The uncertainty surrounding Pakistan’s decision to boycott its group-stage T20 World Cup match against India has pushed global cricket into turbulent territory. Beyond politics, history, and one of sport’s fiercest rivalries, an India–Pakistan clash remains the single most lucrative fixture in world cricket.

The India–Pakistan T20 contest is conservatively valued at around USD 500 million (approximately Rs 4,500 crore) when broadcast rights, advertising premiums, sponsorship activations, ticket sales, and downstream commercial activity, including legal betting, are factored in. Crucially, the financial windfall does not benefit just the two teams involved.

With India and Pakistan facing each other almost exclusively in ICC and continental tournaments, the ICC itself claims a significant share of the revenue. The world body then redistributes its overall profits among member boards, meaning any disruption to marquee fixtures has a ripple effect across the global game.

Interestingly, a section of the Bangladesh Cricket Board (BCB) is unhappy with Pakistan’s boycott, despite widespread belief that the move was made in solidarity with Bangladesh following their exclusion from the T20 World Cup. Bangladesh had requested that their matches be shifted out of India due to security concerns, a proposal the ICC rejected before replacing them with Scotland.

Also Read: India cruise into final of U19 World Cup with a dominant win over Afghanistan

A senior BCB director, speaking to Prothom Alo on condition of anonymity, admitted that the financial consequences of a cancelled India–Pakistan match would be felt across the cricketing world.

“If the India–Pakistan match does not take place, the entire cricketing world will face financial losses. Even our dividend will decrease. We did not want such losses,” the official said.

The director added that Pakistan’s underlying intent was clear.
“Pakistan wanted to send a strong message to Indian cricket. They wanted to challenge India’s dominance. From that perspective, the decision may make sense.”

Another BCB official closely involved in the events leading up to Bangladesh’s exclusion expressed concern over the potential long-term impact on ICC revenues.

“This will directly affect the ICC’s central revenue pool. Like everyone else, we are stakeholders in that fund,” the official said. “Smaller boards like Kenya or Uganda might manage with USD 100,000 to 200,000. But given our infrastructure, how will we survive if ICC revenues decline?”