Bangladesh and T20 World Cup: Standing ground or strategic gamble?
Bangladesh’s position is that if the safety of a single cricketer could not be guaranteed, there is little confidence that a full team — along with journalists, officials and supporters — could be protected during a global tournament.
Bangladesh's decision not to take part in the T20 World Cup scheduled to be held in India is no longer just a cricketing matter. It has become a complex issue involving security, diplomacy, economics and long-term cricket planning — with consequences that could extend well beyond a single tournament.
The government's position, for now, is unequivocal. If Bangladesh's matches are not moved out of co-host India, the national team will not play in this year's T20 World Cup.
Youth and sports adviser Asif Nazrul, speaking after a meeting with World Cup squad members at Hotel InterContinental on Thursday, said the decision was now "final".
Keep updated, follow The Business Standard's Google news channel
"There is no scope whatsoever for changing our decision," Nazrul told journalists, reiterating that Bangladesh's security concerns remain unresolved.
Why Bangladesh is standing firm
According to the government, the security risk associated with playing in India has not changed despite weeks of discussions with the International Cricket Council (ICC). Nazrul has repeatedly said the concern is not hypothetical.
"This is not based on assumption or speculation," he said after meeting the players. "It stems from a real incident, where one of our country's top cricketers was forced out of India after the Indian cricket board bowed to pressure from extremists."
Bangladesh's position is that if the safety of a single cricketer could not be guaranteed, there is little confidence that a full team — along with journalists, officials and supporters — could be protected during a global tournament.
The ICC, Bangladesh argues, has failed to adequately address those concerns. Nor, according to the government, has the Indian state made any meaningful attempt to reassure Bangladesh on security arrangements.
Not the first boycott — lessons from history
Boycotts and refusals to play are not new in international cricket. The most prominent early example came during the 1996 One-Day World Cup, when Australia and the West Indies refused to travel to Colombo amid Sri Lanka's civil war following a deadly suicide bomb attack.
Both teams lost points through walkovers. Sri Lanka went on to win the tournament, but the controversy forced the ICC to overhaul and formalise its security assessment procedures. The fallout also included financial penalties and prolonged disputes over compensation.
A different set of tensions emerged in the 2003 World Cup, when England refused to play in Zimbabwe for political reasons linked to Robert Mugabe's regime, and New Zealand declined to play in Kenya due to security fears. The ICC rejected venue-change requests and awarded walkovers, again raising questions about politics, safety and fairness.
Those precedents matter now. They show that while boycotts can protect teams from immediate risk, they often carry lasting sporting, financial and diplomatic consequences.
The financial stakes for Bangladesh cricket
That risk is particularly acute for Bangladesh, whose cricket economy is heavily dependent on ICC revenue.
The Bangladesh Cricket Board (BCB) earns income from ticket sales, broadcast rights, advertising and sponsorships linked to national team matches. But its single biggest revenue stream comes from the ICC's global income distribution.
BCB president Aminul Islam has said publicly that 55–60% of the board's annual income comes directly from the ICC.
Participation in ICC events brings additional earnings — a fixed participation fee and prize money tied to performance. If Bangladesh do not play in the T20 World Cup, they lose all of that.
India's news agency PTI has reported that Bangladesh could miss out on around USD 27 million (approximately Tk330 crore) — representing their estimated 4.46% share of ICC annual revenue linked to participation.
Each team is also set to receive USD 300,000 (around Tk3.66 crore) simply for taking part in the tournament. That amount alone would be lost immediately.
Beyond that, players would miss out on match fees, performance bonuses and prize payouts — income that only comes with appearing in the event.
Some media reports have also suggested Bangladesh could face a fine of up to USD 2 million (around Tk24 crore) if the ICC determines that the withdrawal does not meet its participation criteria.
Knock-on effects at home
The impact would not be limited to the board or the players.
T20 is now cricket's most commercially valuable format, and the World Cup is the biggest event for broadcasters and advertisers. Indian outlet RevSportz has claimed Bangladesh's official broadcaster T Sports could lose around Tk300 crore if Bangladesh do not participate.
Advertising agencies could collectively lose another Tk100 crore, as Bangladesh matches typically draw strong television ratings and premium advertising demand.
There are also longer-term concerns. Bangladesh are scheduled to host India for three ODIs and three T20Is later this year. If diplomatic tension spills into bilateral cricket and the tour is cancelled, Bangladesh would lose another major revenue opportunity — as matches against India generate far higher commercial returns than most series.
Under the ICC's current revenue model, Bangladesh are expected to receive around Tk327 crore per year during the 2024–2027 cycle. Missing a major ICC event could weaken their position in future negotiations, potentially reducing their allocation from 2028 onwards. It could also affect Bangladesh's influence within ICC committees and voting blocs.
Sporting consequences — and a possible upside
There is also a cricketing cost. The top ten teams at this World Cup will qualify directly for the 2028 T20 World Cup. Bangladesh are currently ranked ninth. A drop in rankings could force them into qualification tournaments, adding uncertainty to future campaigns.
So what, if anything, does Bangladesh gain?
The most immediate answer is security — the principle that player safety cannot be compromised. Beyond that, there is a sense of diplomatic and psychological leverage.
Aminul Islam has indicated that the BCB has not abandoned hope of a compromise. "We want to play the World Cup," he said. "But we want to play it outside India — on Sri Lankan soil."
If the ICC were to relocate Bangladesh's matches at the last moment, many supporters would see it as a diplomatic victory amid strained relations with India.
Cricket, diplomacy and a familiar pattern
Cricket has long been used as both a bridge and a battleground in South Asian diplomacy. India and Pakistan's relationship offers the clearest example — from "cricket diplomacy" in the late 1980s to the cancellation of tours during periods of heightened tension.
As cricket historian Osman Samiuddin has noted, when relations improve, cricket is often the first public signal; when they deteriorate, it is also the first casualty.
Former BCB general secretary and former Asian Cricket Council chief executive Syed Ashraful Haque has argued that Bangladesh's approach may have been too rigid. In an interview with The Daily Star, he said a hardline stance should never be the starting point, and that dialogue should always remain open.
Yet Asif Nazrul's position suggests Bangladesh feels dialogue was attempted — and that neither the ICC nor the Indian authorities did enough to address the core concern: safety.
A decision that will echo
For now, Bangladesh's stance remains unchanged. The cost of that decision could be measured in lost millions, reduced influence and sporting setbacks. The benefit, the government argues, lies in safeguarding players and asserting sovereignty over security concerns.
Whether this becomes a turning point in Bangladesh cricket — or a cautionary tale — may depend on what happens next: a venue shift, a compromise, or a prolonged standoff with lasting consequences.
