Opinion | Why is Pakistan’s Conduct in Sports Questionable?

From administrative churn within the Pakistan Cricket Board to prolonged security-driven isolation, from hybrid hosting arrangements to recurring controversies that blur the line between governance and geopolitics, Pakistan’s cricketing challenges are structural rather than incidental.

Since childhood, I have rarely seen any sport in Kashmir command the kind of passion that cricket does. From local grounds across the Valley to crowded living rooms gathered around television screens, the game has always carried a special energy. India versus Pakistan matches, in particular, were not just fixtures but events. I grew up watching them, playing the sport myself, and even attempting commentary with friends. Over the years, especially in ICC tournaments, India has largely dominated these encounters. But this article is not about scorecards, fitness levels, or team selection. The real question lies elsewhere. It is about how cricket in Pakistan has been repeatedly entangled with politics, shaped by institutional interference, and mismanaged at the administrative level. In the sections that follow, I will examine the structural and political factors that have influenced the functioning of the Pakistan Cricket Board and how state intervention has blurred the line between sport and strategy.

To begin with, the administrative instability within the Pakistan Cricket Board has been difficult to ignore. Like most cricketing bodies, the PCB revolves around a central executive authority, the chairman. Stability in that office is crucial for long-term planning and institutional credibility. Yet in the last three years alone, the board has witnessed four leadership changes. Beginning in 2021, former cricketer Ramiz Raja chaired the board for a little over a year. His tenure ended in December 2022 following a change in political leadership in Islamabad. He was succeeded by Najam Sethi, who headed a management committee before being replaced by Zaka Ashraf. In February 2024, Mohsin Naqvi assumed office as chairman. What makes this transition particularly significant is that Mohsin Naqvi simultaneously holds the office of Pakistan’s Federal Minister of Interior and Narcotics Control and serves as a Senator from Punjab. When the head of a national cricket board also occupies one of the most powerful cabinet positions in the country, it inevitably raises questions about institutional autonomy and the separation between sport and state. Frequent leadership changes, especially those aligned with political developments, create uncertainty in governance. Cricket administration then appears vulnerable to shifts in power rather than anchored in long-term sporting vision.

Administrative instability, however, did not begin in recent years. The most defining rupture in Pakistan’s cricketing history came on March 3, 2009, when the Sri Lankan team bus was attacked near Gaddafi Stadium. The assault left players injured and security personnel dead. What followed was not merely international condemnation but long-term sporting isolation. Within weeks, scheduled tours were cancelled. The 2009 edition of the Indian Premier League was relocated outside India due to regional security concerns. More significantly, Pakistan was stripped of its hosting rights for the 2011 ICC Cricket World Cup, which it was originally set to co-host. For nearly a decade thereafter, international teams hesitated to tour Pakistan. Cricket, which once unified stadiums across Lahore and Karachi, was pushed into exile.

Beyond security and diplomacy, domestic governance controversies have further complicated Pakistan’s cricketing narrative. Allegations of favoritism in team selection, popularly referred to in public discourse as “Parchi culture,” have periodically surfaced. While formal proof of systemic bias remains debated, the perception alone has been damaging. When fans begin questioning whether selections are merit-based or influenced by connections within the board, institutional credibility suffers. Public criticism has often targeted familial or political linkages of certain players and administrators. Whether entirely justified or amplified by social media narratives, these debates reflect a deeper trust deficit between the board and its supporters. A national team thrives not only on talent but also on belief. Once that belief weakens, performance anxiety and public hostility grow stronger. This matters because sport, particularly cricket in South Asia, functions as a measure of national morale. In countries like India and Pakistan, cricket is not just a pastime. It is identity, prestige, and diplomacy rolled into one. When the sporting structure appears unstable or politically entangled, the symbolic damage extends beyond the boundary ropes.

There is also a structural dimension that cannot be ignored. The Prime Minister of Pakistan serves as Patron-in-Chief of the Pakistan Cricket Board, with authority over key appointments. On paper, this may seem ceremonial. In practice, it institutionalizes political proximity. When successive governments revise the board’s constitution, dissolve management committees, or replace chairmen mid-cycle, the message sent internationally is clear: cricket administration is not insulated from political currents. Contrast this with relatively stable governance models elsewhere. Leadership transitions in other major boards tend to follow defined terms and procedural continuity. In Pakistan’s case, repeated restructuring has often meant policy reversals. Domestic cricket formats have been redesigned and then undone. Selection committees have been reshuffled. Long-term planning has struggled to outlast political tenures. The cumulative effect is subtle but powerful. International confidence weakens. Players operate under administrative uncertainty. Sponsors hesitate. Fans grow skeptical. Losses on the field are then interpreted not merely as sporting failures but as reflections of systemic disorder.

Pakistan’s hunger for politicizing cricket does not stop at its own backyard but appears to extend beyond its borders, as seen in the case of Bangladesh, a cricketing nation that has historically complied with the regulations of the International Cricket Council. Amid internal political shifts in Dhaka and growing proximity to Islamabad, Pakistan allegedly managed to influence sections of the Bangladesh Cricket Board and incited the BCB to pressure the host of the ICC T20 World Cup 2026 as well as the ICC itself to relocate their matches something impossible just a week prior to the event, seeking to reshape tournament dynamics to suit its strategic interests. This culminated in Bangladesh’s removal from participation in the ICC T20 World Cup 2026 after it refused to tour India a decision that marked a rare departure from the tradition of keeping cricket insulated from political disputes. The situation escalated further when the Pakistan government even announced a boycott of the India match before the tournament, turning a sporting contest into a geopolitical spectacle. Rather than allowing sport to function as a bridge between nations, such maneuvers deepen mistrust, undermine the credibility of international tournaments, and create an environment far removed from the unifying spirit cricket is meant to embody.

The question, then, is not whether Pakistan produces talented cricketers. It always has. The question is why its conduct in international sport so often invites scrutiny. When cricket administration mirrors political instability, when board leadership shifts with changes in power, and when security, diplomacy, and selection processes repeatedly intersect with state interests, sport inevitably loses its autonomy. From administrative churn within the Pakistan Cricket Board to prolonged security-driven isolation, from hybrid hosting arrangements to recurring controversies that blur the line between governance and geopolitics, Pakistan’s cricketing challenges are structural rather than incidental. These patterns do not emerge overnight, nor can they be explained away by on-field failures alone. They reflect a system where cricket is too often treated as an extension of political strategy rather than a public institution governed by stability, transparency, and continuity. International sport relies on trust. Trust in security assurances. Trust in administrative independence. Trust in the ability of governing bodies, including the International Cricket Council, to uphold consistency without bending to political pressure. When that trust weakens, the consequences are visible not only in empty stands or disrupted tournaments but in a broader erosion of credibility.

Email: alizaroon112@gmail.com