International Cricket's Sorry State of Affairs

I had another article ready. A well-crafted, analytical viewpoint of judging the NBA MVP (now set to release towards the end of March). That was until I started tuning into the ICC Champions Trophy. 

I just have to voice my opinion on this topic. I understand that people may see it as a rant, or a post that is different from what they have become accustomed to on this blog, but I feel this is necessary. I began this blog during COVID, and cricket was the primary content for a long time, so I believe I need to address the world of cricket as a whole. 

The ICC's management of the sport alongside its continued subservience to the BCCI is slowly leading cricket towards an existential crisis. 

(Intrigued? This is just the beginning)

(Note: For the purpose of this article, comparisons will be made only to FIFA, because football is the only sport bigger than cricket and one should learn from those who have succeeded.) 

Lack of Growth

The 2022 FIFA World Cup Final was watched by 1.5 billion people. Since its inception, the tournament has steadily expanded, from 16 teams to 32 in 2022, and now to 48 in 2026. It is the biggest spectacle in sports, uniting fans across club rivalries, national pride, and sheer love for the game. But this level of global reach didn’t happen overnight. FIFA’s commitment to growing the sport—backed by an enormous budget ($150 million+ allocated just to its Asian arm in 2024)—has ensured that football remains the world’s game, reaching every corner of the planet.

Now, compare that to cricket.

The 2024 T20 World Cup was the first to feature 20 teams—progress, at least on paper. But beneath the surface, the reality is starkly different. Many of these lower-ranked teams field players who juggle day jobs alongside representing their country on the biggest stage. Some are accountants, teachers, or electricians by day, cricketers by night. Why? Because their cricket boards lack the funding to professionalize the sport.

At the heart of this issue is the lopsided revenue distribution in cricket. From the ICC's projected earnings for the 2024-27 cycle, the BCCI is set to receive a staggering 38.5% of the total revenue—over $230 million annually. For context, England and Australia, the second and third highest earners, combine for just 14%. The BCCI, already pulling in nearly $2.2 billion yearly, is pocketing the lion’s share.

Now, look at the other end of the spectrum. The ICC’s 90+ associate nations collectively receive just $67.5 million annually—less than $1 million per country. That’s barely enough to cover basic infrastructure, let alone develop grassroots programs or retain full-time players. This financial disparity cripples the growth of cricket outside the established powerhouses. Countries like Nepal, the Netherlands, and the USA have the potential to expand the game’s global footprint, but without funding, their progress is inevitably stunted.

Big tournaments like the T20 World Cup create the perfect stage for Cinderella stories—moments that unite fans and spark new interest in the sport. The USA’s stunning win over Pakistan in 2024 was a prime example, leaving many shocked that the U.S. even had a team—let alone was hosting. But without proper investment, these moments fade, and cricket risks staying a niche curiosity rather than a growing force in new markets.

Additionally, the T20 World Cup is the only tournament adding more teams. The 50-over World Cup in 2027 will feature just 14 teams (up from 10 in 2019 and 2023)—the same number as in 2015 and multiple editions before that. Instead of broadening access, the ICC is gatekeeping the tournament, limiting opportunities for emerging teams that have proven they deserve a shot. Cricket’s governing body claims to want a global game, yet its decisions suggest otherwise.

FIFA understood that true global growth meant investing beyond the traditional strongholds. Cricket, on the other hand, is still operating in a system where financial power is concentrated in the hands of a few, leaving the sport’s future—and its ability to reach new audiences—permanently restricted.

Subservience to the BCCI

Cricket is often called a gentleman’s game, but the way the ICC operates, it feels more like a business deal skewed to keep one party happy. The organization’s subservience to the BCCI is no secret—India generates nearly 80% of the ICC’s revenue, and with that financial muscle comes influence. It’s easy to understand why the ICC bends over backward to accommodate India’s demands. Cricket is a religion in India, drawing millions of passionate fans, and the money it brings keeps the sport afloat. But in the long run, this level of favoritism is a serious problem, one that risks alienating other cricketing nations and stunting the game’s growth.  

Take the IPL, for example. Its economic power is so immense that almost no international series take place during its window. Cricket’s packed calendar suddenly clears for two months every year, as boards and players recognize that fighting for attention and revenue against the IPL is a losing battle. Meanwhile, when global tournaments do happen, India gets every possible advantage. In the 2024 T20 World Cup, India played all its group-stage matches in New York, avoiding the constant travel that other teams had to endure. The match timings? Early in the morning, perfectly scheduled for primetime viewing in India. Other teams had no such luxuries.  

The same is happening in the ongoing Champions Trophy. If any other country had made the kinds of demands India has, they wouldn’t even be part of the tournament. But because it’s India, the ICC caters to them. Opposing teams have to adjust their schedules, travel for matches, and change training regimens, while India enjoys a settled base. Both Australia and South Africa have even flown to Dubai just to ensure they don’t miss practice—at India’s behest. It’s an imbalance that makes a mockery of fair competition.  

The irony is that cricket’s financial reliance on India exists because the sport has failed to expand. If more countries were engaged and new markets nurtured properly, the ICC wouldn’t have to tiptoe around the BCCI to keep the money flowing. A stronger, broader fanbase would mean the game doesn’t live and die by India’s whims. Instead, cricket’s governing body continues to operate in a way that prioritizes short-term financial gain over long-term stability.  

I love this game. I love the drama, the skill, the strategy, and the way it brings people together. That’s why it’s frustrating to see the ICC’s blatant favoritism, which not only undermines the integrity of global tournaments but also weakens cricket’s future. If the sport keeps revolving around keeping India happy, other nations will eventually start asking why they should bother at all. And when that happens, cricket as a global game will suffer.

Despite being an Indian, I felt obligated to write this. I take immense pride in India’s cricketing legacy, and there’s no denying that the country’s passion and financial influence have helped shape the modern game. But loving something doesn’t mean turning a blind eye to its flaws. If anything, it makes it even more important to call them out. Cricket should be a truly global sport, not one where everything is dictated by a single board’s interests. The ICC’s favoritism may serve short-term profits, but in the long run, it hurts the game I love. That’s why I had to share my views—because if cricket is to thrive, it needs to be fair for everyone.