“We’ve invested heavily in our stadiums"
International cricket is no stranger to controversy, and few topics spark more debate than the hybrid model adopted for high-profile tournaments.
This model has become a necessity as political tensions and security concerns prevent traditional home-and-away fixtures, especially in India-Pakistan contests.
With India’s fixtures often played at neutral venues, it raises complex questions about fairness, identity, and the future of the sport.
Supporters see it as a pragmatic solution, while critics argue it dilutes home advantage and disrupts the spirit of the game.
We explore its evolution, practical and political implications, and what it means for millions of cricket fans worldwide.
An Overview
Cricket in South Asia has always been more than just a game.
It symbolises national pride and has occasionally acted as a diplomatic tool, easing tensions between India and Pakistan.
Their rivalry is one of cricket’s fiercest, fuelled by decades of historical and political conflict.
Traditionally, these matches were hosted by one nation or the other.
However, political disputes and security concerns—such as India’s refusal to tour Pakistan since 2008—forced cricket boards to rethink how fixtures could continue without compromising the competitive spirit.
Enter the hybrid model.
This solution allows India-Pakistan matches to be played at neutral venues.
Tournaments, including the upcoming 2025 ICC Champions Trophy, have seen India’s fixtures moved to the UAE.
What seems like a logistical decision is deeply political, reshaping one of cricket’s most intense rivalries.
What is the Hybrid Model?
The hybrid model aims to bypass the political standoff.
When the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) refuses to travel to Pakistan, citing security concerns, the solution is to shift India’s matches to neutral venues.
For instance, during the 2025 Champions Trophy, India’s games will be held in Dubai, despite Pakistan being the official host nation.
Proponents argue that the model maintains tournament integrity while respecting regional politics.
Critics counter that it dilutes home advantage and the emotional intensity that defines India-Pakistan contests.
A senior BCCI official explained:
“Our decision to play at neutral venues is driven by government advice, prioritising player safety.
“It’s not about reducing competitiveness but ensuring our athletes perform without security distractions.”
Logistical and Financial Challenges
The hybrid model poses significant logistical hurdles.
Organising a tournament across multiple countries requires coordinating security protocols, transport, and stadium upgrades in various locations.
For Pakistan, millions have been invested in modernising stadiums in Karachi, Lahore, and Rawalpindi, only for key matches to be moved abroad.
The financial impact is equally substantial. Hosting international cricket generates revenue from sponsorships, broadcasting rights, and ticket sales.
When matches move to neutral venues, the host nation loses crucial income.
Pakistani Cricket Board Chairman Mohsin Naqvi said:
“We’ve invested heavily in our stadiums, expecting to host top-tier matches.
“Moving fixtures to neutral venues disrupts our plans and has serious financial consequences. It’s a delicate balance between political realities and financial sustainability.”
Politics
The hybrid model is a direct result of decades of political strife.
Decisions made by cricket boards reflect broader diplomatic stances.
When India refuses to tour Pakistan, it’s not merely a sporting decision—it’s a political one.
Political analyst Dr Rajiv Malhotra noted: “Cricket in South Asia is deeply intertwined with national identity and politics.
“The hybrid model represents this intersection. It’s a compromise driven by security concerns and diplomatic realities.”
What have Key Figures Said?
PCB’s Mohsin Naqvi said: “We wish cricket could remain free from political interference, but tensions cannot be ignored.
“If safety concerns prevent India from touring, neutral venues are the only viable solution. This isn’t a question of patriotism but practicality.”
Calling for fairness in future arrangements, Naqvi added:
“When Pakistan tours India, we expect the same level of flexibility regarding neutral venues. It must be a two-way street.”
Meanwhile, a senior BCCI official emphasised the importance of safety:
“Our main priority is player safety. The hybrid model allows us to honour our commitments without compromising security.
“It’s not ideal, but in today’s world, compromises are necessary to preserve the game’s integrity.”
Virat Kohli reflected on the loss of home advantage:
“Playing at home is special—the crowd, the conditions, the familiarity. Neutral venues take that away. But we adapt. We’re professionals. What matters is giving our best wherever we play.”
Babar Azam acknowledges the challenge of a neutral venue but sees it as an opportunity:
“Playing at home gives you extra energy. When that’s gone, you push harder. If neutral venues ensure fairness, we’ll adapt and find ways to maintain our performance.”
Financial Realities
The financial stakes in international cricket are immense.
Relocating fixtures to neutral venues affects revenue streams, especially for nations like Pakistan, which depend on hosting fees and sponsorships.
Sports economist Dr Anita Shah highlighted the challenge:
“Media rights and ticket sales are major income sources for host nations. Neutral venues reduce those earnings, creating financial risks for smaller cricketing boards that rely heavily on ICC distributions.”
Dr Shah stressed the need for long-term strategies:
“The hybrid model works as a short-term fix, but sustainable revenue-sharing models must be developed to ensure fairness.”
Hybrid Model’s Future
As international cricket evolves, the hybrid model may become a permanent feature.
Critics worry it erodes the essence of home advantage, while supporters view it as a pragmatic response to political realities.
Political analyst Dr Malhotra remained cautiously optimistic:
“Sport will always reflect society’s complexities.
“The hybrid model symbolises resilience and adaptation. It’s not perfect, but it’s a testament to cricket’s ability to evolve with the times.”
The real challenge lies in refining the model to benefit all stakeholders—players, fans, and host nations alike.
Whether future generations embrace it as the norm or see it as a temporary compromise remains to be seen.
Babar Azam says: “We adapt, we overcome, and we continue to play.
“That’s the beauty of cricket—it unites us no matter the venue.”
The hybrid model reflects the ongoing evolution of international cricket.
It’s a balancing act between political necessity and sporting passion.
While not perfect, it ensures the game continues, even amid geopolitical tensions.
The future of this model depends on its ability to remain fair, financially sustainable, and competitive.
One thing is certain: cricket’s resilience will keep it thriving, no matter where the game is played.
Loading ...