The Power Structure of Asian Cricket: One Market, Many Centres

Looking at cricket in Asia purely as a game played on the field shows only half the picture. The continent's cricket is now a system in which broadcast rights, league calendars, political tensions and resource distribution all hinge on the same axis. The Asian Cricket Council (ACC), established in 2026, is the formal platform of that system — but the real centre of gravity lies elsewhere. ACC membership is split into two tiers. India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Afghanistan are full members; the UAE, Nepal, Oman, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore, Qatar and Saudi Arabia are associate members. The organisation's visible work is staging the Asia Cup and building a development pathway for associates. Its invisible work is allocating space in the calendar, on which everyone's revenue depends. The centre of this structure is the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), and that is not merely a result of on-field strength. India holds the largest share in the ICC's 2026-2027 revenue model. Financial weight translates directly into decision-making power: tour conditions, venues, broadcast timings, and which tournament sits in which window. When one member's contribution is the largest share of the pool, the definition of "consensus" changes on its own. The Asia Cup is the clearest example of this tension. In the 2026 edition, a deadlock over hosting ended in a "hybrid model" — some matches in Pakistan, the rest in Sri Lanka, with the final in Colombo. That was a compromise, not a solution. The tournament's commercial value rests mainly on the India-Pakistan fixture, and the uncertainty around exactly that fixture is the biggest risk for broadcasters. In other words, the ACC's most valuable product is also its least reliable one. Alongside this, a T20 league economy has taken shape. The Indian Premier League, Pakistan Super League, Lanka Premier League, Bangladesh Premier League and the ILT20 in the UAE since 2026 have created an alternative income market for players. Nepal has launched its own franchise league too. The result: national team calendars are now negotiated against league calendars rather than imposed from above. Player mobility has shifted some power towards players, but unevenly. Those with franchise contracts can afford to rest; those from smaller member teams depend on every tour for income. The same asymmetry shapes the workload-management debate — a privilege for some boards, unthinkable for others. Afghanistan is the most complex case in this structure. Since gaining ICC full membership in 2026, the team has risen steadily in performance and has beaten major sides. But that achievement is not only sporting — cricket has become a vehicle for national identity and international legitimacy there. This dual character raises hard questions: institutional space for women's cricket, and the conditions attached to ICC funding. For the ACC this is not merely a membership issue but a question of its moral standing. Women's cricket is the fastest-growing but least-resourced part of the system. The Women's Asia Cup is now regular and India's dominance is clear — but progress by Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal shows that investment in domestic structures produces direct results. The real gap is not on the field but in the number of matches in the calendar and the value of contracts. The picture among associates is mixed. Nepal, Oman, the UAE and Hong Kong hold limited-overs international status, but domestic structures are often thin and dependent on migrant workforces. For these countries the ACC's biggest contribution is not money but a steady supply of fixtures — because without matches there is no development, and without development there are no sponsors. Broadcast and digital rights are the fuel of this entire structure. Asian cricket's revenue centre is the Indian viewer market, and that is also its biggest vulnerability. With such dependence on a single market, every calendar decision is made to suit that market — whether or not it serves the smaller members. The challenges ahead are clear: collision between league and international calendars, hosting uncertainty created by political tension, single-centre revenue dependence, insufficient space for the women's game, and a sustainable path for associates. None of these problems belongs to a single board, so none can be solved by one either. The real test for Asian cricket is not how powerful the biggest board is — that is already settled. The test is whether that power translates into a structure where Nepal, Oman or Afghanistan also have room, and where women's cricket is not merely a calendar formality. Until that question is answered, the ACC's existence will rest more on its members' preferences than on its constitution.