Why separating cricket, politics remains fanciful notion

There have been recent reminders that cricket and politics are never far apart. This was most obviously apparent from the ongoing farrago between the Pakistan Cricket Board and the Board of Control for Cricket in India.

At the center of the storm lay the 2023 men’s Asia Cup, hosted by Pakistan but compromised by the BCCI’s refusal to allow its players to travel there. Reasons of security were cited, although it is not difficult to believe that other factors prevail.

India’s refusal to travel threw the whole tournament into jeopardy. In response, the PCB suggested a hybrid model in which some matches would be played in Pakistan and others at a neutral venue.

Sri Lanka emerged as the preferred option, rumors emerging that nine of the 13 matches will be played there. This was confirmed in the schedule, released on July 19. The 50-overs format tournament opens on Aug. 30 and closes on Sept. 17.

Six teams will participate – Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. They have been divided into two groups, with the top two progressing to the Super Four stage. Then, the top two sides will contest the final.

At least one match is guaranteed between Pakistan and India, as they have been placed in the same group, together with Nepal, who qualified by beating the UAE.

The hybrid model was proposed by Najam Sethi when he was chair of the PCB’s cricket management committee and, despite early objections from the BCCI, was accepted by members of the Asia Cricket Council.

However, the Sethi-led committee, which was only appointed in December, was superseded on July 6 by a new committee under a new chair, Zaka Ashraf. Since the PCB’s patron is Pakistan’s president, this was a political appointment.

The