ISLAMABAD: In the 2023–24 fiscal period, the Indian cricket board reported revenues of roughly $1.2 billion, positioning itself almost three times above the next-best earner—ECB, which trails by close to $769 million.
Factor in the full revenue footprint of IPL—not merely the surplus the board chooses to record—and India’s annual turnover surges beyond $1.9 billion, setting a commercial benchmark that no other board can realistically contest.
Cricket Politicised
This financial clout has translated into increasingly decisive leverage at cricket’s administrative table.
Nearly 40 per cent of profits distributed by the ICC now find their way to India, deepening concerns that global cricket’s strategic priorities—venues, dates, tournament formats, and commercial inventory—are being shaped to align with a single board’s ambitions rather than the sport’s collective interest.
Former match referee Chris Broad recently reignited debate surrounding India’s influence when speaking to The Telegraph recently.
He suggested that political nudges in favour of India existed during his officiating career. “India got all the money and have now taken over the ICC in many ways,” he said. “It’s a much more political position now than it ever has been.”
Pressed on whether he had ever been asked to exercise leniency, Broad admitted: “India were three or four overs down so it constituted a fine. I got a phone call saying: ‘Be lenient… find some time because it’s India’. We did. The very next game, exactly the same thing happened and I was told: ‘Just do him’.”
His remarks have fuelled ongoing suspicion that BCCI now dictates ICC behaviour, diluting impartial governance.
When Champions Trophy Lost Its Host
Such anxieties were amplified during the latest Champions Trophy, officially allocated to Pakistan. India refused to play matches across the border, prompting the ICC to shift the entirety of India’s fixtures to Dubai.
The relocation set off a chain of logistical absurdities: all four semi-finalists—India, New Zealand, Australia, and South Africa—eventually assembled in the UAE, despite the tournament’s designated base being Pakistan.
South Africa endured the worst of the chaos. After defeating England in Karachi on a Saturday, they travelled to Dubai on Sunday, only to fly back to Pakistan on Monday for a semi-final two days later.
The environmental impact was questionable; the competitive disadvantage was obvious. Meanwhile, India, stationed comfortably in one venue, secured the title with ease.
Two of the sport’s most respected analysts, Nasser Hussain and Mike Atherton, suggested India had been handed an advantage by playing all their trophy games in one, neutral venue.
Controversy in the Asia Cup
Months later, diplomacy and cricket intertwined again during the Asia Cup, held in the UAE. Indian players repeatedly declined to engage in customary handshakes with Pakistan’s team before and after fixtures.
The standoff only intensified after the final, when India’s squad opted not to attend the trophy ceremony.
BCCI secretary Devajit Saikia stated that players did not wish to receive the Asia Cup Trophy from Mohsin Naqvi— president of the Asian Cricket Council, a Pakistani.
A Sport Tilting Off-Centre
Together, these incidents paint a disquieting portrait: cricket’s competitive fairness, traditional etiquette, and global unity appear increasingly influenced by a single power’s economic footprint. It risks crossing a line where financial supremacy begins to overshadow sporting integrity.
As India cements itself as the immovable axis around which international cricket rotates, the sport must confront a fundamental regulatory dilemma: Who ensures that cricket’s global heartbeat remains shared—and not privately controlled?
