Pakistani cricketers find themselves at the centre of yet another transnational cricket-politics storm, this time in a tournament not even played in South Asia. A BBC investigation reported that the four franchises in England’s Hundred competition linked to Indian Premier League owners were “not considering” Pakistan players for the upcoming draft, an “unwritten rule” that mirrors what has already become standard practice for Indian‑owned teams in other leagues.

For a country whose players helped build the glamour and skills of modern white‑ball cricket, this pattern is not a mere selection quirk. It is India’s informal Pakistan boycott exported into other foreign leagues, riding on the financial muscle of Indian Premier League owners and a political climate in New Delhi that treats punishing Pakistan cricketers as profitable domestic politics.

What is the controversy about? 

The Hundred is the England and Wales Cricket Board or ECB’s 100‑ball franchise tournament with eight city‑based teams. Four of those Manchester Super Giants, MI London, Southern Brave and Sunrisers Leeds are fully or partly owned by the same corporate groups that run IPL franchises, after the ECB sold stakes in the Hundred teams last year. This resulted in the eight sides being valued at almost £1 billion.

The BBC reported that a senior official at the ECB had informed some players’ agents that interest in Pakistani players would be limited to the four Hundred sides run by non-IPL owners. It is this allegation of a blanket nationality‑based veto by Indian‑linked owners in an English league that has turned a franchise draft into a political flashpoint.

Isn’t this outright discrimination?

If teams exclude players solely because they are from Pakistan that is discrimination in plain language. The ECB’s own policies say squad choices should be based on cricketing reasons and availability, not on nationality or ethnicity. A private “no Pakistanis” rule, even if unwritten, sits squarely against that.

The catch is that the discrimination lives in practice, not on paper. Owners do not send emails saying: “we will not sign Pakistanis”. They just never bid for them, then point to “team balance”, “workload management” or “availability” when challenged. The effect is identical to a formal ban but engineered so that it is almost impossible to prove intent.

Photo:www.thehundred.com

Is the ECB helpless then?

After the controversy erupted, the ECB warned The Hundred’s franchise owners against discriminating against Pakistani cricketers. Amid concerns of a “shadow ban,” an official ECB email warned that any evidence of bias will trigger disciplinary action.

This action could come from the ECB itself, whose officers are duty bound to report discrimination if they see it, but it is more likely to come from Chris Haward, the independent Cricket Regulator. Leading a team of 35 officers, Haward is tasked with ensuring recruitment remains meritocratic and legally compliant.

How did it become so big? 

The story blew up because it combines three powerful things money, geopolitics and England’s own rhetoric about inclusion. Over the last few years, IPL team owners have gone on a global buying spree taking control of teams in South Africa’s SA20, the UAE’s ILT20 and now The Hundred which gives them outsized influence over who gets to work where.

Pakistan players have also been frontline performers in The Hundred: Shaheen Afridi, Haris Rauf, Shadab Khan, Mohammad Amir and Imad Wasim all featured in previous seasons. When reports emerged that none of the IPL‑linked teams were considering them, despite 67 being listed, it led to public outrage from former cricketers like Mike Atherton, Naseer Husain and others. It also exposed the gap between the ECB’s goal of promoting diversity and inclusiveness, and the reality of getting capital aligned with India’s domestic politics.

Have the four IPL-linked owners said nothing so far?

The controversy grew big enough for the ECB and all eight Hundred teams to issue a joint statement. They stressed that players from all eligible nations are welcome, that no player would be ruled out on the basis of nationality and that any form of discrimination would be contrary to the spirit and regulations of the competition.

This is a significant public line in the sand and a sign that the story has shaken the ECB. But statements are easy. The real test will be in the draft room whether Pakistan players actually get picked by Indian‑linked teams or whether the “unwritten rule” survives behind the shield of these words.

A statement from The Hundred and the eight teams. — The Hundred (@thehundred) February 24, 2026

A statement from The Hundred and the eight teams.

— The Hundred (@thehundred) February 24, 2026

Yet, how will the ECB find out whether Pakistani cricketers have been kept out for cricketing reasons or for other reasons?

Legally and practically, this is the hardest question. Squads are chosen in a draft where teams can always claim that their decisions are about cricketing fit, workload, injuries, their domestic player mix or timing clashes with international tours. No owner is obliged to give a cricket reason that can be tested.

The ECB can only look at patterns and testimony. If four teams with common Indian ownership never touch Pakistan players season after season regardless of role, reputation or price and if agents can document prior conversations discouraging Pakistan signings, that is circumstantial evidence of a nationality‑based filter. Whether the ECB is willing to push that into a formal disciplinary process against powerful investors is another matter.

But there is a precedent with Indian owned teams in other T20 leagues where no action has been taken?

True. This did not start with The Hundred. Indian corporate groups that own IPL teams also own or control franchises in South Africa’s SA20, the US’s MLC and the UAE’s ILT20, and in those leagues Pakistan players have been conspicuously absent from Indian‑owned sides. In the UAE’s ILT20, every team except Desert Vipers has Indian ownership links. It was the only team to sign Pakistan players and won the title. 

