Asian Cricket's Toughest Contest Is in the Boardroom, Not on the Field

Discussion of Asian cricket usually revolves around the India-Pakistan rivalry, packed stadiums and broadcast numbers. But over the past few years the decisions that have most shaped the continental game have been taken not on the field but in the boardroom. Where and how the Asia Cup is played, how many matches associate nations get, how much calendar space is carved out for franchise leagues, and in what ratio revenue is shared — all of it flows from the same structure, run by the Asian Cricket Council (ACC). And that structure is now under its sharpest scrutiny. Asia Cup: more settlement than tournament The 2026 Asia Cup is the clearest example. Pakistan held the hosting rights, but the Indian board refused to send its team there. The solution was political rather than sporting: a hybrid model was adopted, with some matches in Pakistan and the rest — including the final — in Sri Lanka. The tournament was completed on schedule and India won the title. But the arrangement set a precedent whose cost the whole continent may end up paying: if refusing to play in a fellow member's country is now an acceptable option, any future hosting right can be split on the same logic. The 2026 edition was played in the United Arab Emirates, and India won again — the geography of the event keeps shifting, the question does not. This is not merely a scheduling issue. The Asia Cup is the ACC's single largest revenue source, and its broadcast value is tied directly to the appeal of the teams taking part. The day the tournament's biggest fixture is played on neutral ground, the economic benefit to the host country — hotels, tickets, local business — shrinks in the same proportion. That imbalance has become a permanent feature of Asian cricket politics. A two-tier membership ACC membership is split in two. The full members — India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Afghanistan — play the decisive role in decision-making and revenue distribution, while associate members are far more numerous and receive a much smaller share. That structure did not emerge by accident: a large chunk of Asian cricket's revenue comes from the Indian market, and the market that pays naturally sets the priorities too. The problem is not that fact itself, but that the imbalance rests on informal understanding rather than a formal, transparent formula. The hardest road: the associates The associates are in the most difficult position. Members such as Nepal, Oman, the UAE, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore, Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait have domestic structures of their own and, in many places, the support of a large South Asian diaspora. Nepal and Oman have shown at global tournaments that talent is not in short supply. Opportunity is: matches against the big teams are few, preparation time is thin, and funding depends on others year after year. Until these teams get regular, competitive cricket, their progress will rest on occasional upsets. Franchise leagues and a shifting market The expansion of franchise leagues is changing the picture. The Indian Premier League, Pakistan Super League, Lanka Premier League, Bangladesh Premier League and the ILT20 in the Gulf have opened a new earnings market for players. Names like Virat Kohli, Babar Azam, Shakib Al Hasan and Rashid Khan sell globally, and league money now forms a large part of their income. But national teams are paying the price: central contract values look small next to league offers, and the choice of what to prioritise is getting harder for players. The direct consequence is workload. Asian teams already have dense international calendars, and adding league windows squeezes recovery days and practice time. Boards have no shared answer, because each board's priority differs: one needs bilateral series revenue, another needs its domestic league to expand. The real calendar problem is not only volume but the way windows are set. Big boards fix their bilateral programmes first; smaller nations look for space afterwards. For associate teams this often means playing at a time when the major sides are resting their leading players — the chance comes, but the level of competition stays uneven. Women's cricket: the second test Women's cricket is the second test of the same structure. The Women's Asia Cup and domestic franchise leagues have raised visibility, but the investment ratio remains far below the men's game. Until there is parity in the number of matches, broadcast quality and match fees, a large share of the talent will stay outside the frame. This is not only a moral question — it is a market question too, because wherever women's cricket has been given a regular platform, both audiences and sponsors have grown. The way forward The answers here are about governance, not technique. Three things look essential. First, a public and stable revenue-sharing formula, so that associate members can plan without depending on charity. Second, a guaranteed number of matches for associate teams against full members — even if they come as multi-nation tournaments rather than bilateral series. Third, a shared calendar agreement that fixes space for both league windows and international commitments in advance, instead of negotiating each time. Asian cricket has talent, audiences and markets. What it lacks is a structure that distributes all three in the interest of the whole continent rather than two or three boards. Where the next Asia Cup is played looks like the big question; the bigger one is how many teams will play in it, and how much of its revenue will reach them.