Unless a dramatic turn of events unfolds, the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) is expected to proceed with its decision to boycott next week’s T20 World Cup Group A clash against India in Colombo, acting on a directive from the government. While the PCB is yet to officially communicate its stance, the ICC has urged the board to “explore a mutually acceptable resolution that protects the interests of all stakeholders,” while warning that serious consequences could follow.
As speculation continues amid silence from both the ICC and PCB, attention has shifted to the Members Participation Agreement (MPA) signed by all teams competing in the T20 World Cup. While some reports suggest Pakistan would be in breach of contract if it boycotts the fixture, others have highlighted Clause 12 of the MPA, the ‘Force Majeure’ provision, which excuses a party from contractual obligations due to unforeseeable circumstances such as war, terrorism, or natural disasters.
ESPNCricinfo, which accessed a copy of the MPA, reported, citing legal experts Nandan Kamath and Reza Ali, that a government directive could also fall under Force Majeure, potentially giving Pakistan a legal edge in a looming showdown with the ICC.
Among the sanctions speculated in recent days, the most severe possibility is the suspension of Pakistan from the T20 World Cup should it selectively forfeit the match against India.
The experts termed this an “expansive interpretation” of the clause, explaining: “The ICC could argue that if a team is prevented by its government from playing even one match, it becomes incapable of fulfilling its contractual obligation to play all matches in the tournament. Under this interpretation, the obligations under the participation terms are not capable of partial satisfaction, allowing the ICC to terminate the agreement in respect of the PCB’s participation rights as a whole.”
The PCB, however, could counter by arguing that the only consequence of withdrawing from a single fixture should be the “established sporting penalty,” such as loss of points and a hit to Net Run Rate, rather than broader sanctions.
Could ICC still counter the MPA clause and sanction Pakistan?
According to the experts, while the PCB may frame the matter as a contractual breach warranting only indemnity or damages, the ICC could escalate the issue under its constitution.
“The ICC could argue that this is not only grounds for termination, indemnity, and damages under the agreement, but also for further action under the ICC constitution,” they noted. “The constitution provides mechanisms for suspension or termination of membership if the ICC Board believes there has been a serious breach of obligations. That said, this would be an extreme step.”
History, however, suggests restraint. England refused to play Zimbabwe in the 2003 World Cup, New Zealand skipped their fixture against Kenya in the same tournament, while Australia and West Indies declined to travel to Sri Lanka during the 1996 World Cup. None of those boards faced sanctions.
Still, the experts cautioned against relying on precedent. “Past practices may carry moral weight, but they are unlikely to hold precedential value in legal proceedings, which will be decided on the facts and the interpretation of current contractual documents.”
