Cricket diplomacy caught in a political crossfire

Cricket, a sport that ignites passion across South Asia, finds itself ensnared in the complex and often fraught relationship between India and Pakistan. The Champions Trophy 2025, heralded as a potential platform for rekindling sporting ties, now teeters on the brink of becoming a casualty of diplomatic deadlock. With India refusing to send its team to Pakistan, citing political and security concerns, the tournament’s integrity—and indeed, the spirit of cricket—is at stake. At the heart of the impasse lies a paradox: while cricket has long been seen as a bridge between estranged nations, it remains deeply intertwined with national politics. This reality, exacerbated by heightened tensions since 2019, underscores the limits of sports as a tool for diplomacy in the current political climate.

India and Pakistan’s cricketing estrangement is no isolated phenomenon; it reflects broader political tensions that have simmered for years. Since the Pulwama attack in 2019, followed by India’s airstrikes in Balakot and its revocation of Jammu and Kashmir’s special status, the bilateral relationship has plunged into a deep freeze. Against this backdrop, India’s reluctance to cross the border is more than just a matter of security concerns; it is a political statement.

New Delhi’s stance is further reinforced by domestic narratives linking Pakistan to incidents in India-held Kashmir, a region fraught with historical conflict. For the Indian government, led by the hardline Narendra Modi administration, the optics of playing cricket in Pakistan amid allegations of cross-border terrorism are untenable. Ajay Bisaria, a former Indian high commissioner to Pakistan, succinctly captured this sentiment, arguing that such gestures could be perceived as incongruent with India’s broader geopolitical stance.

Yet, history offers a different perspective. Despite several political crises, including wars and terror attacks, India and Pakistan have managed to maintain cricketing ties in the past. The 1970s through the 2000s saw bilateral series and co-hosting of international tournaments, even as diplomatic relations waxed and waned. This era of pragmatic engagement starkly contrasts with the current rigidity, raising questions about whether today’s hardline approach risks forfeiting an opportunity for soft diplomacy.

Beyond the political dimension, India’s withdrawal from the Champions Trophy carries significant economic ramifications. Cricket is not just a sport; it is an industry worth billions. The ICC’s $3 billion broadcasting deal with Disney Hotstar hinges heavily on India’s participation, given the sheer size and fervor of its cricketing audience.

India’s absence from the tournament would not only jeopardize this deal but also undermine the financial viability of the event. The PCB’s chief, Mohsin Naqvi, has made it clear that Pakistan expects reciprocal treatment, hinting that Islamabad may boycott future ICC events in India if New Delhi remains intransigent.

The prospect of a fragmented tournament, with India playing only select matches in neutral venues like the UAE, has been floated as a compromise. However, such an arrangement risks diluting the essence of the Champions Trophy as a unified, competitive spectacle. Moreover, it underscores the asymmetric power dynamics in global cricket, where India’s financial clout often translates into disproportionate influence.

Perhaps the most poignant casualty of this standoff is the cricketing fan base that spans both sides of the border and beyond. The prospect of an India-Pakistan clash—arguably one of the sport’s most electrifying rivalries—has thrilled millions, only to be thwarted by political wrangling.

Former England captain Michael Vaughan aptly noted that the growing animosity could further strain relations within the cricketing community. His observation speaks to a broader issue: cricket, a supposed unifier, is increasingly becoming a victim of subcontinental geopolitics. The players, too, bear the brunt of this impasse. Indian stalwarts like Virat Kohli have never played a Test match against Pakistan, a glaring anomaly in the annals of cricket history. Such missed opportunities deprive not only the athletes but also the sport itself of moments that could transcend boundaries.

As the Champions Trophy tour unfolds across Pakistan, the anticipation of hosting the event remains overshadowed by the uncertainty surrounding India’s participation. The stalemate, steeped in political mistrust, reflects the broader challenge of separating sport from statecraft in South Asia.

Cricket’s Role as a Catalyst or Casualty in India-Pakistan Relations

The stalemate surrounding the Champions Trophy 2025 is not just a test of sporting diplomacy; it is a barometer of India and Pakistan's ability—or inability—to navigate their strained relationship. As calls for dialogue grow louder, the question remains: can cricket rise above the political quicksand, or will it continue to sink as a victim of bilateral hostilities?

