- Joined
- Aug 29, 2023
- Runs
- 36,393
Najam Sethi speaking during a TV show:
“You may have disagreements with Mohsin Naqvi. You must be upset with how cricket has been mismanaged and how poor the team’s performance has been—and still is. There’s a lot of disappointment. Everyone’s angry. Now the issue is, this was a crisis where Pakistan stood to lose a lot.”
“The PCB had taken a stance that if the ICC didn’t apologize or investigate, we would boycott. And I knew that wasn’t going to happen. I’ll explain why. The decision had already been made. And reversing that decision wasn’t easy. It felt like, under public pressure, we were heading toward a boycott—“Let the Asia Cup go to hell, let the ICC go to hell.”
“My stance has always been: take a stand, fight legally, but don’t abandon the international arena. Just like we tell politicians—no matter how flawed the elections are, you must contest. Whether there’s rigging or not, you shouldn’t boycott elections. Don’t leave a vacuum. Present your stance through participation. That’s always been my philosophy. And that’s why we’re still in the game. So, when they called me, my friends said, “Don’t go. Don’t support them.” But I didn’t go to support Mohsin Naqvi. I went to support the Pakistan Cricket Board. Because if the board collapsed, Pakistan cricket would suffer immensely.”
“The big damage could have been that ICC would rally people against you in the Asian Cricket Council. You’d be sidelined. ICC could impose penalties. The $15–16 million in revenue wouldn’t come. PSL might face restrictions—foreign players might refuse to participate. This was a reputational crisis for PCB.”
“They had already made the decision. I wish they hadn’t. But emotions got the better of them. Now they had to exit that decision with some dignity. I think they managed that. That was the advice. That’s the decision we made together. That’s why I went—because they called me, and I said, “If asked, I’ll share my thoughts.” And the good thing is, their thinking was aligned: how do we exit this? So we helped them exit, and the game resumed.”
“My honest stance was simply this: PCB must survive. Our cricketers must survive. This is a great game we dearly love. Mohsin Naqvi isn’t the problem. The problem is India—and some domestic issues, which are always there. Sometimes cricket flourishes under a chairman, sometimes it doesn’t. When it’s about cricket and Pakistan, whether it’s a political issue or not, I have to stand with my country and my cricket board.”
“The issue wasn’t the handshake—it was a convention, a tradition. So, if they didn’t shake hands, fine. But the political statements made afterward by their cricketer—that was definitely objectionable. Two mistakes were made. I think PCB was so confused, they didn’t know what to do. First, under ICC rules—which I’ve read thoroughly—you have 18 hours to lodge a protest with the referee. You could’ve said, “This player made these statements, please censure him.” You had that window. But you didn’t lodge the complaint in time. You did it later—no use. And you asked ICC to replace the player. That wasn’t the complaint. The complaint should’ve been: “This cricketer made political statements, please censure him.” You should’ve told the referee. If the referee refused, then you could escalate. But you didn’t go to the referee. That window closed.”
“Second, during the ceremony, when their cricketer made those statements, PCB pulled its people out in protest—“We’re leaving, we won’t attend.” But you should’ve stayed. They were going to interview you too, right? You could’ve responded. How many responses could you have given, but instead, you walked away. So, in confusion and emotion, good advice wasn’t received—and this happened. But I think for the future, they’re wiser now about how to handle such things.”
“But I must say one thing—whether PCB likes it or not, whether Mohsin Naqvi likes it or not—our team managers must know all cricket laws and constitutions. How to protest, what kind of letter to write, and what the time window is. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. When people are appointed based on recommendations, they wear blazers, walking around, not knowing what to do, calling headquarters, and headquarters itself is clueless. “Read the constitution,” they say. That’s sad. This shouldn’t happen.”
“Let me give you an example. I raised this issue: the ACC constitution says ACC appoints umpires for its own fixtures. It nominates them. ICC doesn’t nominate them—first point. Second, it says you can nominate any qualified umpire. If you ask ICC, they can give you a list of international umpires to choose from. But it’s not that ICC appoints, and that’s final.”
“It seems when Jay Shah left ACC and joined ICC, he took this with him—“ICC will appoint umpires.” You didn’t read the Constitution. When you came in, you didn’t know—or you should’ve known. As president, your advisors should’ve told you what’s written in the Constitution. You should’ve said, “We’ll nominate our own umpire.” Why didn’t you reject the appointment? I mentioned this to Ramiz. I told him earlier—this gentleman has officiated 90 matches for India, appointed by India. 90 matches—14 of them are Tests, ODIs, and T20s where India nominated him as umpire and referee. India always chooses him. So, you didn’t know this situation? You could’ve protested. You could’ve said, “No, we don’t accept this. We’ll nominate our own umpire.”
“If you haven’t read the constitution—neither ICC’s nor ACC’s—then that’s not the chairman’s job. It’s the job of his advisors. The professionals who handle international relations and deals. It’s their job to brief the chair. And the manager should also know—because anything can happen on tour. Problems always arise on tour. So he should also know. But unfortunately, in this kind of situation, nobody knows what to do.“
“You may have disagreements with Mohsin Naqvi. You must be upset with how cricket has been mismanaged and how poor the team’s performance has been—and still is. There’s a lot of disappointment. Everyone’s angry. Now the issue is, this was a crisis where Pakistan stood to lose a lot.”
