The Dual Role of Sports Governing Bodies, the Integrity of Sports Competition, and Principles of Good Governance

It is well established that the protection and promotion of the 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 is a core function of sports regulators and governing bodies. The spirit of sport requires a fair sporting contest. Likewise, good governance dictates that rules ought to be transparent and objective, and 𝗻𝗼𝗻-𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆.

There is also a well-trodden argument that giving a sports governing body both regulatory and organisational powers can be problematic, as having the same organisation (i) responsible for applying the rules of the game; and (ii) operating as a commercial player in the market for organising sports competitions, can lead to a 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁.

In the last few days, the challenge of – on the one hand – 𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆 and enforcing 𝗻𝗼𝗻-𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗲𝘀, while – on the other – seeking to bolster and/or protect 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘂𝗲𝘀, has once again presented itself before cricket’s global governing body, the International Cricket Council (ICC).

𝘽𝙖𝙘𝙠𝙜𝙧𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙙

• The Champions Trophy, a tournament organised by the ICC and contested by the top eight ranked men’s national teams, is due to be hosted (exclusively) in Pakistan, in February-March 2025. Pakistan was announced as the host in November 2021.

• However, there has always been a question mark over the extent of India’s participation in the tournament, in light of potential security concerns and strained relations between the countries’ governments. It’s been reported that last week, just three months before the competition is due to be staged, the Indian Cricket Board (the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), informed the ICC that it will not travel to Pakistan, having been advised by the Indian government not to.

𝙋𝙧𝙚𝙘𝙚𝙙𝙚𝙣𝙩

• This is not the first time a team has refused to travel to a country for a global tournament.

• At the 1996 World Cup, both Australia and the West Indies refused to tour Sri Lanka. This decision was taken in light of a bombing in Colombo which killed 91 and injured 1,400, which took place just 14 days before the World Cup. Australia and West Indies were both made to forfeit their fixtures scheduled in Sri Lanka, with full points being awarded to the host nation.

• Similarly, at the 2003 World Cup, England refused to travel to Zimbabwe and New Zealand refused to travel to Kenya, with both teams citing safety fears and security concerns. England and New Zealand also forfeited their fixtures, with the host teams being awarded full points.

• Most recently, at the 2023 Asia Cup, India’s refusal to travel to Pakistan led to the tournament being played in a hybrid format instead, with matches staged in both Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Though unlike the 1996 and 2003 World Cups (and the upcoming 2025 Champions Trophy), the Asia Cup was organised by the Asian Cricket Council, not the ICC.

• As with the 1996 and 2003 instances, it may be that the Indian government and the BCCI have legitimate security or safety concerns with the staging of the 2025 tournament. However, on this occasion, it’s been reported that the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) has not yet received direct confirmation from the BCCI (and nor has the BCCI issued a public statement) that it is unable to play the Champions Trophy in Pakistan, nor has the BCCI been forthcoming in providing the reasons why it has not been given permission by the Indian government to travel to Pakistan.

𝙊𝙥𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨 𝙪𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙧 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙨𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣

• It has been reported that a number of structural contingency plans are under consideration by the ICC, including either the operation of a hybrid model (where some games will be played in Pakistan, and others at a second location (possibly the UAE or Sri Lanka)) or replacing Pakistan as the hosts entirely, with the entire tournament to be staged elsewhere (possibly South Africa).

• Unlike the 1996 and 2003 World Cups, which were already due to take place across a number of host countries, the 2025 Champions Trophy is currently set to be hosted exclusively by Pakistan. Therefore, in the absence of either a hybrid model or a new host entirely, it is difficult to see how India can participate at all in the tournament.

• It’s clear, however, that the sport’s administrators do not fathom the tournament going ahead without India’s involvement.

𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙢𝙚𝙧𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙡 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙪𝙣𝙙𝙧𝙪𝙢

• The commercial value that the Indian national team and the BCCI bring to the ICC’s global pot far exceeds the contributions of all other nations and boards combined – it is commonly cited that Indian cricket contributes between 70-80% of the total global cricket economy, and the value of media rights sales in India is well over 10 times those in other key markets, such as the UK.

• This reality is not lost on the game’s administrators. Last month, the ECB chief executive was forthright in stating that cricket's dependence on broadcast rights as a revenue stream ensured both India and Pakistan would feature: "If you play the Champions Trophy without India, or Pakistan, the broadcast rights aren't there, and we need to protect them".

• Put simply, the ICC, as well as most of the wider cricketing world, is dependent on the BCCI and the Indian economy.

𝙄𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙜𝙧𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙤𝙛 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙥𝙚𝙩𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣

• The ICC has arguably previously set its own precedent of sacrificing the integrity of competition in deference to these commercial considerations.

• While a common feature of integrity in sporting competition is the concept of a ‘draw’ (albeit frequently one that is based on seedings), the India-Pakistan rivalry is the marquee fixture in all global events, and with no bilateral cricket being played between the two teams since 2013 due to political sensitivities, tournament organisers have ensured that they face each other at least once in every tournament since the 2013 Champions Trophy.

• And as recently as the T20 World Cup in 2024, India was the only team which knew in advance the date and location of their semi-final, in the event they qualified. This was likely because the first semi-final, which was due to be played in the evening in Trinidad, would start at 6am local time in India, whereas the second semi-final, scheduled for the daytime in Guyana, would commence at the far more TV-friendly time of 8pm in India. It was reported that the ICC needed to guarantee favourable timings of an India fixture for the Indian audience in order to capture a lucrative broadcast agreement.

𝘾𝙤𝙢𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩

It remains to be seen how this latest challenge will play out, or what decision the ICC will take on this occasion. The most recent reports suggest that the PCB has ruled out entertainment of a hybrid model. What is clear, however, is that the principles of integrity of competition are at risk. A governing body tasked both with regulating competitions and securing the financial future of the sport can find itself in an unenviable – and conflicting – position.

Anand Patel