In FIFA, one thing I’ve always found fascinating is its zero-tolerance stance on political interference. If a football board is not elected properly or shows signs of government meddling, FIFA bans that country, sometimes for months, even years. For a long time I found this excessive, but now I understand why FIFA does it: because when politics enters sports, players inevitably become pawns.
It doesn’t matter which side is at fault. Players start behaving in ways that have nothing to do with the game, simply to appease their boards. And while board members keep their seats even when political tensions flare, it’s the players who are left to carry the mental burden. They’re the ones dragged into situations they never asked for.
Take this Asia Cup for example. My sympathies were with Salman Ali Agha. Everyone knew the Indian team would not be shaking hands with Naqvi, and that created pressure on the Pakistani players. If they lost and their chairman was embarrassed, they could be blamed, a completely unfair burden on the team.
We all know how Naqvi became PCB chairman. The PCB constitution states the chairman should be selected from the board’s members, two of whom are directly appointed by the Patron-in-Chief (the country’s Prime Minister). And, unsurprisingly, the person the Prime Minister wants ends up “elected” as PCB chairman. This is essentially a direct political appointment.
As for the BCCI, while it’s technically governed by its own constitution, it also faces heavy political influence through state associations and powerful political figures at the helm. So in practice, the situation is not very different. When boards are not truly independent, governments dictate policy to the boards, and the boards dictate it to the players. No surprise that Amit Shah's son Jay Shah has been the head of cricket at BCCI in the past.
For years, the ICC has turned a blind eye to all of this. But the signs are becoming obvious: handshake snubs, two presenters at tosses, trophy ceremonies snubbed, match referees leaving before finals are over, these things may seem small, but they set dangerous precedents. If the ICC doesn’t act now to curb political interference, this Asia Cup will just be the beginning of far bigger controversies.
It doesn’t matter which side is at fault. Players start behaving in ways that have nothing to do with the game, simply to appease their boards. And while board members keep their seats even when political tensions flare, it’s the players who are left to carry the mental burden. They’re the ones dragged into situations they never asked for.
Take this Asia Cup for example. My sympathies were with Salman Ali Agha. Everyone knew the Indian team would not be shaking hands with Naqvi, and that created pressure on the Pakistani players. If they lost and their chairman was embarrassed, they could be blamed, a completely unfair burden on the team.
We all know how Naqvi became PCB chairman. The PCB constitution states the chairman should be selected from the board’s members, two of whom are directly appointed by the Patron-in-Chief (the country’s Prime Minister). And, unsurprisingly, the person the Prime Minister wants ends up “elected” as PCB chairman. This is essentially a direct political appointment.
As for the BCCI, while it’s technically governed by its own constitution, it also faces heavy political influence through state associations and powerful political figures at the helm. So in practice, the situation is not very different. When boards are not truly independent, governments dictate policy to the boards, and the boards dictate it to the players. No surprise that Amit Shah's son Jay Shah has been the head of cricket at BCCI in the past.
For years, the ICC has turned a blind eye to all of this. But the signs are becoming obvious: handshake snubs, two presenters at tosses, trophy ceremonies snubbed, match referees leaving before finals are over, these things may seem small, but they set dangerous precedents. If the ICC doesn’t act now to curb political interference, this Asia Cup will just be the beginning of far bigger controversies.
