India’s Champions Trophy Win: A Triumph or a Fix?

India may have won the Champions Trophy final against New Zealand by four wickets, but let’s be honest, this tournament was decided long before the first ball was bowled in Dubai. Sure, Rohit Sharma and his men played well, but when you get a home-away-from-home advantage, a fixed schedule, and conditions tailored to your strengths, looking dominant isn’t exactly difficult.

This was meant to be Pakistan’s tournament to host and a long-overdue return to global cricketing glory. Instead, thanks to the BCCI’s boardroom muscle, every Indian match was played in Dubai, while the rest of the teams were forced into a merry-go-round between Pakistan and the UAE. By the time India lifted the trophy, the bigger question wasn’t about their performance, it was whether this ICC tournament had any real integrity left.

A “Home” Final Away from Home

The Champions Trophy was supposed to mark Pakistan’s grand return as hosts of an ICC event after nearly three decades. Originally, matches were scheduled for Karachi, Lahore, and Rawalpindi. But in an unprecedented twist, every single Indian match, including the final, was moved to Dubai.

For those who somehow missed the behind-the-scenes power play, India refused to travel to Pakistan due to political tensions, effectively issuing an ultimatum: We play elsewhere, or we don’t play at all. The ICC and PCB, facing financial realities, caved.

For India, Dubai’s flat pitches, consistent conditions, and partisan crowds made it feel like home. For everyone else, it reeked of favouritism. “I feel very uncomfortable about the way India is being treated at the moment,” said veteran broadcaster Jonathan Agnew, calling the situation “wrong.” In an ICC event, “you can’t pick and choose where you play,” he told ABC, adding that the arrangement “makes a farce of these tournaments.”

Former England captain Mike Atherton put it bluntly: India gained an undeniable advantage. The contrast in conditions was stark: Dubai’s slower pitches and lack of dew kept scores manageable, while in Pakistan, teams were racking up 300+ totals in dewy evening chases. Australia even pulled off a record-breaking 352-run chase in Lahore. But India? No nasty surprises, no late-night dew factor, and no travel fatigue.

Meanwhile, teams like New Zealand had to hop between four different venues en route to the final. South Africa and Australia, assuming they’d be facing India in Dubai for the semi-final, even preemptively flew there, only for South Africa to be sent back to Pakistan within 12 hours when their opponent turned out to be New Zealand. Disrupted prep and jetlag did them no favours as they crashed out in Lahore.

As one commentator wryly noted, “Pakistan waited 29 years to host an ICC tournament… their fans will hope the next one is at home, not home-and-away.”

Cricket Integrity on a Sticky Wicket

In the aftermath of India’s victory, the actual match has been almost an afterthought. (For the record, India’s bowlers skittled New Zealand cheaply, and the chase was a formality.) The real post-mortem is happening off the field: Has the ICC set a dangerous precedent by bending its rules for one team?

The Champions Trophy is nicknamed the “mini World Cup,” but this edition felt more like a BCCI Invitational. Australia’s Pat Cummins, who didn’t play in the tournament, admitted early on that India had “a huge advantage” by playing all their games at the same ground.

Cricket prides itself on fair play, and ICC tournaments are supposed to be great equalisers; neutral battlegrounds where no team has an unfair advantage. That idea took a beating this time. “If you’re going to play an international tournament, you can’t just choose where you’re going to play,” Agnew repeated.

Gautam Gambhir, India’s head coach, was having none of it. Facing mounting criticism, he went full attack mode. “Perennial cribbers,” he snapped when asked about the “unfair advantage” debate. “What undue advantage? We haven’t practised here even for a day. We’re practising at the ICC Academy, and the conditions there and here are 180 degrees different,” he insisted, claiming “the difference between the wickets is like ground and sky.”

That, of course, is nonsense. Dubai’s pitches don’t suddenly transform overnight. His combative defence backfired abroad, with South African media branding his comments “cringeworthy” and “arrogant.”

Power Plays and Precedents

For those watching cricket and following the global politics of the sport, this isn’t new, it’s just the latest episode in the BCCI’s unchecked influence over world cricket.

The Asia Cup 2023 turned into a logistical mess because India refused to play in Pakistan, forcing a “hybrid model” that shifted their matches to Sri Lanka. Sound familiar? That was a dress rehearsal for this Champions Trophy. The 2014 “Big Three” power grab saw India, England, and Australia seizing control of cricket’s finances. Though the model was rolled back in 2017, India still walked away with the lion’s share of ICC revenue.

Fast forward to today, and the ICC’s new financial model is even more lopsided: India now takes 38.5% of the ICC’s annual earnings, while no other country gets more than single digits.

Privately, former ICC officials and smaller boards grumble that saying “no” to the BCCI is career suicide. The alternative was, of course, axing India from the tournament, but with so much at stake in terms of revenue and broadcasting rights, that was not a viable or realistic option. 

And Pakistan, the original host, was effectively told to suck it up or lose the event entirely. In a particularly bitter twist, the compromise under ICC chair (and BCCI secretary) Jay Shah ensures Pakistan’s own matches will be held at neutral venues whenever India hosts ICC events through 2027. A tit-for-tat neutrality deal? Maybe. A slap in the face for fairness? Absolutely.

The Asterisk on India’s Win

No one is questioning India’s skill. They were dominant all throughout the tournament. But fairness matters. When Rohit Sharma’s men lifted the trophy under the Dubai floodlights instead of in Lahore, it was hard to ignore the bigger picture. This wasn’t just a sporting contest; it was a geopolitical one. The real winner? The BCCI’s boardroom muscle.

In an ideal world, headlines after a global final should celebrate the players’ skill, not question the administrators’ decisions. The ICC now faces a trust deficit: fans of several countries feel their teams were short-changed by politics. 

Cricket, after all, is called a gentleman’s game, and gentlemen prefer to win (and lose) on equal terms. The hope among cricket lovers is that this Champions Trophy is an aberration, not a sign of things to come. Otherwise, the ICC might find that trophies can be won, but the credibility of the contest could be the ultimate loss, and that’s a price too steep for the sport to pay.