On March 9, 2025, India won the ICC Champions Trophy by defeating New Zealand by four wickets. However, several former cricketers from England and Australia, along with some current South African players, joined Pakistan in pushing a narrative that India was given an unfair advantage by the ICC by playing all their matches at a single venue. I am neither a cricket fan nor an expert in how different playing conditions impact match outcomes. So, I won’t make any claims about that in this article. Instead, I will focus on why these cricketers should not support Pakistan’s narrative.
Why Was India Allowed to Play in Dubai?
The ICC event was returning to Pakistan after nearly three decades. The country had been deemed unsafe for international cricket after the terrorist attack on the Sri Lankan team on March 3, 2009. In preparation for the Champions Trophy, the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) took on massive loans to revamp three stadiums, hoping to recover their investment through the high revenue generated from an India-Pakistan clash. However, India refused to travel to Pakistan due to security concerns.
Pakistan: A Terrorist Hub
According to data from the United Nations, Pakistan is home to around 97 UN-designated terrorists and harbors offices and training camps for numerous global terrorist organizations. This is why, whenever a team visits Pakistan for a bilateral series, players receive security on par with a country’s top leaders. Stadiums and hotels turn into military zones, with all movements controlled by security forces. While Pakistanis might see such arrangements as normal, players from other countries find them unsettling. As a result, top international players often skip Pakistan tours, and visiting teams typically consist of second- or third-tier squads. Given that Pakistan considers many of these terrorists as strategic assets, the country is unlikely to act against them. Instead, it continues to provide them safe havens.
Should India Have Made an Exception?
Even Pakistan’s top leaders aren’t safe in their own country, despite heavy security. Reports frequently emerge about high-profile individuals being assassinated, and Pakistan often blames India’s intelligence agencies for these killings. This makes Indian players prime targets for terrorist attacks, including kidnapping and murder. Players from other countries don’t face the same level of threat, as their nations are not accused of eliminating terrorists in Pakistan. However, India is. This puts Indian cricketers at a significantly higher risk.
During the tournament, two major security breaches occurred involving Hindu players—Rachin Ravindra (New Zealand) and Keshav Maharaj (South Africa). While Pakistan’s media tried to downplay these incidents as overenthusiastic fans rushing onto the field, the reality is more concerning. Ravindra and Maharaj are not the biggest stars in their teams, yet both have openly expressed their Hindu identity on social media. In many parts of the world, including India and Pakistan, unapologetic Hindus are often targeted by extremists. Given these risks, the Indian team made the right decision by refusing to travel to Pakistan, and the ICC deserves credit for ensuring their safety despite facing criticism.
Were Players Right to Blame the ICC?
The BCCI had been protesting for months against holding an ICC event in Pakistan due to security concerns. However, other cricket boards voted in favor of Pakistan as the host. While players from other nations might feel safe there, it doesn’t mean India should ignore its own risks.
To address this, the ICC and all participating boards agreed on a compromise—India would play all its matches in Dubai instead of withdrawing from the tournament altogether. India was even prepared to sit out if a solution hadn’t been reached. However, the financial impact of India’s absence would have been enormous, both for the ICC and other cricket boards, which rely heavily on revenue generated by Indian cricket.
The narrative that India gained an advantage by playing at a single venue only gained traction after Pakistan was humiliated by India in the group stage. Pakistan’s team may look good on paper, but their actual performance is closer to that of Zimbabwe or Nepal. They mostly play against lower-ranked teams, allowing some of their players to feature in ICC rankings, which fuels unrealistic expectations among Pakistani fans. However, in reality, they are nowhere near the level of top teams like India or Australia.
Pakistan lost all their group matches and got a single point due to a rain-affected game. Had their match against Bangladesh been completed, they likely would have lost that too, given their poor form. Former players from other nations jumped on this narrative only after their own teams were knocked out or defeated by India.
Had India lost all its matches, would anyone have even mentioned this supposed “advantage”? The complaints emerged only because India dominated the tournament. Rather than acknowledging that India is the world’s best ODI team through merit, these critics resorted to excuses. If they truly believed playing at one venue was unfair, they should have protested before the tournament began—not after failing to win.
Additionally, many players are unaware of geopolitical realities. They might argue, “If other teams can visit Pakistan, why can’t India?” But they fail to recognize that Indian players face unique risks—not just from the India-Pakistan rivalry, but from thousands of extremists who harbor deep hatred toward Hindus.
Conclusion
Although I am not a cricket fan, I am thrilled that India secured its second ICC trophy within a year. Congratulations to our team!
To those complaining players, here’s some Indian wisdom: “Angoor khatte hai” (grapes are sour). And a final note—”Na to Pakistan final me, aur na hi final Pakistan me” (Neither was Pakistan in the final, nor was the final in Pakistan).
Let’s celebrate and let the jealous ones drown in their own bitterness!