Former ICC Official Blames BCCI Communication for T20 World Cup Turmoil
NEW DELHI: Sami-ul-Hasan Burney, the former Head of Communications at the International Cricket Council, has launched a sharp critique against the Board of Control for Cricket in India regarding its handling of Bangladeshi pacer Mustafizur Rahman's departure from the Indian Premier League. Burney asserts that the Indian cricket board could have averted the ongoing T20 World Cup crisis through a more discreet and measured approach.
The Chain Reaction That Led to Tournament Withdrawal
The release of Mustafizur Rahman from his Kolkata Knight Riders contract initiated a domino effect with significant consequences. This move ultimately prompted Bangladesh to withdraw from the T20 World Cup tournament scheduled to commence on February 7, citing unspecified security concerns about traveling to India. In a display of solidarity, Pakistan subsequently decided to forfeit their February 15 match against India, following directives from their government.
Burney, who later served as Media Director for the Pakistan Cricket Board after his tenure at the ICC, believes the situation escalated unnecessarily due to public communication surrounding Rahman's removal from the IPL franchise.
Public Statements Triggered Unnecessary Escalation
Things could have been easily avoided if the cricket administrators or people responsible for the game had been a little bit more careful and avoided public statements, like a Bangladesh player has to be removed from the franchise, Burney explained in an interview with PTI. They didn't have to say it publicly. They could have easily privately told the franchise to release the player and nobody would have known what happened and life would have moved on.
He elaborated further, noting that sometimes you make an error of judgment and make a statement which has implications. According to Burney, the January 3 announcement regarding Rahman's release became the triggering point for the entire controversy.
PCB Chairman's Perspective on ICC Decision-Making
Burney, a former journalist with The Dawn who spent over a decade at the ICC's Dubai headquarters before joining the PCB last year, also provided insight into the thinking of PCB chairman Mohsin Naqvi, who simultaneously serves as Pakistan's Interior Minister.
Burney revealed that Naqvi perceives the ICC's refusal to relocate Bangladesh's matches from India to Sri Lanka as a case of shifting goalposts. He referenced a November 2024 email during his time with the PCB, in which the ICC communicated that the BCCI had informed them the Indian government refused permission for their team to travel to Pakistan.
Mr. Naqvi believes when a similar situation arose in January with regards to Bangladesh, the same principles were not applied, and that is where he is referring to the double standards, Burney stated. I think that is what is upsetting Mr. Naqvi and the PCB, because they think goalposts are being changed, or shifted.
Government Decisions and Their Broader Implications
When questioned about whether Bangladesh's dispute with India should be considered Pakistan's battle, Burney emphasized the broader perspective of governmental decision-making. We may agree with it, we may disagree with this decision, we may argue...but when the government makes a decision, they are looking at something bigger than what you and I are seeing, he remarked.
Despite the ICC hinting at potential sanctions, including substantial financial penalties, Burney maintained that Pakistan would have carefully considered all consequences before making their decision.
Financial Implications and Historical Precedents
These decisions are not easy decisions to make, Burney insisted. They must have spoken to a lot of people, sought advice from experts, looked at the legal side. I am sure an extensive exercise would have taken place before the government of Pakistan made that decision.
Regarding potential financial losses, Burney highlighted the significant disparity between the estimated cost of forfeiting the India match and Pakistan's annual cricket revenue. As regards the sanctions or the losses you are talking about, that one match is costing USD 250 million. Pakistan's annual revenue is USD 35.5 million, so there is a big, big difference, he explained.
Burney pointed to historical precedents to support his argument about Pakistan's resilience. Unlike other countries, Pakistan have not hosted India for 20 years in a bilateral series, even though they have toured India twice in 2007 and then 2012-13 for white-ball cricket, he noted.
He further elaborated that Pakistan played offshore for a decade between 2009 and 2019, primarily in the Middle East or UAE, yet managed to achieve significant tournament successes including the T20 World Cup in 2009 and the 2017 Champions Trophy.
So, yes, there will be financial implications, but if Pakistan Cricket Board can survive that 20-year period without playing India, they can sustain, Burney concluded, emphasizing the board's historical capacity to withstand financial challenges stemming from limited cricketing engagements with their neighboring rival.
