The New Power Politics of Asian Cricket: The Game's Future Is Being Decided Off the Field

Asian cricket is the biggest economic centre of the game today, but its governance has not changed at the speed its market has grown. India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Afghanistan — five full members under one umbrella, with five very different sets of interests. From the agenda of the Asian Cricket Council to the calendars of franchise leagues, no decision is a purely sporting decision anymore. It is a triangle of market, politics and broadcast rights, and that triangle has one centre of gravity. The economics are unambiguous. India holds the largest share of the ICC's revenue distribution, and the IPL's broadcast rights are far ahead of any other cricket league in the world. That does not mean there is only one voice in Asian cricket, but it does mean no major decision can ignore that voice. The South Asian cricket market is the yardstick against which advertisers, streaming platforms and broadcasters measure everything else. The most visible effect of this power has been on India-Pakistan contests. Bilateral series have been frozen for years, and the two teams now meet only in multi-nation tournaments. The consequence is that even a tournament like the Asia Cup keeps getting entangled in disputes over hosting formats and has repeatedly been played at neutral venues. When politics starts setting the calendar, the fans pay the price — they do not get the contest they wait all year for. Pakistan's position is the most complicated in this equation. It has a huge fan base, a league like the PSL that has given domestic talent a stage, and genuine hosting capacity. But economically its model has relied partly on the very neighbour with whom its relationship is strained. That imbalance does not show directly on the field, but it surfaces in policy decisions. The Sri Lanka and Bangladesh story is different. Both have talent, both have passionate crowds, and both built their own franchise leagues. But administrative instability, economic pressure and inconsistent performance have kept them from reaching the stable height their potential deserved. Sri Lanka's crisis was not just a board crisis; it was the crisis of an entire economy, and cricket could not stay insulated from it. The biggest story of recent years has been Afghanistan. A team that emerged from refugee camps now reaches the knockout stages of major tournaments, and that is not merely a sentimental tale — it is a hard cricketing achievement. Players like Rashid Khan are in demand in every franchise league in the world; young batters like Ibrahim Zadran stand up on the biggest stages. Afghanistan has no home ground of its own and plays its 'home' matches in the UAE — that is its biggest limitation, and also its biggest achievement. The other face of Asian cricket is its associate members. Countries like Nepal, the UAE, Oman and Hong Kong are no longer just participants; they are competitors. The crowds that fill grounds in Kathmandu prove that the appetite for cricket is not confined to the big markets. But the path to development remains uneven — the teams that bring in more revenue still get more opportunities. Franchise cricket has reshaped the entire structure. The IPL, PSL, LPL, BPL and the newer Gulf leagues compete for the same pool of players in the same window. For smaller boards these leagues are a source of income, but also a risk — domestic seasons shrink, players break down, and the primacy of the national team weakens. The congested calendar is now the centre of the debate over injuries and workload management. Women's cricket is the fastest-changing part of this picture. India's dominance is clear, but Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Pakistan are becoming competitive, and the rise of teams like Nepal shows the expansion of Asian women's cricket. Yet inequality in pay, facilities and media coverage persists. The real question is whether Asian cricket's governance can remake itself to match this changed reality. Revenue distribution, the policy on neutral venues, the tournament calendar and the transparency of decisions — the direction set on these four points over the next few years will determine whether Asia remains merely cricket's market or also its leader. The contest on the field will remain as thrilling as ever. But those who believe the future of cricket is decided by ball and bat should look at the boardroom once in a while. The biggest contest in Asian cricket today is being fought there — without a scoreboard.