Political Influence in Cricket: A Subcontinental Dilemma
Cricket in the subcontinent has always been more than a sport. It is culture, pride, and often politics. Unlike most countries where boards operate independently, Pakistan and India are deeply tied to political power. The appointments of board chairmen, selectors, and even team management often reflect political agendas. This raises the question: does politics involvement strengthen the game, or does it weaken it?
Political Control in Pakistan Cricket
In Pakistan, the chairman of the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) is usually appointed directly by the Prime Minister, who acts as the board’s patron-in-chief. This structure means that cricket is constantly exposed to political shifts. Every change in government often brings a change in PCB leadership.
Currently, Mohsin Naqvi, a politician with influence and administrative background, leads the PCB. Before him, several other chairmen were political appointees with little or no cricketing background. This constant shuffle leads to instability in policies. Players, coaches, and even domestic cricket structures face uncertainty.
Critics argue this weakens long-term planning. A domestic system set by one chairman is often scrapped by the next. Instead of building sustainable growth, cricket becomes a tool of political display.
Politics Control in Indian Cricket
India’s case is slightly different, but political links still exist. The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is the richest cricket body in the world. Yet, it has strong political ties.
Jay Shah, the former BCCI secretary and ICC Chairman right now, is the son of India’s Home Minister Amit Shah. This connection highlights how politics intersects with cricket administration. Over the years, several political leaders have either headed or influenced the BCCI.
However, India’s financial power makes it different from Pakistan. Even with politics influence, BCCI runs a highly profitable system. The Indian Premier League (IPL) alone generates billions. While political figures occupy top posts, professional administrators and corporate-style management ensure financial and structural stability.
Why Does Politics Enter Cricket in the Subcontinent?
- National Pride and Public Attention
Cricket in South Asia is not just sport—it is emotion. Politicians use cricket to win popularity and connect with the public. Victories on the field are celebrated as national achievements, while defeats spark debates in parliaments and television studios.
- Power and Influence
Cricket boards gives politicians access to global cricket diplomacy. BCCI and PCB leaders sit on ICC tables, where media rights, scheduling, and financial distributions are decided. Political figures view this as an extension of their soft power.
- Lack of Strong Institutions
Unlike Australia, England, or New Zealand, boards in South Asia are not fully independent. They are registered as societies or trusts under government influence. This structure makes politics intervention inevitable.
Political Neutrality in the Rest of the World
In contrast, boards in countries like Australia, England, South Africa, and New Zealand operate with greater independence. Cricket Australia (CA) is governed by state associations and independent directors. Appointments involving politics are rare. England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) functions like a professional corporation. Business leaders and cricket administrators run the board. Even in South Africa, where politics and race issues influence sport, cricket boards are not directly controlled by ruling politicians.
This independence allows long-term planning. Domestic systems remain stable. Coaches and selectors are appointed on professional merit rather than political loyalty.
Does Political Involvement Benefit Cricket?
There are two sides to the argument.
Benefits:
- Political connections help boards gain sponsorships and funding.
- In countries like India, political weight gives cricket diplomatic strength.
- Cricket gains attention at the highest level of government.
Drawbacks:
- Constant changes in leadership damage long-term planning.
- Merit sometimes takes a back seat to loyalty and political affiliation.
- Players may feel pressured by political expectations.
- Team selection controversies increase because fans assume political interference.
Does Politics Enter the Dressing Room Too?
This is a sensitive but real question. In both India and Pakistan, critics often allege that politics seeps into team selections. In Pakistan, debates often suggest that some players receive opportunities due to regional or political backing. Similarly, in India, the influence of powerful administrators is sometimes linked to players’ continued selection. While teams are officially chosen by selectors, the shadow of political appointees always looms. This can create mistrust among fans and even within squads.
A Case for Reform
If subcontinental boards want to match the professionalism of Australia or England, they must implement structural reforms. By running cricket like a business—with transparency, independent audits, and professional management—they can achieve that goal. Politicians may remain patrons, but experts should make all operational decisions.
The subcontinent produces incredible cricketing talent, and stable governance can nurture that talent effectively. Fans deserve systems built for the sport rather than political mileage, so reform must happen immediately.
Conclusion
Politics influence in cricket is a reality in India and Pakistan. While it brings visibility and resources, it also brings instability, mistrust, and controversy. The contrast with boards in Australia or England shows how independence leads to consistency and growth. Cricket in the subcontinent needs to free itself from political shackles. Only then can the sport achieve sustainable excellence, both on and off the field.
Also read this :https://cric92.com/blogs/jacob-bethell-to-become-englands-youngest-mens-captain/