The Asia Cup cricket final, held in Dubai on Sunday, will be remembered not just for its on-field drama but also for the contentious and chaotic aftermath that unfolded. Despite India’s well-fought victory on the field, the team left the ground empty-handed after a brief celebration, with the post-match comments sparking widespread debate about sportsmanship, procedural integrity, and the need for clear protocols in international cricket.
The match was a closely contested one, and the tension on and off the field was palpable as every stroke and delivery was cheered by an overwhelming crowd. Also, the rivalry was fuelled by subtle messaging with players involved in gestures of plane crashes, mentions of “Pahalgam Terror”, and issues that are beyond the domain of the sport.
The manner in which the post-match scenario was handled exposed procedural grey areas. The awarding ceremony was abruptly halted, with the Indian team refusing to take the trophy from the Pakistan minister Mohsin Naqvi, who is also the chairman of ACC. Given the tone of the match and the stakes involved, the organisers (Asian Cricket Council) should have avoided such a situation by working out a contingency plan. This knowing for a fact that the Indian players had refused to shake hands with Pakistani players or officials all through their three meetings in the tournament. In such a situation, it would have been wise to have a neutral person doing the honours.
Critics argue that the ICC and the ACC need to establish more robust, transparent procedures for dispute resolution. The current system relies heavily on the discretion of officials who are in power. This incident underscores the need for an independent review panel that can objectively assess situations and determine appropriate courses of action, including proposing changes.
Another ambiguous aspect is the wider discussion surrounding sportsmanship and national pride. Although athletes are entitled to express their concerns, the way they choose to protest should not affect the reputation of the sport. Declining to accept the trophy threatens to establish a convention that might erode the respect for cricket’s long-standing traditions. It is essential for both players and officials to keep in mind that the essence of the game goes beyond political rivalries. The middle ground could have been accepting the trophy without any standard handshakes or acknowledgments.
There is a grey area in the broader question of sportsmanship here. While players have the right to voice grievances, the manner in which protests are conducted impacts the sport’s image. The refusal to accept the trophy from a Pakistani official, though symbolic of underlying tensions between the nations, risks setting a precedent that could undermine the dignity of the sport.
Another surprising aspect of the post-match events was that Mohsin Naqvi was permitted to take the Asia Cup trophy to his hotel as if it was his personal property. Such acts reveal that ACC, as a governing body, has no spine. Officials, irrespective of their standing, cannot be allowed to sabotage events like these. It only cuts out a sorry figure of the hosts.
The post-match chaos at the Asia Cup final exposes the systemic issues within cricket’s organisational framework. Hopefully, this final will be a learning lesson. Organisers must be well prepared when there is a face-off between two teams that don’t see eye-to-eye. As cricket seeks to maintain its integrity and global appeal, addressing the grey areas must be a top priority.
