tension all around t20 world cup 2026 A new twist has come after the former India opener chris srikanth Sharp attack on former England captain Nasir Hussain. with bangladesh withdraw from the first tournament and Pakistan Initially threatening to boycott their high-voltage clash against India, Hussain had raised the question International Cricket Council (ICC) functioning, suggesting that the body was greatly affected by bcci. However, Srikkanth did not hold back from giving his reaction and brought up his controversial past with England to respond to the criticism.
The controversy that sparked the debate
The T20 World Cup 2026 is surrounded by off-field drama. Bangladesh’s decision to withdraw from the competition and Pakistan’s initial reluctance to face India added fuel to an already tense atmosphere. During this period, Hussain reportedly commented that the ICC appeared to be under the control of the BCCI and called for equal treatment for all participating teams.
Those comments did not go down well with Srikanth, who accused Hussain of selective memory. According to the former India chief selector, such statements ignore the complex political and financial history of cricket.
Kris Srikkanth reminds Nasir Hussain of 2003 episode
Srikanth pointed out 2003 ODI World Cup To challenge Hussain’s stance. In that tournament, jointly hosted by South Africa, Zimbabwe and Kenya, England had refused to travel to Zimbabwe citing security concerns. This decision resulted in England losing the match, significantly altering the group standings and allowing Kenya to advance to the knockout stage.
Srikkanth recalled that Hussain was the England captain during that edition and questioned why similar decisions taken in the past were not viewed with the same critical eye. He argued that at the time, England’s refusal was defended as a principled stance, yet India’s position was now being examined more aggressively.
In his typical fiery style, Srikkanth suggested that it was unfair to apply different standards depending on the cricket playing country.
“He was the captain in the 2003 World Cup when England refused to go to Zimbabwe and Kenya. Why does he want to talk now? Australia also agreed at the last moment. England were ousted and thus Kenya got into the quarter-finals. You have a rule, we have a rule. England had the rule at that time,” Srikanth said on YouTube.
The financial reality of global cricket
Another important issue raised by Srikkanth was the financial structure of world cricket. He emphasized that Indian fans contribute significantly to global cricket revenues through broadcasting rights, sponsorships and ticket sales. Although he refrained from endorsing any undue influence, he acknowledged that such a financial burden essentially gives India a stronger voice within the ICC framework.
According to him, this is not a case of ‘arm twisting’ but a reflection of economic realities. Cricket boards operate within a business ecosystem, and revenue generation plays a major role in decision making.
“At that time they were shouting. It’s not fair. If England or any other team does it, then it’s fine. Nobody wants to be scrambling. At the end of the day, the bulk of the ICC’s revenue is from Indian fans around the world, so India has a slight edge. It happens in phases,” Added Srikanth.
Pakistan’s U-turn and the bigger picture
Meanwhile, Pakistan eventually reversed its boycott stance and agreed to play against India. Srikanth said that if he had decided not to participate, Pakistan would have suffered the biggest loss both economically and in terms of global prestige. The India-Pakistan match remains one of the most anticipated events in world cricket, attracting record-breaking audiences.
Also read: Fans go wild as Justin and Anthony Mosca lead Italy to historic win over Nepal in T20 World Cup 2026