“The PCB had taken a stance that if the ICC didn’t apologize or investigate, we would boycott. And I knew that wasn’t going to happen. I’ll explain why. The decision had already been made. And reversing that decision wasn’t easy. It felt like, under public pressure, we were heading toward a boycott—“Let the Asia Cup go to hell, let the ICC go to hell.”
“My stance has always been: take a stand, fight legally, but don’t abandon the international arena. Just like we tell politicians—no matter how flawed the elections are, you must contest. Whether there’s rigging or not, you shouldn’t boycott elections. Don’t leave a vacuum. Present your stance through participation. That’s always been my philosophy. And that’s why we’re still in the game. So, when they called me, my friends said, “Don’t go. Don’t support them.” But I didn’t go to support Mohsin Naqvi. I went to support the Pakistan Cricket Board. Because if the board collapsed, Pakistan cricket would suffer immensely.”
“The big damage could have been that ICC would rally people against you in the Asian Cricket Council. You’d be sidelined. ICC could impose penalties. The $15–16 million in revenue wouldn’t come. PSL might face restrictions—foreign players might refuse to participate. This was a reputational crisis for PCB.”
“They had already made the decision. I wish they hadn’t. But emotions got the better of them. Now they had to exit that decision with some dignity. I think they managed that. That was the advice. That’s the decision we made together. That’s why I went—because they called me, and I said, “If asked, I’ll share my thoughts.” And the good thing is, their thinking was aligned: how do we exit this? So we helped them exit, and the game resumed.”
“My honest stance was simply this: PCB must survive. Our cricketers must survive. This is a great game we dearly love. Mohsin Naqvi isn’t the problem. The problem is India—and some domestic issues, which are always there. Sometimes cricket flourishes under a chairman, sometimes it doesn’t. When it’s about cricket and Pakistan, whether it’s a political issue or not, I have to stand with my country and my cricket board.”
“The issue wasn’t the handshake—it was a convention, a tradition. So, if they didn’t shake hands, fine. But the political statements made afterward by their cricketer—that was definitely objectionable. Two mistakes were made. I think PCB was so confused, they didn’t know what to do. First, under ICC rules—which I’ve read thoroughly—you have 18 hours to lodge a protest with the referee. You could’ve said, “This player made these statements, please censure him.” You had that window. But you didn’t lodge the complaint in time. You did it later—no use. And you asked ICC to replace the player. That wasn’t the complaint. The complaint should’ve been: “This cricketer made political statements, please censure him.” You should’ve told the referee. If the referee refused, then you could escalate. But you didn’t go to the referee. That window closed.”
“Second, during the ceremony, when their cricketer made those statements, PCB pulled its people out in protest—“We’re leaving, we won’t attend.” But you should’ve stayed. They were going to interview you too, right? You could’ve responded. How many responses could you have given, but instead, you walked away. So, in confusion and emotion, good advice wasn’t received—and this happened. But I think for the future, they’re wiser now about how to handle such things.”
“But I must say one thing—whether PCB likes it or not, whether Mohsin Naqvi likes it or not—our team managers must know all cricket laws and constitutions. How to protest, what kind of letter to write, and what the time window is. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. When people are appointed based on recommendations, they wear blazers, walking around, not knowing what to do, calling headquarters, and headquarters itself is clueless. “Read the constitution,” they say. That’s sad. This shouldn’t happen.”
“Let me give you an example. I raised this issue: the ACC constitution says ACC appoints umpires for its own fixtures. It nominates them. ICC doesn’t nominate them—first point. Second, it says you can nominate any qualified umpire. If you ask ICC, they can give you a list of international umpires to choose from. But it’s not that ICC appoints, and that’s final.”
“It seems when Jay Shah left ACC and joined ICC, he took this with him—“ICC will appoint umpires.” You didn’t read the Constitution. When you came in, you didn’t know—or you should’ve known. As president, your advisors should’ve told you what’s written in the Constitution. You should’ve said, “We’ll nominate our own umpire.” Why didn’t you reject the appointment? I mentioned this to Ramiz. I told him earlier—this gentleman has officiated 90 matches for India, appointed by India. 90 matches—14 of them are Tests, ODIs, and T20s where India nominated him as umpire and referee. India always chooses him. So, you didn’t know this situation? You could’ve protested. You could’ve said, “No, we don’t accept this. We’ll nominate our own umpire.”
“If you haven’t read the constitution—neither ICC’s nor ACC’s—then that’s not the chairman’s job. It’s the job of his advisors. The professionals who handle international relations and deals. It’s their job to brief the chair. And the manager should also know—because anything can happen on tour. Problems always arise on tour. So he should also know. But unfortunately, in this kind of situation, nobody knows what to do.“
Verdict with Handshake Strategy
One captain extending his hand. The other refusing.
