While I appreciate the genuine feelings, I think there's way too much pearl clutching going on.
We're living in a world where
- China will threaten anyone who establishes any relations with a free democratic nation with a 75 year history with the direst consequences
- The US kidnaps sovereign Heads of State and takes away another country's oil from the high seas
- Russia invades another country and brutalises it's citizens for acting independently and thinking of joining a rival alliance
I dislike India's petty politics in cricket even though I'm an Indian but to say that a country whose viewership which is single handedly financing the whole sport should refrain from taking the slightest advantage is going against the entire history of human nature.
Now of course it's Pakistan's choice to bring down of one the pillars holding up the global cricket edifice down because they believe they've been treated badly but again I have to laugh if anyone believes they're acting purely morally and they wouldn't do exactly this and worse if they had the whip hand.
Perhaps sports only reach an equilibrium of stability when there are multiple powers like football, rugby or there is only one clear single power that everyone accepts like baseball or basketball. All other formulations are inherently unstable and eventually reach a crisis point.
I think I do agree with the central tenet of your argument that any nation that wields power will exercise it to its own benefit — that is the way of the world and indeed the way that England and Australia behaved when they ran predecessors to the ICC.
My point is that cricket is not like other “global” sports, in that it is played by a handful of countries and, in practice, it’s only the predominant sport in South Asian countries.
In Australia it is behind Aussie Rules, in SA behind both rugby and football, NZ behind rugby.
In England it is hard to overemphasise how niche cricket is — played by ca 10% of school children (predominantly private schools and/or of South Asian origin).Football is all pervasive.
If international cricket (as opposed to franchise cricket) is to survive (which I think is increasingly unlikely) then India needs to play a more active role in ensuring some degree of equality — perhaps behaving more like a benign autocrat, rather than a dictator.
That’s said, it may be understandable for them to say, “why should we care ?”
The IPL is the preeminent franchise event and its owners are increasingly having global influence (SA, The Hundred etc).
However, cricket as a global entity would suffer.
This is why I don’t entirely understand the angst of the Indian posters on here — the withdrawal of Pakistan from the fixture with India will ultimately hit ICC revenue (broadcasters will inevitably want to renegotiate deals) and as a consequence the revenue distribution to smaller countries will diminish.
Under the premise of “India First” that shouldn’t worry them.
www.hindustantimes.com
.
