Home
+
Published : 25 Jan 2026, 08:42 PM
There’s a saying, leave the table when respect is no longer served.
Watching the cricket saga over the last couple of weeks, this line has come back more than once.
Maybe, the line cannot be fully applied to the cricket scene, but to a large extent, it does capture the sentiments which emerged from a tug of war between the International Cricket Council (ICC) and the Bangladesh Cricket Board (BCB).
Let me clarify one thing -- I am not a cricket expert but, naturally, when the national team is playing, like all Bangladeshis, one certainly has an interest.
Cricket has given us worldwide sporting recognition, along with prestige.
The success of the sport is interlinked and often used to represent the progress of the country from the war-ravaged, famine-devastated and unemployment-riddled condition to where we stand today.
This country is not perfect but standing in 2026, looking back at the bleak and hardship filled days of the 70s and 80s, one is compelled to say that despite countless hurdles, the nation has moved forward and can no longer be deemed impoverished, perennially hungry and plagued by socio-economic turbulence.
Now that Bangladesh is out of the impending T20 World Cup, a wide range of assessments, narratives and perspectives are coming into view.
For valid reasons, each stand has its own merits.
The exclusion of our star bowler Mustafizur Rahman from a top Indian Premier League side is believed to be the trigger for the debate and a series of actions which culminated in the final decision to not participate in the tournament.
We all know the details so not going into that.
As a general sports lover, I had the chance to speak to several people from different spheres of society and from their comments it appears the majority of the people are behind the decision to stay away from the sporting event.
THE ‘MONEY’ FACTOR
Several papers have printed front page stories highlighting the potential loss for Bangladesh, starting from distribution of revenue to sponsor rights to prize money.
It appears that, of the several predictions made about possible ramifications, most are associated with money.
Speaking on the matter, Hasan Tareq, a shop owner at Gausia Market, observes: “Looking at the long term implications, the recurring theme is all about profit; I agree money is a key factor in any top level professional sport but the decision to stay away does not mean, cricket has fallen into an abyss.”
Yes, there will be immediate financial impact but this will not leave our cricket high and dry, he remarked.
It seems the mercenary dimension is often getting the main spotlight, lamented Mohammad Sumon, a bowling coach.
Referring to the demotion in ranking, Md Yeasin, an avid cricket follower, adds: “The upshot maybe that we will have to go through the qualifying stage which actually can be a blessing in disguise because the team will get the chance to play matches that will not only give them game exposure but also slice off any complacency they may have against playing lower-ranked teams.”
There’s a feeling that by not going, Bangladesh will lose its influence at the ICC.
Commenting on this point, Abdus Sattar Rony, a university-level cricketer, feels that if Bangladesh really had any “influence” then some nations playing the tournament would have supported the request to have the games shifted to a second country due to security concerns mentioned earlier.
Yes, there will be some immediate losses, mostly financial, although the structure of cricket in Bangladesh has never been cash-strapped, therefore, no reason to feel that staying away from one tournament will bring financial ruin, he remarked.
Early on during the debate, an issue was raised about the safety of Bangladesh fans going to the stadium wearing the national colours, which outraged many, observed Akhi Akhter, a woman player.
Although reassurances were given later on, the early feeling of indignation had already left a sour taste, she added.
THIS IS NOT THE END
Some are painting a very grim picture, trying to create an impression that since we are not playing, the game will go down the drain and players will be on the road.
That’s not the case at all, says Ali Ashraf, a sport analyst, adding: “There will be some initial difficulties, but look at it this way, the tournament will also lose a large spectator base in Bangladesh.”
Let’s also focus on the non-monetary aspect of it all, he reflects, saying: “When everyone’s harping about what the loss will be in financial terms, no one is speaking about what the gain will be, which is the assertive stance, reflecting a nation unwilling to be controlled by the whims of others.”
By not playing this time does not mean Bangladesh will never play in the future, far from it, he observes.
“Given the overall complexities rising since Bangladesh’s seismic change in Aug 2024, the move to stay away is perhaps the best one.”
In my opinion, this action forestalls any untoward incident involving Bangladeshi supporters that could have taken place on foreign soil, feels Ashraf.
It will be painful to see our players not on the field but beyond all the financial calculations, there’s something intangible and far more important, feels Dipok Chowhan, a cricket enthusiast.
The change in Aug 2024 came to ensure dignity and honour, compromising on that would have been an affront to the lives lost in the mass uprising, he adds.
Well, hearing all those observations, one is reminded of a line from French philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau: “I prefer liberty with danger than peace with slavery.”
[Towheed Feroze is a former journalist]
