Is the ICC Still Governing Global Cricket, or Managing India’s Interests?

The International Cricket Council (ICC) exists to govern cricket impartially across nations, cultures, and political systems. Its legitimacy depends not on revenue, popularity, or power, but on fairness, consistency, and trust. Recent events surrounding the 2026 Men’s T20 World Cup have placed that legitimacy under intense scrutiny.

The decision to remove Bangladesh from the tournament and replace them with Scotland was not merely controversial. It exposed long-standing structural questions about influence, selective accommodation, and whether the ICC continues to function as a genuinely global institution or increasingly operates in alignment with India’s cricketing and political priorities, shaped largely by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI).

A Power Shift Rooted in Economics, Not Governance

Cricket’s power has never been static. The ICC was founded in 1909 under British dominance, with England and Australia shaping the sport’s rules, tours, and revenues for much of the 20th century. That era has ended.

What replaced it was not a more democratic order, but a financial hierarchy. With the rise of satellite television, advertising, and the Indian Premier League, India became the sport’s economic engine. Today, an estimated 75 to 80 percent of ICC revenue is derived directly or indirectly from the Indian market.

This reality has consequences. In international sport, economic centrality often translates into political leverage. Over time, that leverage reshapes governance norms, decision-making thresholds, and institutional reflexes. The ICC’s recent conduct suggests that this transformation is no longer subtle.

The Bangladesh Decision: Security, Dismissed

Bangladesh had qualified for the 2026 Men’s T20 World Cup on sporting merit. Their removal did not result from performance, eligibility, or compliance failure. It followed a dispute rooted in security.

The sequence matters.

The controversy began after Bangladeshi fast bowler Mustafizur Rahman was released from his IPL contract. The release was not injury-related and not initiated by the player. Reports indicated that security considerations were cited, a move that immediately heightened tensions.

Soon after, the Bangladesh Cricket Board (BCB) raised concerns about sending its national team to India amid escalating unrest. These concerns were concrete, not speculative. They included protests outside Bangladeshi diplomatic missions, incidents of communal violence linked to mistaken identity, legal petitions in Indian courts demanding restrictions on Bangladesh cricket, and an atmosphere that reasonably alarmed player safety officials.

Bangladesh requested that its matches be shifted to Sri Lanka, a co-host nation already operating under a hybrid tournament model. This was not unprecedented, nor logistically impossible.

After nearly three weeks of discussion, the ICC rejected the request, stating that there was no credible or verifiable security threat. The ICC then issued the Bangladesh Cricket Board (BCB) a 24-hour ultimatum to confirm participation in India. When Bangladesh did not comply, the ICC board voted to replace them with Scotland.

BCB President Aminul Islam Bulbul responded with a statement that resonated widely across the cricketing world: a global governing body cannot issue 24-hour ultimatums on matters of national security.

The Inescapable Comparison

The reaction was immediate because the precedent was recent.

In 2025, India refused to travel to Pakistan for the Champions Trophy, citing security concerns. The ICC did not demand additional proof, impose deadlines, or threaten replacement. Instead, it swiftly implemented a hybrid model, allowing India to play its matches in Dubai.

The contrast is stark.

When India raised security concerns, accommodation followed. When Bangladesh did the same, dismissal and exclusion followed. The difference was not principle, policy, or process. It was power.

Wisden captured the imbalance succinctly: India received Dubai; Bangladesh received replacement.

Perception Has Become Reality

Perception matters in governance. When similar cases produce radically different outcomes, institutions lose credibility regardless of their internal justifications.

That is why the remark by Indian journalist Sharda Ugra struck such a chord. Her description of the ICC as “ICC is basically just the Dubai office of the BCCI” was provocative, but it reflected a belief increasingly shared across boards, media, and former players.

The ICC’s leadership structure intensifies these concerns. Its current chair, Jay Shah, ascended through the BCCI and was elected unopposed. He has never played professional cricket and is closely connected to India’s political establishment through his father, Amit Shah.

Leadership optics alone do not define governance quality. But when combined with consistent patterns of preferential accommodation, they reinforce doubts about independence.

Impact on Media Landscape

ESPN Cricinfo, once a gold standard, declined post-India influence via Disney-Star deals. Journalists like George Dobell left, citing reduced quality, and pandering to Indian audiences over global coverage. Reddit discussions and reports note hidden features like Statsguru and bitter tones in non-India reporting.

The same concentration of influence appears across cricket’s broader ecosystem.

Media platforms that once prided themselves on global balance increasingly prioritize Indian narratives. Coverage of associate nations has shrunk. Critical journalism has thinned. Veteran writers have departed citing editorial pressure and declining independence.

Even the ICC’s own digital presence reflects this imbalance, with a disproportionate focus on Indian cricket across social platforms. For smaller nations, visibility remains limited, reinforcing a hierarchy of relevance dictated by market size rather than sporting merit.

What Is at Stake

Cricket is not owned by any one nation, market, or board. Its future depends on credibility. Smaller Full Members and Associate nations already struggle for fixtures, funding, and development opportunities. When qualification can be overturned not by performance but by selective governance, trust erodes.

If the ICC continues to function as a body that adapts swiftly to the concerns of its most powerful member while dismissing identical concerns from others, the sport risks fragmentation. Governance without perceived fairness ultimately becomes governance without consent.

A Moment of Reckoning

India’s contribution to world cricket is immense and undeniable. But global sport cannot be governed by economic gravity alone.

The Bangladesh decision is not just about one tournament slot. It is about whether the ICC can still claim to represent all its members equally, or whether it has quietly transitioned into an institution where power dictates policy.

This is a moment of reckoning for international cricket. The ICC must decide whether it intends to remain a truly international council or continue down a path where fairness is negotiable and influence is decisive.

The answer will shape not just tournaments, but the future legitimacy of the game itself.