shape public perception.

Was it Pakistan’s calculated diplomacy that forced the ICC to compromise? Or did both sides retreat strategically to protect the tournament’s financial and political equilibrium?

One thing is certain when cricket meets geopolitics, the game extends far beyond the boundary line.