So, what is surfacing in the UK is part of a wider template. These leagues have essentially become extensions of the India’s ruling ideology, proving that Indian capital demands total compliance with the ruling party’s political stances. The business model is simple: Indian capital travels abroad, buys into a league, locks in Indian broadcasting and commercial interest and then quietly carries India’s Pakistan ban into someone else’s domestic competition, without that country ever having a public debate on whether it wants to import BJP’s Hindutva politics. Or as Australian cricket writer Peter Lalor put it, the BJP can’t decide which player will play in a tournament in England or Australia.

File photo of Mustafizur Rahman. The BCCI has asked Kolkata Knight Riders to release the Bangladesh pacer from its squad ahead of the Indian Premier League’s 2026 edition amid the growing strain in bilateral ties between the two countries. Photo: PTI/Ravi Choudhary

Is this a formal Indian government policy?

No. There is no publicly declared government order that says Pakistan players cannot work in Indian‑linked franchises abroad. What exists instead is a hardened ecosystem where the Board of Control for Cricket in India, Indian broadcasters, sponsors and the BJP’s political messaging have all aligned to keep Pakistan cricket out of India except in ICC and ACC events.

The Modi government does not need to issue official circulars when it can rely on self‑censorship by corporations. For a ruling establishment that has hostility to Pakistan as its permanent ideological plank, this informal boycott is perfectly convenient. It punishes Pakistan’s players economically without the scrutiny that would accompany a written ban. That plausible deniability is useful. It allows Indian officials to say “this is just private business” while Pakistan cricketers are fenced out of the most lucrative T20 ecosystem on the planet, not only in India but now in leagues where Indian investors have walked in with their chequebooks.

But didn’t Pakistani cricketers participate in IPL at one time?

They did. In the inaugural IPL season in 2008, stars like Shahid Afridi, Shoaib Akhtar, Sohail Tanvir and Misbah‑ul‑Haq turned out for different franchises, and Tanvir finished as the leading wicket taker with the purple cap. After the November 2008 Mumbai terror attacks, the atmosphere in India turned and the sense that Pakistan was a security risk was amped up. 

By the time of the 2009 season, Pakistani players were first told they could not be signed due to “security concerns” and visa issues and were then effectively excluded altogether a situation that has persisted for over fifteen years without any serious attempt by the BCCI to reverse it. Over time the ban became normalised to the point that an entire generation of India’s fans has grown up seeing Pakistan players as absent from the IPL by default.

Were these the last Pakistani cricketers in IPL?

Not exactly. After the 2008 season franchises quietly moved away from Pakistan players and they vanished from squads. But a Pakistan‑born all‑rounder, Azhar Mahmood, managed to return to the IPL later, after acquiring a British passport and playing as an overseas player not officially registered as Pakistani.

Mahmood played for Kings XI Punjab and later Kolkata Knight Riders up to 2015, making him effectively the last Pakistan‑born cricketer to appear in the IPL. That technicality matters because it shows how arbitrary the system is. It was not his skills that changed, only the nationality in his travel documents, and suddenly the “security risk” evaporated. But wasn’t Wasim Akram the coach in an IPL team even later?

There was a period where the ban was slightly more porous for non-playing staff. Legendary pacer Wasim Akram served as the bowling coach for the Kolkata Knight Riders for several years and was a beloved figure in the dugout till December 2016. The visa conditions he was given reportedly constrained his movement and required police reporting, and over time the combination of intrusive conditions and a worsening political rhetoric from the Modi government sharpened meant that even these roles dried up. Coaches, commentators, and support staff from Pakistan have been gradually phased out of any tournament involving Indian ownership to ensure the brand remains pure in the eyes of the domestic Indian market.

The visa issue is not limited to Pakistan‑based players. England and Australia cricketers with Pakistan heritage or family connections have faced scrutiny and delays in getting Indian visas, particularly when they have travelled to or played for Pakistan, complicating their participation in leagues and tours.

ICC Chairman Jay Shah during an ICC Men’s T20 World Cup 2026 cricket match between India and Zimbabwe, at the MA Chidambaram Stadium, in Chennai, Thursday, Feb. 26, 2026. Phoot: PTI/R SenthilKumar.

Why doesn’t the ICC do something about it? Demanding that an institution dominated by Jay Shah to declare India’s Pakistan policy discriminatory and enforce consequences would amount to admitting to having just landed from Mars.

The ICC is headed by the son of Amit Shah. As BCCI secretary, he already embodied the fusion of the BJP and cricket administration. With his move into the ICC’s top job, that fusion has gone fully international. The same power centre that sets India’s hard line on Pakistan now chairs the organisation that would supposedly police discrimination against Pakistan cricketers. Expecting this ICC to defend Pakistan players against Indian‑linked franchises is therefore wishful. 

Yes, the ICC has an anti‑discrimination code and likes to talk about the “global game”. But it has its excuses. As the ban on Mustafizur Rehman by the BCCI from IPL showed this year, ICC claims that it treats domestic leagues as the private domain of national boards and franchise owners. As long as that continues, Indian capital can globalise India’s Pakistan boycott while the ICC hides behind jurisdictional technicalities and the language of “commercial decisions”.

To conclude, the transformation of The Hundred into an Indian outpost proves that in modern cricket, and threatens to engulf Australia too, the boundary rope is no longer a limit for state politics. India’s cricket establishment has managed to turn a domestic political vendetta into a transnational labour filter, and the game’s institutions seem to have adapted themselves around that injustice. If the global community continues to allow discriminatory ideology and capital to override sporting fairness, the game could soon lose its claim to being a universal sport. 

© The Wire