So Scotland, an Associate Member, is all set to play the ICC T20 World Cup next month. While such a move is not unprecedented, the standoff between the ICC and the Bangladesh Cricket Board was never really about venues, visas or security. Those are surface symptoms.
What we are witnessing is something deeper and far more consequential: a global sport trying to run the new geo political realities on the basis of old templates of governance. What if we were to look at this from a modern day financial lens and think about structural reform that could be a win for all stakeholders?
In reality, the 14-2 vote authorising Bangladesh’s removal from the T20 World Cup exposes how fragile cricket’s global architecture still is. Because when a single board can hold an entire tournament hostage, it is not defiance that is the problem. It is design. Modern sport is no longer a calendar of matches. It is a tightly wound commercial system with broadcast commitments, sponsorship contracts, travel infrastructure, digital rights, and fan expectations layered on top of competitive integrity. In such a system, participation is not a courtesy. It is a contract. And contracts cannot be governed by sentiment.
Airlines fly across hostile borders every day. They do so not because politics has disappeared, but because neutral airspace is a system, not a negotiation. Cricket needs the same. The ICC must institutionalise what can be called a Sovereign Neutrality Protocol — a permanent, pre-approved framework that allows any board facing geopolitical constraints to compete without altering tournament design.
For instance, The ICC could designate neutral execution hubs — cities like Dubai, Singapore, Nairobi — or even purpose-built tournament centres. Any team invoking political inability to play in a host nation automatically shifts to a neutral operating identity with no national flag, anthem and neutral accreditation. The match remains part of the original tournament schedule, but is physically executed in the neutral hub while being digitally “hosted” by the original venue.
It preserves the competition architecture, protects broadcasters, honours sponsor commitments, and removes the political veto from individual boards. Most importantly, it reframes geopolitical friction as a logistics issue, not a governance crisis. If international sport can share airspace, it can share neutrality.
Every ICC tournament carries geopolitical risk. Today, that risk is absorbed informally through panic, renegotiation, and public posturing. What if instead, it were priced, pooled and governed? Every participating board would pay a risk premium into a central pool — a fund designed to protect the tournament ecosystem from politically driven withdrawals. If a board refuses to play, then its premium is forfeited and the pool compensates broadcasters, sponsors and host partners. The competitive schedule remains intact through the neutrality mechanism. Participation becomes economically rational. Defiance becomes costly. This transforms political risk from a disruptive force into a measurable, tradable variable much like currency risk, carbon credits or insurance pools. It does not remove politics from sport. It simply stops politics from holding the product hostage.
The BCB-ICC crisis is not a failure of compliance. It is a failure of imagination. Cricket is trying to enforce modern commercial contracts using moral persuasion and historical precedent. That era is over. Governance must now move from negotiation to design, from power to protocol. Because in a billion-dollar ecosystem, stability is not a value.
For More Exciting Articles: Follow RevSportz
