T20 World Cup issue: ICC double standards or BCB failure?

Bangladesh cricket is facing a deep crisis. The decision for Bangladesh not to take part in the upcoming T20 World Cup is now final. In response to a 24-hour ultimatum from the International Cricket Council, the Bangladesh Cricket Board formally confirmed that, due to security concerns, the national team will not travel to India to play. Shortly afterwards, it was confirmed that Scotland will replace Bangladesh in this year’s T20 World Cup. With this decision, Bangladesh has not only been knocked out of a global tournament, but has also added a major chapter of loss to its cricketing history.

The primary reason cited behind Bangladesh’s decision is player safety. The BCB’s position was that adequate security for the Bangladesh team could not be guaranteed on Indian soil. This concern did not arise overnight. It was rooted in a specific incident: after Mustafizur Rahman was signed by the Kolkata Knight Riders in the IPL, protests by extremist Hindu groups followed. Citing security reasons, the Board of Control for Cricket in India sent him back home. The BCB treated this incident as a key example of its security concerns, arguing that if the safety of a Bangladeshi player could not be ensured even in a franchise league, fears over the security of the full national team were far from unfounded.

Against this backdrop, the BCB presented multiple arguments to the ICC, requesting that Bangladesh’s matches be moved from India to Sri Lanka. Given its geographical proximity, Sri Lanka was seen as a comparatively safer and more practical venue for Bangladesh. However, this request was ultimately rejected. Several rounds of meetings and correspondence took place between the BCB and the ICC over the issue.

At that time, in an initial letter responding to the BCB’s request, the ICC’s own security team reportedly acknowledged potential risks if Bangladesh were to play in India, with some locations described as highly risky.

After a series of complications, the matter reached the ICC’s final decision-making stage. On January 21, the ICC held a board meeting via video conference. Representatives from 15 member countries attended, and it was effectively in this meeting that Bangladesh’s World Cup fate was decided. Following a vote, the ICC stated that Bangladesh would have to travel to India if it wished to participate. If Bangladesh refused, it could be excluded from the tournament, in which case another team would be selected. Based on rankings, Scotland was chosen to replace Bangladesh.

ICC’s double standards
This stance raised serious questions about the ICC’s principles. In the same T20 World Cup, Pakistan’s matches are being held outside India, in Sri Lanka, due to political hostility. In the past, when India refused to play in Pakistan, alternative venues were arranged. However, the same standard was not applied in Bangladesh’s case. This discrepancy has fuelled accusations of double standards. Many believe that India’s influence and power within the ICC played a decisive role.

India is currently the biggest superpower in world cricket and has effectively become the main controlling force in the international game. From ICC policymaking to the selection of venues for major tournaments, India’s preferences and convenience are increasingly evident. The most recent example is the 2025 Champions Trophy. Although Pakistan was the host, India refused to play there citing security and political reasons. India suffered no competitive or financial loss as a result; instead, at India’s request, the ICC scheduled all matches in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Against this backdrop, the completely different treatment of Bangladesh has naturally raised many questions.

Former Pakistan captain Rashid Latif also spoke out strongly against the ICC’s position. In an editorial published by Pakistan’s influential daily The Nation, the ICC was directly described as corrupt, with a call for the organisation to be restructured.

The BCB formally accused the ICC of following a double standard. BCB president Aminul Islam said that while Champions Trophy matches were moved out of Pakistan at India’s request, similar security concerns raised by Bangladesh were ignored. He recalled that in the 1996 and 2003 World Cups, several countries had refused to play at certain venues, and the ICC had arranged alternatives. Even in more recent times, when a country was unable to play due to security concerns, the ICC had provided special arrangements at neutral venues, which he described as a clear privilege.

What ICC says?
After the board meeting, the ICC announced its final decision: the World Cup would go ahead as per the original schedule. The ICC claimed that its assessments found no specific or verifiable security threats to Bangladesh’s players, officials, media personnel or spectators. It also stated that changing the schedule so close to the start of the tournament was unrealistic. The ICC added that relocating matches without credible security risks could set a negative precedent for future tournaments and undermine its neutrality as a global body.

An ICC spokesperson said, “The BCB has linked an isolated domestic league-related incident to World Cup security, which has no connection to the tournament’s overall security arrangements. Venues and schedules are determined based on neutral security assessments, host nation assurances and tournament regulations, which apply equally to all participating countries.”

Failed cricket diplomacy by BCB?
At the ICC board meeting, no country other than Pakistan supported Bangladesh’s position. This was a major defeat for Bangladesh’s cricket diplomacy. Pakistan’s support against India was hardly surprising given their political rivalry. More striking was the fact that Sri Lanka, the very country proposed by Bangladesh as an alternative host, did not support the move. Even Zimbabwe, long regarded as a diplomatic and cricketing ally of Bangladesh, offered no backing.

