Gavaskar’s Stance on Pakistani Players Sparks Debate in Cricket Circles
Legendary Indian cricketer Sunil Gavaskar has once again found himself at the centre of a cricketing controversy, this time voicing strong disapproval over the acquisition of Pakistani bowler Abrar Ahmed by Sunrisers Leeds, a sister franchise of the Sunrisers Hyderabad, in The Hundred tournament. The deal, reportedly worth £190,000 (approximately Rs. 2.37 crores), has raised eyebrows, particularly in light of earlier media suggestions that Indian Premier League (IPL) franchises would steer clear of Pakistani talent due to an unwritten understanding.
The move has triggered significant backlash directed at Sunrisers Hyderabad, their parent company Sun Television Network, and CEO Kavya Maran. Gavaskar has been a vocal critic, articulating his view that such signings indirectly benefit Pakistan, as the player’s earnings contribute to the Pakistani government through taxes.
However, Gavaskar’s pronouncements have not gone unchallenged. Many have pointed to his past professional associations, highlighting his work alongside former Pakistani cricketers in commentary roles. Cricket enthusiasts have also recalled his appearance on a Pakistani television show, “The Dressing Room,” during the 2025 Champions Trophy, where he shared the platform with prominent figures like Waqar Younis and Wasim Akram.
Responding to these criticisms, Gavaskar clarified his position regarding his involvement in commentary and media engagements. He stated, “Yes, I’ve been part of commentary panels for ICC and ACC events. The revenue from these shows goes to all participating countries, but not from any Indian organisation, as far as I know. I don’t see how I can be called a contributor since I’m not paying any commentator, Indian or otherwise. I neither requested payment nor received any for the show I did in Dubai.” This statement, made to the Mumbai Mirror, aimed to differentiate his professional duties from financial transactions that could be perceived as directly benefiting the Pakistani cricket board.
Gavaskar further elaborated on his broader perspective regarding the involvement of Indian owners in leagues featuring Pakistani players. “I don’t follow leagues like the CPL, ILT20, or SA20, so I’m not aware of which players are representing which teams. However, if Indian owners are paying Pakistani players, I hope that stops. I’m not sure about other sports, but my only hope is that the Indians stop paying Pakistanis. As far as I know, the reverse has never happened in decades, if at all.” This sentiment underscores his consistent belief in a reciprocal approach to player engagement and financial exchanges between the two cricketing nations.
Defending Jay Shah on Scheduling Decisions
Beyond the Abrar Ahmed controversy, Gavaskar also took the opportunity to defend Jay Shah, the President of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and Chairman of the Asian Cricket Council (ACC), concerning the scheduling of India-Pakistan matches in recent tournaments. Gavaskar stressed that such fixture decisions are the prerogative of the respective governing bodies, not an individual.
He argued, “Jay Shah is just the ICC chairman. India and Pakistan have been competing for decades, long before he assumed the role. To suggest he is responsible for the current fixtures is completely wrong. The scheduling is handled by the ICC, not him, and it is the ICC and ACC that distribute revenues to the PCB.” This defence aims to clarify the roles and responsibilities within international cricket governance, distancing Shah from accusations of unilateral decision-making in match scheduling.
The debate surrounding the Abrar Ahmed signing and Gavaskar’s subsequent comments highlights the complex geopolitical undercurrents that often permeate international cricket. While franchises aim to build competitive teams, the broader political climate and historical sensitivities continue to influence player selections and spark discussions about the financial and diplomatic implications of cross-border sporting ties. Gavaskar’s consistent stance, while drawing criticism from some quarters, reflects a deeply held perspective on the financial and political dimensions of cricket relationships.
