KEY POINTS
- Nasser Hussain and Michael Atherton accuse ICC of inconsistent rules and favouritism toward India.
- Criticism follows Pakistan’s boycott of its T20 World Cup match against India.
- Hussain argues the ICC would not treat India as harshly as it did Bangladesh.
- Atherton cites India’s neutral-venue allowance for Champions Trophy 2025 as a precedent for unfair treatment.
ISLAMABAD: The International Cricket Council (ICC) faces stinging criticism from prominent former England captains Nasser Hussain and Michael Atherton, who have accused the global governing body of inconsistency and preferential treatment towards India and its cricket board (BCCI).
Their remarks come against the backdrop of Pakistan’s decision to boycott its high-voltage T20 World Cup 2026 group match against India, escalating a simmering geopolitical dispute within the sport.
The flashpoint: A boycott and a withdrawal
The controversy has multiple layers. On February 1, the Pakistani government announced its national team would not play its scheduled World Cup match against India on February 15 in Colombo.
Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif termed the boycott a protest against the ICC’s recent removal of Bangladesh from the same tournament.
Bangladesh was replaced by Scotland on January 24 after refusing to play in India, citing security concerns.
Their apprehension was linked to the withdrawal of pacer Mustafizur Rahman from the Indian Premier League’s Kolkata Knight Riders, which they interpreted as a security threat.
The ICC countered with an independent security assessment claiming no “heightened” risk, but Bangladesh stood firm, leading to their exclusion.
Hussain questions consistency and cricket’s soul
Nasser Hussain, speaking on the Sky Sports Cricket Podcast, launched a broadside against the perceived double standards.
He connected recent on-field incidents, like Indian players boycotting handshakes with Pakistan during the 2025 Asia Cup, to broader administrative decisions.
“Cricket used to unite countries. Now it’s pushing people apart,” Hussain lamented.
He posed a direct challenge to the ICC’s impartiality: “In the future, if India… say their government didn’t want us to play in that country for a World Cup, would the ICC really be so firm, and say… ‘we’re knocking you out’?”
Hussain emphasised that the core demand from all nations is the uniform application of rules.
“All sides ask for is consistency. You have to treat Bangladesh the same as you treat Pakistan, the same as you treat India.”
He warned that marginalising cricket boards like Pakistan and Bangladesh would harm the global game.
“If you are constantly knocking Bangladesh or Pakistan, their cricket diminishes, and hence those great games become one-sided.”
Atherton points to a precedent in Dubai
Michael Atherton built on Hussain’s argument by highlighting a recent precedent that, in his view, legitimised Bangladesh’s demand.
He referenced the 2025 Champions Trophy, where India, citing government advice, did not travel to the host nation, Pakistan.
The ICC allowed India to play all its matches at a neutral venue in Dubai.
“Well, actually, you need to go back further to the Champions Trophy,” Atherton stated.
“India are given dispensation to play all their games in Dubai, which was a dispensation not given to other sides in the past.”
He argued that Bangladesh’s stance, though later in the timeline, was a demand for equal treatment.
“They’re demanding the same kind of treatment, so you start from the Champions Trophy, they’re not taken in isolation, there’s context to the whole thing.”
Underlying tension: Power, politics, and protocol
The criticisms from Hussain and Atherton underscore a deep-seated tension within international cricket, where geopolitical conflicts increasingly dictate fixtures and administrative decisions are scrutinised for bias.
The Pakistan boycott and the Bangladesh expulsion have converged into a singular debate about the ICC’s ability to enforce its protocols uniformly, especially when involving the sport’s financial powerhouse, India.
The ICC has yet to issue a formal response to the allegations of favouritism.
As the 2026 T20 World Cup approaches, the governing body finds itself navigating not just a logistical nightmare of rescheduling but a profound crisis of credibility regarding its neutrality.
