Former India Captain Sunil Gavaskar has pushed back against recurring criticism of the IPL and the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), arguing that Indian cricket remains a major financial driver of the global game despite continued complaints from some commentators and former players. Writing in his column for Mid-Day, Gavaskar said the economic impact of Indian cricket is often overlooked by those who regularly question the BCCI’s influence and the growing prominence of franchise cricket.
Gavaskar highlights Indian cricket’s financial contribution
Debate around the IPL intensified during the 2026 season after several former cricketers questioned the increasing pull of franchise leagues and their impact on the international calendar. Much of that discussion focused on England fast bowler Jofra Archer remaining with Rajasthan Royals during the IPL playoffs and missing England’s opening Test against New Zealand.
Addressing those broader criticisms, Gavaskar wrote, “Indian cricket and BCCI bashing is par for the course. But when it comes to revenues, they still have to come to the BCCI because it is Indian cricket and Indian fans that fill their coffers much more than even what their traditional rivalry does.”
The comments came amid continued discussion over player availability during franchise tournaments and the relationship between domestic T20 leagues and international cricket schedules.
IPL revenue-sharing at the centre of the argument
Questions around player commitments were also raised earlier in the season when Jacob Bethell’s limited opportunities in the IPL prompted suggestions that he would have been better served preparing for England’s red-ball campaign in county cricket. Former players including Michael Atherton, Simon Doull and Alastair Cook were among those who contributed to wider discussions surrounding franchise participation and international priorities.
Gavaskar addressed those concerns directly, writing, “Cribbing about the IPL and their players not being available for their country is another favourite pastime. Not a word though about the 10% their Boards get of the fee of every player from their country. It adds up to a cool million-plus pounds every year. Does The Hundred give any percentage to the Boards of their overseas players playing in their tournament? No sir. Does the BBL or any other country’s T20 leagues give any percentage to the Boards of their overseas players? No sir again. Only the IPL does. Yet the whinging and moaning about BCCI and Indian cricket just goes on and on.”
His remarks drew attention to the IPL’s revenue-sharing mechanism, under which overseas boards receive a percentage of player payments, a model he contrasted with other major franchise competitions.
Gavaskar concluded that section of his argument with a direct message to critics, stating, “Wake up and smell the coffee, guys. Indian cricket is here to stay, no matter how you try to pull it down.”
Lord’s pitch debate sparks broader criticism
Beyond the IPL discussion, Gavaskar also pointed to what he believes are inconsistencies in the way cricket pitches are assessed around the world. His comments followed the ICC’s decision to award Lord’s a demerit point after the venue’s pitch for England’s first Test against New Zealand was rated unsatisfactory.
The sanction marked the first demerit point issued to Lord’s and will remain on the ground’s record for five years. Under ICC regulations, venues that accumulate six demerit points within that period can face suspension from hosting international matches for 12 months.
Referring to the match in his column, Gavaskar wrote, “Even as Day One of the only Test between India and Afghanistan gets underway, the first Test between England and New Zealand is finishing with a whimper. Thirty-three wickets have fallen on the first two days at Lord’s, the home of English cricket, yet there’s hardly any word of rebuke from all those who make a career out of having a go at Indian pitches.”
Concerns over differing standards
Gavaskar expanded on that theme by arguing that surfaces in England and Australia are often evaluated differently from those in India.
He added, “Yes sir, no former player and none of the wordsmiths from the old powers have had much to say. After all, it’s inept batting and nothing to do with the pitch, isn’t it? If you can’t play the moving ball on a cow grazing field masquerading as a cricket pitch, why blame the playing area? If you can’t play the bouncing ball on a trampoline, disguised as a bouncy pitch, in Australia, then the pitch isn’t to blame. It’s the batter’s faulty technique and fragile temperament, so we are given to understand.”
The former captain argued that conversations surrounding pitch quality frequently shift depending on where matches are being played and who is involved.
Continuing his criticism, Gavaskar wrote, “But lo and behold, if the pitch affords spin from Day One in India, these very guys will be the ones doing their cardio, jumping up and down and calling it a dust bowl and what not. Not a word about technique and ability. Hypocrites masquerading as experts, that’s what they are.”
His comments brought together two debates that have featured prominently in recent months: the growing influence of the IPL on the global cricket landscape and ongoing disagreements over how conditions in different cricketing nations are judged by players, commentators and former professionals.
