The simmering tensions surrounding the T20 World Cup 2026 have taken a fresh turn after former India opener Kris Srikkanth launched a scathing attack on ex-England captain Nasser Hussain. With Bangladesh withdrawing from the tournament earlier and Pakistan initially threatening to boycott their high-voltage clash against India, Hussain had questioned the International Cricket Council’s (ICC) functioning, suggesting that the body was heavily influenced by the BCCI. Srikkanth, however, did not hold back in his response and brought up England’s own controversial past to counter the criticism.

The controversy that sparked the debate

The T20 World Cup 2026 has been surrounded by off-field drama. Bangladesh’s decision to pull out of the competition and Pakistan’s initial reluctance to face India added fuel to an already tense atmosphere. During this period, Hussain reportedly remarked that the ICC appeared to be under the control of the BCCI and called for equal treatment for all participating teams.

Those comments did not sit well with Srikkanth, who accused Hussain of selective memory. According to the former India chief selector, such statements ignore cricket’s complex political and financial history.

Kris Srikkanth reminds Nasser Hussain of 2003 episode

Srikkanth pointed to the 2003 ODI World Cup to challenge Hussain’s stance. That tournament, co-hosted by South Africa, Zimbabwe and Kenya, witnessed England refusing to travel to Zimbabwe citing security concerns. The decision led to England forfeiting the match, which significantly altered the group standings and helped Kenya progress to the knockout stages.

Srikkanth recalled that Hussain was the captain of England during that edition and questioned why similar decisions made in the past were not viewed through the same critical lens. He argued that at the time, England’s refusal was defended as a principled stand, yet now India’s position was being scrutinized more aggressively.

In his typically fiery style, Srikkanth suggested that it was unfair to apply different standards depending on which cricketing nation was involved.

“He was the captain in 2003 World Cup when England refused to go to Zimbabwe and Kenya. Why does he want to talk now? Last moment even Australia agreed. England were kicked out and that’s how Kenya came to the quarterfinals. You have one rule, we have one rule. That time England was ruling,” said Srikkanth on YouTube.

Also READ: IND vs NAM, T20 World Cup 2026: Here’s why Abhishek Sharma and Mohammed Siraj are not playing today’s match

The financial reality of global cricket

Another key point raised by Srikkanth was the financial structure of world cricket. He emphasized that Indian fans contribute significantly to global cricket revenues through broadcasting rights, sponsorships and ticket sales. While he stopped short of endorsing any undue influence, he acknowledged that such financial weight inevitably gives India a stronger voice within the ICC framework.

According to him, this is not a matter of ‘arm-twisting’ but rather a reflection of economic realities. Cricket boards operate within a business ecosystem, and revenue generation plays a major role in decision-making.

“That time they were shouting. It’s not fair. If England or any other team do it, it is okay. No one wants to do arm-twisting. End of the day, ICC’s big revenue is from Indian fans across the globe, so India has a little bit of an edge. It happens in phases,” added Srikkanth.

Pakistan’s U-turn and the bigger picture

Meanwhile, Pakistan eventually reversed their boycott stance and agreed to play against India. Srikkanth opined that had they chosen not to participate, Pakistan would have been the biggest loser—both financially and in terms of global reputation. The India-Pakistan fixture remains one of the most anticipated events in world cricket, drawing record-breaking audiences.

Also READ: Fans go berserk as Justin and Anthony Mosca power Italy to a historic win over Nepal in T20 World Cup 2026