Recent developments around the T20 World Cup 2026 intensified after former India opener Kris Srikkanth criticized ex-England captain Nasser Hussain. Following Bangladesh‘s withdrawal from the tournament and Pakistan‘s earlier threats to boycott their match against India, Hussain raised concerns about the International Cricket Council (ICC), stating it seemed to be heavily influenced by the BCCI. In his response, Srikkanth highlighted England’s past controversies to counter these claims.
The controversy that sparked the debate
The T20 World Cup 2026 has been clouded by controversies. Bangladesh’s exit from the competition and Pakistan’s hesitation to face India escalated tensions. Hussain suggested that the ICC was operating under BCCI’s control, calling for fair treatment for all teams involved.
These remarks did not sit well with Srikkanth, who accused Hussain of having a selective memory regarding cricket’s historical political and financial complexities.
Kris Srikkanth reminds Nasser Hussain of 2003 episode
Srikkanth referred to the 2003 ODI World Cup to challenge Hussain’s views. During that tournament, England, led by Hussain, refused to travel to Zimbabwe over security issues, which led to the team forfeiting the match and helping Kenya advance to the knockouts.
Srikkanth questioned why similar past decisions were not examined with the same scrutiny. He noted that England’s choice was seen as principled then, but now India’s decisions face harsher criticism.
Srikkanth stressed that it is unjust to apply different standards to various cricketing nations. He stated, “He was captain in 2003 when England refused to go to Zimbabwe. Why talk now? Ultimately, it led to Kenya reaching the quarterfinals. One rule for us, another for them.”
The financial reality of global cricket
Srikkanth also touched on cricket’s financial landscape, noting that Indian fans play a crucial role in the sport’s global revenue through broadcasting, sponsorships, and ticket sales. While he did not endorse any undue influence, he recognized that this financial power gives India a stronger voice within the ICC.
He explained that this situation is not about coercion but rather reflects economic realities. Cricket boards function in a business environment where revenue generation significantly impacts decision-making.
Srikkanth added, “At that time, if England or others did something, it was deemed acceptable. ICC’s significant revenue comes from Indian fans globally, leading to India having an edge. It’s cyclical.”
Pakistan’s U-turn and the bigger picture
Meanwhile, Pakistan has since backtracked on its boycott stance and agreed to play against India. Srikkanth suggested that if Pakistan had chosen not to participate, they would have faced substantial losses both financially and in terms of reputation. The India-Pakistan match remains one of the most eagerly awaited events in world cricket, attracting massive audiences.
