The threat to boycott Pakistan’s Lord’s Test raises questions far beyond a single interview
There is a strange irony in what happened around the Lord’s Test between England and Pakistan. The Pakistan Cricket Board reportedly threatened to pull out of the match after speaking to Sky Sports with Imran Khan’s sons, Sulaiman and Kasim, during the second Test. The conversation was about their father, a former prime minister of Pakistan and one of the greatest cricketers the country has produced.
The possibility of losing a Test match is serious enough. But to me there are two things that are even more disturbing.
The first is this: has the conversation about the former prime minister really become bigger than Pakistan cricket itself?
Think about what that means.
The Pakistani authorities were apparently prepared to jeopardize the Test match – and with it the pride, reputation and status of Pakistan cricket – simply because they did not want to hear Imran Khan’s name mentioned on television. This should concern anyone interested in sports. If a 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 bigger issues in Pakistan cricket.
Pakistan threatened to boycott the Lord’s Test after Sky Sports broadcast an interview with Imran Khan’s two sons that was actually recorded in Lord’s Long Room the day before the Test. The PCB wanted SKY not to broadcast the interview during the lunch break or they would not accept it pic.twitter.com/Z6CGuC6I75— Vikrant Gupta (@vikrantgupta73) August 27, 2026
The standards of Pakistan cricket have sunk sharply in recent years. The administration was unstable, decision-making often politicized and sport seemed to exist too close to the corridors of political power. This is not surprising when the Prime Minister effectively becomes the chief patron of the Pakistan Cricket Board, while the country’s interior minister Mohsin Naqvi also happens to be the chairman of the PCB. Mohsin Naqvi’s politics and cricket role collide at PCB.
When political power and cricket administration become so intertwined, it is inevitable that cricket will sometimes become a vehicle for political agendas. And maybe that’s exactly what we’re seeing here.
But there is another side to this story and I think Sky Sports deserves to be questioned as well.
WHY PUT POLITICIANS ON SPORTS TV?
To be clear: as a journalist, I fully support the right to interview Imran Khan’s sons. If they want to talk about what is happening to their father, they should have the opportunity to do so. If the 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 everything has its time and place. Sky News is a news platform. Sky Sports is a sports platform. Resolution matters.
Sports broadcasting should be able to cover the political dimensions of sport where they are directly relevant. It is impossible to pretend that sport exists in a vacuum. But deliberately using sports broadcasting as a platform for political conversation is a different proposition altogether. And this is where one worries about precedent. If sports broadcasts increasingly become platforms for political news, where will it end?
Today it can be an interview with the sons of Imran Khan. Tomorrow, it may be the next broadcast station to give a politician, activist or government official a platform during a major sporting event to make a political statement. And once those boundaries start to disappear, it’s very difficult to get them back.
There is also a risk of propaganda here – not necessarily because Sky Sports intended this interview to be propaganda, but because the precedent could be used by others. Governments could start boycotting broadcasts. Broadcasters could deliberately seek out political controversy because it generates attention. Sporting events could become suitable platforms for political news. And before long, the sport itself becomes secondary. Atherton was one of 21 former cricket captains who wrote a letter to Pakistan’s prime minister to secure Imran Khan’s care. (Photo: Reuters)
This brings me to Michael Atherton.
Atherton is not a dispassionate observer in this story. He spoke openly about Imran Khan’s situation and he was one of the 21 signatories of a letter challenging the Pakistani government to treat the former prime minister more humanely. This was a perfectly legitimate journalistic stance and the initiative deserved the attention it received. But precisely because Atherton has already taken a public stance on this issue, I think the question becomes even more important:
WAS ATHERTON RUNNING IT?
I do not question Atherton’s right to an opinion. Nor do I question his right to ask difficult questions. I am asking about the platform. There is a difference between journalism and advocacy, and there is also a difference between a news platform and a sports broadcast. These differences matter because sports have always provided something remarkably rare: a space where people of completely different political persuasions can sit together and watch the same game.
This is not to say that cricket should be blind to politics. Far from it. The sport has repeatedly been shaped by politics, and journalists should explore this intersection. But perhaps the answer is to keep political journalism where it belongs, rather than allowing every sports broadcast to become an extension of the political battlefield.
Because when politics takes cricket hostage, everyone loses – including cricket.
– The end
Issued by:
Debodinna Chakraborty
Published on:
29 Aug 2026 10:22 IST