Cricket has long been more than a game in South Asia—it is a cultural phenomenon capable of transcending political divides. Advocates of cricket diplomacy, including former Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, argue that sports can pave the way for broader engagement. In his view, India’s participation in the Champions Trophy could act as a goodwill gesture, fostering an environment conducive to dialogue.

This perspective is not without precedent. Past governments in both countries have successfully leveraged cricket to ease tensions. In 1987, the presence of Indian and Pakistani leaders at cricket matches played a symbolic role in diffusing hostilities. Similarly, the 2004 series, which saw India touring Pakistan, was hailed as a watershed moment for bilateral ties. However, the current political climate presents a stark contrast to these earlier instances of engagement. The Modi administration’s hardline approach to Pakistan, rooted in nationalist rhetoric and security concerns, leaves little room for such gestures. For New Delhi, cricket cannot be disentangled from broader political and security considerations, particularly with ongoing accusations of cross-border terrorism.

The economic implications of India’s withdrawal from the Champions Trophy cannot be overstated. With its vast cricketing market, India’s participation is the linchpin of the ICC’s financial ecosystem. This disproportionate influence gives the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) considerable leverage in shaping international cricket’s agenda.

Jay Shah, the BCCI’s secretary and a key figure in the Modi administration’s orbit, epitomizes this nexus of politics and cricket. His reported reluctance to allow India’s participation in Pakistan-hosted events reflects not only governmental policy but also a broader assertion of India’s dominance in the cricketing world. This dominance, however, comes at a cost. By prioritizing short-term political gains over long-term sporting integrity, India risks alienating other cricketing nations and undermining the ICC’s credibility as a global governing body. Former England captain Michael Vaughan has already warned of the fallout, suggesting that India’s stance could fracture relationships within the cricketing fraternity.  

Efforts to salvage the Champions Trophy have led to proposals for a hybrid model, where India would play select matches at neutral venues like the UAE. While this might offer a pragmatic solution, it fails to address the underlying issue: the politicization of cricket. Such a compromise would also deprive Pakistan of the full benefits of hosting a major ICC event, further entrenching perceptions of inequality in global cricket. The PCB’s demand for an increased revenue share in exchange for accommodating India underscores the economic imbalance at play.

Moreover, this model risks setting a dangerous precedent, where political considerations routinely dictate tournament formats, eroding the spirit of competition. Cricket, at its best, thrives on unifying fans, players, and nations through shared experiences. Fragmented tournaments dilute this essence, reducing the game to a mere pawn in geopolitical chess.  

If cricket is to regain its role as a bridge between India and Pakistan, it requires more than symbolic gestures; it demands a sustained commitment to dialogue and trust-building. Former Indian diplomat Ajay Bisaria’s suggestion of gradual steps—such as resuming trade and diplomatic exchanges—offers a pragmatic starting point. However, such measures hinge on political will, which remains in short supply. For India, the resolution of security concerns in Kashmir is a non-negotiable prerequisite for any overture, cricketing or otherwise. For Pakistan, reciprocating India’s gestures with tangible actions against perceived threats could pave the way for normalization.  

The Champions Trophy 2025 is more than just a tournament; it is a litmus test for the future of India-Pakistan relations and the role of cricket in fostering peace. By refusing to engage, both nations risk squandering an opportunity to demonstrate leadership and vision in a region desperate for reconciliation.

Cricket alone cannot resolve decades of animosity, but it can serve as a starting point—a shared stage where rivals become competitors, not adversaries. If India and Pakistan continue to politicize the sport, they not only betray their fans but also undermine the very ideals of unity and sportsmanship that cricket embodies. It is time for both nations to step up, set aside their differences, and let cricket do what it does best: bring people together. The world is watching, and the stakes—both on and off the field—have never been higher. Will India and Pakistan seize the moment, or will they let another opportunity slip through their fingers? The answer will define not just the fate of the Champions Trophy but also the broader trajectory of South Asian diplomacy.