There is a strange irony in what has unfolded around the Lord’s Test between England and Pakistan. The Pakistan Cricket Board reportedly threatened to pull out of the match after a Sky Sports interview with Imran Khan’s sons, Sulaiman and Kasim, during the second Test. The interview was about their father, the former Pakistan Prime Minister and one of the greatest cricketers the country has produced.
The possibility of a Test match being forfeited is serious enough. But, to me, there are two things here that are even more troubling.
The first is this: has an interview about a former Prime Minister really become bigger than Pakistan cricket itself?
Think about what that means.
The Pakistani authorities were apparently prepared to put a Test match—and with it, the pride, reputation and standing of Pakistan cricket—at risk simply because they did not want to hear Imran Khan’s name being discussed on television. That should concern anyone who cares about sport. If the state is willing to hold its own cricket team hostage to avoid uncomfortable questions about a political opponent, perhaps it also tells us something about the larger problems within Pakistan cricket.
The standards of Pakistan cricket have nose-dived in recent years. The administration has been unstable, the decision-making frequently politicised, and the sport seems to exist far too close to the corridors of political power. That is hardly surprising when the Prime Minister effectively becomes the patron-in-chief of the Pakistan Cricket Board, while the country’s Interior Minister, Mohsin Naqvi, also happens to be the chairman of the PCB.
When political power and cricket administration become so intertwined, it is inevitable that cricket will sometimes become a vehicle for political agendas. And perhaps that is precisely what we are seeing here.
But there is another side to this story, and I think Sky Sports deserves to be questioned too.
WHY PUT POLITICS ON SPORTS TV?
Let me be clear: as a journalist, I completely support the right to interview Imran Khan’s sons. If they want to speak about what is happening to their father, they should have the opportunity to do so. If a former Prime Minister and cricket legend is being treated unfairly, journalists should be asking questions. The truth should never become inconvenient simply because powerful people don’t want to hear it. But there is a time and a place for everything. Sky News is a news platform. Sky Sports is a sports platform. The distinction matters.
A sports broadcast should be able to cover the political dimensions of sport when they are directly relevant. There is no pretending that sport exists in a vacuum. But deliberately using a sports broadcast as a platform for a political interview is a different proposition altogether. And that is where one worries about the precedent. If sports broadcasts increasingly become platforms for political messaging, where does it stop?
Today it may be an interview with the sons of Imran Khan. Tomorrow it could be another broadcaster giving a politician, activist or government official a platform during a major sporting event to make a political point. And once those boundaries begin to disappear, it becomes very difficult to put them back.
There is also a propaganda risk here—not necessarily because Sky Sports intended this interview as propaganda, but because the precedent could be exploited by others. Governments could begin boycotting broadcasts. Broadcasters could deliberately seek political controversy because it generates attention. Sporting events could become convenient stages for political messaging. And before long, the sport itself becomes secondary.
That brings me to Michael Atherton.
Atherton is not a disinterested observer in this story. He has been outspoken about Imran Khan’s situation and was one of 21 signatories to a letter calling on the Pakistan government to treat the former Prime Minister more humanely. That was a perfectly legitimate journalistic position, and the initiative deserved the attention it received. But precisely because Atherton has already taken a public position on the issue, I think the question becomes even more important:
SHOULD ATHERTON HAVE CONDUCTED IT?
I am not questioning Atherton’s right to have an opinion. Nor am I questioning his right to ask difficult questions. I am questioning the platform. There is a difference between journalism and advocacy, and there is also a difference between a news platform and a sports broadcast. Those distinctions matter because sport has always provided something remarkably rare: a space where people with completely different political beliefs can sit together and watch the same game.
That doesn’t mean cricket should be blind to politics. Far from it. The sport has repeatedly been shaped by politics, and journalists should investigate that intersection. But perhaps the answer is to keep the political journalism where it belongs, rather than allowing every sporting broadcast to become an extension of the political battlefield.
Because when politics takes cricket hostage, everybody loses—including cricket.
– Ends
