The cricketing world is once again abuzz with debate, and it’s not just about runs, wickets, or thrilling finishes. Instead, the focus has shifted to the boardrooms and broadcast booths, where the International Cricket Council’s (ICC) handling of the iconic India-Pakistan rivalry is under the microscope. Former England captain Michael Atherton has ignited a firestorm of discussion, accusing the ICC of prioritizing commercial gain over the sport’s core values and calling for a radical rethink of how—and why—these matches are scheduled.
On October 7, 2025, Atherton publicly criticized the ICC, stating, “These matches carry financial weight, and the ICC’s broadcast rights deal for 2023-27 is valued at approximately 3 billion dollars, with India-Pakistan matches playing a major role in it.” According to Atherton, the governing body’s approach is less about fair play and more about maximizing profits, especially when it comes to orchestrating high-stakes clashes between the two cricketing giants.
Such claims aren’t without context. India and Pakistan, whose last bilateral series dates back to 2013, now only meet in multilateral tournaments such as the World Cups, the Champions Trophy, and the Asia Cup. These encounters are rare, fiercely anticipated, and, as Atherton points out, “a fixture that carries huge economic clout.” He argues that the ICC’s deliberate arrangement of these matches is less about the spirit of the game and more about the bottom line.
But Atherton’s critique goes further. In his column for The Times, he lamented, “If cricket was once the vehicle for diplomacy, it is now, clearly, a proxy for broader tensions and for propaganda. There is little justification, in any case, for a serious sport to arrange tournament fixtures to suit its economic needs and now that the rivalry is being exploited in other ways, there is even less justification for it.” The former England skipper urged the ICC to adopt a transparent fixture draw system for future tournaments, suggesting that the sport’s administrators should “protect the game from being influenced by politics.”
The recent Asia Cup 2025 provided ample fuel for Atherton’s argument. India and Pakistan faced off three times in the tournament, with India emerging victorious in each encounter, including the final. However, the cricket itself was often overshadowed by controversy. The aftermath of the Pahalgam terror attack and Operation Sindoor cast a shadow over the matches, with incidents such as India’s refusal to shake hands with their Pakistani counterparts and provocative gestures from Pakistani players stirring up further tension. The drama didn’t end on the field; after winning the final, the Indian team refused to accept the Asia Cup trophy from Asian Cricket Council (ACC) chairman Mohsin Naqvi—who also serves as Pakistan’s Interior Minister—leaving the silverware stranded at ACC headquarters in Dubai.
These events have only intensified the scrutiny on the ICC’s scheduling practices. Atherton isn’t alone in his criticism. Sami Ul Hasan, former ICC head of media and communications, told Al Jazeera, “It’s all about maximising eyeballs and tournament revenue. It’s all about making sure India and Pakistan play against each other at least once. Over the last two decades, the ICC has changed the format of its tournaments multiple times to ensure that happens.” The economic rationale is clear—these matches are the crown jewels of any ICC event, attracting massive global viewership and driving up the value of broadcast rights.
Yet, not everyone is convinced that change is possible—or even desirable. A Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) official, responding to Atherton’s suggestions, offered a pragmatic, if somewhat cynical, perspective. “It’s easy to talk about all this, but will sponsors and broadcasters agree to it? In today’s situation, if any major team, not just India, withdraws from a tournament, it will be difficult to attract sponsors,” the official told Dainik Jagran. The implication is stark: the financial ecosystem of international cricket is so dependent on these marquee matches that removing them could jeopardize the viability of entire tournaments.
The BCCI’s stance underscores the commercial realities facing cricket’s administrators. The official noted that even the withdrawal of a single top-tier team could send sponsors running. And with the ICC’s current broadcast rights deal for 2023-27 pegged at roughly 3 billion dollars, driven in large part by the India-Pakistan rivalry, the stakes are sky-high. “India vs Pakistan matches in ICC tournaments would continue to be a trend despite the Asia Cup controversies,” the official remarked, signaling that economic imperatives are likely to trump calls for reform.
This tension between tradition and commerce isn’t new. Atherton himself recalled a different era, referencing Sunil Gavaskar’s memoir, ‘Sunny Days’, which described the camaraderie between Indian and Pakistani players during the World XI tour to Australia in 1971-72, even as their countries were at war. “There was no tension at all between the Indian and Pakistan players, despite what was happening,” Atherton quoted Gavaskar as written in his book. Such stories stand in stark contrast to the current climate, where, as PCB veteran Sami Ul Hasan predicts, “fans would not witness the ‘friendship and warmth seen in the past. The smallest move can agitate the public.”
The fallout from the Asia Cup 2025 exemplifies how far the rivalry has strayed from its diplomatic roots. The trophy saga continues, with Mohsin Naqvi posting on social media that the Indian captain must come to Dubai to collect the prize, while tempers have flared in ACC meetings between Naqvi and BCCI representatives. The political undertones are impossible to ignore, and the sporting spectacle is now inseparable from the broader geopolitical narrative.
Amidst all this, ICC chief Dave Richardson’s 2016 admission rings truer than ever: “No doubt we want to put India versus Pakistan in our events. It’s hugely important from an ICC point of view. It’s massive around the world and fans have come to expect it as well. It’s fantastic for the tournament because it gives it a massive kick.” For now, the ICC seems unlikely to abandon a formula that delivers both drama and dollars.
So, where does cricket go from here? Atherton’s call for transparent fixture draws and a return to the sport’s core values has struck a chord with purists, but the commercial machinery driving the modern game shows no sign of slowing. As the Asia Cup trophy sits in limbo and the debate rages on, one thing is certain: the India-Pakistan rivalry remains cricket’s most captivating—and contentious—showpiece, both on and off the field.
