Former Pakistani cricketer Shoaib Akhtar has made a bold statement regarding the hybrid hosting model for the 2025 ICC Champions Trophy, following the Pakistan Cricket Board’s (PCB) agreement to the arrangement. According to Akhtar, the hybrid model—where India’s matches are scheduled to be played in the UAE while the remaining games will take place in Pakistan—was decided well in advance, even before PCB officially ceded to the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and International Cricket Council’s (ICC) demands.
The hybrid model proposal surfaced after the BCCI informed the ICC that the Indian government would not permit the Indian cricket team to travel to Pakistan due to political and security concerns.
ICC reportedly supported the model, partly due to political unrest in Islamabad, to ensure the tournament’s success.
PCB initially opposed the idea, insisting that Pakistan should host the entire tournament. However, they eventually conceded after facing the prospect of losing hosting rights altogether.
In a discussion with a local Pakistani media outlet, Akhtar addressed the situation with a pragmatic outlook:
Revenue Agreement: He acknowledged that PCB securing hosting rights and related revenues was a positive outcome. However, he emphasized that Pakistan should have leveraged a stronger stance to negotiate better revenue-sharing terms.
“You are getting paid for hosting rights and revenue, and that’s fine—we all understand it. Pakistan’s stance is also reasonable. They should have maintained a strong position,” said Akhtar.
Diplomatic Relations with India: Despite the friction over hosting, Akhtar advised Pakistan to maintain cordial relations with Indian cricket authorities. He reiterated the importance of competing in India as an opportunity to assert dominance on their home turf.
“In terms of playing in India in the future, we should extend a hand of friendship and go there. My belief has always been: go to India and defeat them there—India mein khelo aur wahi unhe maarke aao.”
Shoaib Akhtar further claimed that PCB had already approved the hybrid model before publicly conceding to the arrangement. This revelation raises questions about the timeline of PCB’s decision-making and their public opposition to the hybrid proposal.