The voting outcome made it clear that Bangladesh has failed to build any effective coalition within international cricket politics. Although arguments around security risks, venue changes and hybrid models appeared logical on paper, the BCB failed to turn them into a convincing case in the boardroom.

Most importantly, although the ICC’s own security assessment team reportedly flagged certain risks on the ground, the BCB failed to apply enough pressure to have those concerns reflected in the final decision. This raises a crucial question: if the security team acknowledged risks, why were they not reflected in the ICC’s ruling? The answer appears simple: Bangladesh failed to translate those risks into political and diplomatic leverage.

In contrast, India and the BCCI have historically secured support from other boards when citing security or political reasons for venue changes. Indian media have also claimed that India has successfully brought major countries onto its side. Bangladesh’s failure to achieve the same exposes the BCB’s diplomatic weakness. This failure is not limited to a single meeting or decision; it reflects a long-standing lack of foresight and international engagement within Bangladesh’s cricket administration. The lingering question remains: how damaging will this hostility with cricket superpower India be for Bangladesh cricket?

Future crisis and massive financial losses
The most devastating impact of Bangladesh’s exclusion from the World Cup will be financial. More than half of the BCB’s total revenue, which primarily comes from the ICC, is now under threat. According to Indian media reports, Bangladesh stands to lose around Tk 330 crore by not participating in the World Cup. This includes not only participation fees, but also match fees, performance bonuses, prize money, broadcast revenue and sponsorship income. Players will also personally miss out on significant match fees and bonuses.

The financial damage will not be limited to the BCB. Private broadcasters and advertising agencies in Bangladesh could face losses of around Tk 400 crore, driven by reduced sponsor interest and audience disengagement. In addition, under ICC regulations, if a boycott is not justified by proven reasons, the BCB could face a fine of approximately Tk 24.5 crore.

In the long term, the damage could be even greater. There is a strong risk that Bangladesh’s allocation under future ICC revenue-sharing models could be reduced, and that its voting power in international decision-making forums could be curtailed. If bilateral series with India are cancelled, another major source of income will disappear. Overall, due to a single policy stance, the BCB now faces an enormous financial and administrative challenge. Aminul Islam has previously stated that 55 to 60 per cent of the BCB’s total income comes from ICC global tournaments. Each tournament provides a fixed participation fee, with additional bonuses based on performance. Missing the T20 World Cup would mean losing every one of these revenue streams, directly affecting Bangladesh cricket and its future development programmes.

Beyond finances, the most lasting and silent blow will come in the international rankings. Not playing in a global event like the T20 World Cup will almost certainly lead to a sharp fall in Bangladesh’s ranking points. The tournament is not only about the title; it is one of the main platforms for earning ranking points. By not playing, Bangladesh will lose points while other teams move ahead, widening the gap.

This decline will directly affect future scheduling. Opportunities to secure bilateral series against stronger teams will diminish, particularly as top sides increasingly select opponents based on preparation needs and commercial value. Bangladesh may face fewer matches and fewer chances to compete against elite teams.

The consequences go even deeper. Falling behind in the rankings risks pushing Bangladesh out of the main conversation around major tournaments. In future ICC event planning, broadcast schedules and marketing strategies, Bangladesh’s importance could diminish, raising fears that it may be seen as a marginal participant on the global stage. In the modern era, T20 is the most popular format, and missing the T20 World Cup will undoubtedly have a severe impact on Bangladeshi players’ careers, both internationally and in overseas franchise leagues. Even more worrying is that this impact will not be limited to the current squad. Fewer matches, reduced competition and lower international exposure will hinder the development of young players. In the long term, both the competitive standard and global credibility of Bangladesh cricket are at serious risk.

What about ICC’s losses?
BCB president Aminul Islam believes that holding a T20 World Cup without Bangladesh would also hurt the ICC, with the tournament potentially losing around 200 million viewers. However, the reality is that broadcast and sponsorship rights for the World Cup have already been sold. As a result, broadcasters and advertisers are likely to suffer more direct financial losses than the ICC itself. Moreover, due to political tensions between India and Bangladesh, tourist visa services between the two countries remain suspended, meaning that even if Bangladesh had participated, fans would have struggled to travel to India to watch the matches.

Ultimately, placing all the blame on the ICC would not present the full truth. While power politics within the ICC played a role, the BCB’s weak diplomacy, failure to secure international support and inability to present its case convincingly were equally responsible. Bangladesh’s exclusion from the T20 World Cup was not an accident; it was the outcome of long-standing administrative weaknesses. Once again, this episode has shown that without strength off the field, success on the field is rarely sustainable.

In the end, Bangladesh’s exit from the World Cup is not just about missing a tournament. It has raised serious questions about Bangladesh’s position in international cricket politics, the diplomatic capacity of the BCB and the ICC’s claim of neutrality. Unless lessons are learned from this crisis, preventing a repeat of such damage in the future will be extremely difficult.