Pakistan erased? PCB accepts ICC’s explanation over branding snub, but questions linger

The Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) has decided to close the matter regarding the omission of Pakistan’s name from the Champions Trophy 2025 branding during the live broadcast of the India vs Bangladesh match in Dubai, following assurances from the International Cricket Council (ICC).

However, the incident, which initially left PCB officials dissatisfied, raises broader concerns about Pakistan’s authority as the tournament host and whether such oversights can truly be dismissed as mere technical errors.

The issue first came to light on Thursday, when viewers noticed that while the Champions Trophy 2025 logo appeared on the top left corner of the broadcast, it lacked the name of Pakistan, the official host. This was not the case in previous matches, including Pakistan’s tournament opener against New Zealand in Karachi and the Afghanistan vs South Africa game, where the host country’s name was clearly visible.

PCB’s Response and ICC’s Assurances

Speaking on the matter, a senior PCB official told Nukta that the board immediately flagged the issue to the ICC upon noticing the discrepancy. “We informally contacted the ICC as soon as we spotted an incorrect event logo in the broadcast feed of the Bangladesh-India match in an effort to understand the background, and then formally wrote to the ICC on Friday morning,” the official said.

A comparison of the Champions Trophy logos used during the live transmission of Pakistan-New Zealand and India-Bangladesh matchesWillow TV

In response, the ICC attributed the issue to a technical glitch and committed to ensuring Pakistan’s name appears in all future broadcasts. “The ICC has committed that they will use a three-liner horizontal text logo with Pakistan’s name in all Champions Trophy 2025 broadcast feeds,” the PCB official confirmed.

Is the Matter Truly Closed?

Despite PCB’s initial dissatisfaction, the board has now decided to move on from the controversy, accepting the ICC’s explanation. “The PCB accepts the ICC’s explanation and considers the matter closed,” the official stated.

When asked whether this incident reflects a pattern of undermining Pakistan’s role as the host, the PCB dismissed such concerns, saying, “This was completely an isolated incident.” The official also emphasized the strong working relationship between the PCB and the ICC. “The ICC had its reasons, and one can understand where they were coming from. But the PCB is happy that they also considered its view, and now we are once again aligned, as always.”

However, the explanation raises critical questions. Graphics for ICC events are typically prepared well in advance, and the fact that Pakistan’s name was included in some matches but omitted in one of the most-watched fixtures so far – an India game – does not align with the usual margins of technical errors. The lack of transparency in ICC’s response leaves room for speculation, particularly given the long-standing disputes over Pakistan’s hosting rights.

Larger Context and Unanswered Questions

Pakistan’s hosting of the Champions Trophy has been a sensitive subject ever since the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) refused to send its team to Pakistan, citing government restrictions. As a compromise, a hybrid model was implemented, ensuring that India would not have to play any matches on Pakistani soil, including a potential final. In return, the PCB secured an agreement that Pakistan would also not travel to India for ICC events over the next three years, with their matches scheduled at neutral venues.

While PCB officials maintain that relations with the ICC remain strong, the broader context cannot be ignored. This incident, whether intentional or not, underscores how fragile Pakistan’s hosting rights remain in the global cricketing landscape. The upcoming India vs Pakistan clash in Dubai on Sunday will serve as a crucial test—not just on the field, but also off it, as PCB watches closely to ensure its status as the tournament host is not further undermined.

For now, the matter is officially closed, but the questions surrounding the circumstances of this "error" may linger much longer.