Senior cricket administrator Syed Ashraful Haque has ignited a fresh debate over governance in South Asian cricket, accusing political actors of taking control of the sport’s institutions and sidelining cricketing expertise in key decisions. Speaking in an extended interview, Haque said the administrative culture across the subcontinent had shifted away from professionalism and accountability, leaving boards vulnerable to patronage, short-termism and declining trust among players and fans.Haque, who served as general secretary of the Bangladesh Cricket Board and later as chief executive of the Asian Cricket Council, argued that political figures with limited understanding of the game now dominate decision-making structures. “The whole cricket ecosystem in India, Bangladesh, Pakistan — everywhere — has been hijacked by politicians,” he said, adding that the problem had deepened over the past decade as cricket’s commercial value surged and board positions became more influential.
His comments come at a time when cricket boards across South Asia are grappling with questions over transparency, financial governance and independence. The region accounts for the largest share of global cricket revenues, driven by broadcast deals, sponsorships and franchise leagues, yet administrative controversies continue to surface with striking regularity. Leadership disputes, delayed elections, judicial interventions and allegations of favouritism have become recurring features in several countries.
Haque’s critique centres on what he describes as a disconnect between governance and the sport’s technical needs. He said administrators without cricketing backgrounds often prioritise political optics and personal influence over long-term development, including grassroots investment, domestic structures and player welfare. According to him, this has weakened institutional memory and reduced the role of experienced former players and administrators in shaping policy.
The issue is not confined to one country. In Bangladesh, repeated changes in board leadership have followed shifts in political power, with senior positions often held by figures closely aligned with the ruling establishment. In Pakistan, the board has seen frequent restructuring and leadership turnover, sometimes following court rulings or government intervention. In Sri Lanka, prolonged disputes over administration have led to suspensions and oversight by international bodies at various points.
In India, where the sport commands enormous economic and cultural influence, governance has undergone high-profile reforms after judicial scrutiny earlier in the last decade. While those reforms introduced term limits, cooling-off periods and changes to electoral processes, critics argue that political proximity still plays a role in shaping board leadership and priorities. Haque said formal reforms alone were insufficient if the broader culture of political dominance remained intact.
Cricket governance specialists note that the sport’s structure makes it particularly susceptible to political influence. National boards often control large budgets, international exposure and access to patronage networks, making them attractive platforms for political actors. Unlike many other sports, cricket boards in the region historically evolved as autonomous societies rather than arms of sports ministries, creating grey areas around oversight and accountability.
Haque warned that the consequences extend beyond administration. He said politicisation risks undermining competitive integrity, with selection decisions, disciplinary processes and domestic appointments sometimes influenced by non-cricketing considerations. Over time, he argued, this could erode public confidence and weaken the pipeline of talent that has sustained the region’s dominance in world cricket.
Players’ associations and former internationals have echoed parts of this concern in recent years, calling for clearer governance standards and greater representation of former players in decision-making roles. Some boards have taken steps to professionalise operations, hiring specialist executives in finance, marketing and high-performance management. However, critics say these measures often coexist uneasily with leadership structures shaped by political loyalties.
The International Cricket Council has limited scope to intervene in domestic governance unless there is clear government interference, a threshold that is difficult to define and enforce. This has left much of the responsibility for reform with national boards themselves, where incentives to dilute political control are often weak.