In general, Cricket has a history of intrigue surrounding the off-field; however, in recent years, it has been rare for a tournament’s storyline to be based upon something so obscure (and therefore invisible) as a risk assessment. A case in point: The Bangladeshi bid to move the team’s T20 World Cup 2026 matches from India has created an exact example of this paradox: A public safety alert based on no data. According to the ICC’s own independent, internationally recognised security review, the perceived threat for the Litton Das-led Bangladesh team is “normal,” the same standard risk level used by the ICC at all events, and the overall risk for the hosting nation of India is low to moderate, similar to major international sporting events.
Risk Without Evidence
After conducting its assessment, the International Cricket Council (ICC) stated there was no particular or credible threat to the Bangladeshi players or the host cities of Kolkata and Mumbai, where matches will be held. Therefore, the “Low/Mod” rating is common for international events of this size and signifies no increased concerns. Additionally, the ICC indicated all variables considered during the risk assessment have been adequately accounted for by existing security protocol, thus it represents a heightened awareness rather than an emergency response. Since the ICC has not independently validated any perceived dangers, the request to relocate matches would appear to be politically motivated as opposed to being based on a valid security need.
Contingency Isn’t a Warning
It seems one reason for confusion is in how people have misunderstood the application of scenario planning. Professional security systems create hypothetical threats because, for preparedness, you need to imagine the potential threats. The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) has made it clear that these hypotheticals are not statements of fact; they do not tell you which players to choose, what fans should wear, or anything about domestic policies. To use contingency as evidence of an actual threat is similar to using a fire drill as evidence of arson. In this case, it is mixing the process of creating hypotheticals with the prognosis of real threats; therefore, it creates a greater scope than was originally intended.
Lines the ICC Won’t Cross
The ICC has denied reports that they instructed the BCB to leave Mustafizur out of the team for security purposes, or told Bangladeshi supporters not to wear their national colours in India, which is important. This is because the ICC’s governance model clearly defines two lines in the sand; it will not get involved with the selection process, nor will it regulate what fans are wearing. That kind of self-imposed restraint lends credibility to how seriously the ICC takes fan safety. If the ICC were somehow influencing teams, or even the fans, then there would be a legitimate reason to question the world governing body’s intentions. But as opposed to attempting to influence teams or fans, the ICC is protecting the integrity of the competitive process by maintaining neutral procedures.
Power, Precedent, and Participation
The question isn’t about just the four matches; it is about the precedence that will be set. The World Cup cannot have a governing body that can decide for the host country where they will play their home games due to perceived risks that do not have a basis in reality, and therefore, no basis for the safety of the players or fans. That is why the ICC has referred to the obligations that the BCB owes to the terms of participation, which are a binding contract for every participant, and the conditions that were agreed upon. Further talks are continuing, and alternative venues (Chennai, Thiruvananthapuram) are also being considered; however, the BCB’s position has been firm since day one regarding this matter: unless there is evidence that a true threat exists against the scheduled match, the schedule stands.
Bangladesh’s request for safety for their team has revealed a conflict within modern cricket governing bodies about the responsibility for genuine duty of care versus using “risk” strategically as a negotiating tool. The ICC’s position (based on independent assessments and adherence to its own procedures) shows that it is taking the safety of players and fans seriously and responsibly managing the risk rather than simply dismissing it. For the BCB, pushing for an improvement to player safety without evidence will undermine the legitimacy of any further discussion of player safety and create a precedent that may potentially disrupt future tournaments.
Stay updated on the latest cricket news and exciting updates at Six6slive. Dive into our in-depth articles and analyses to connect with the action today!