Reports | ICC set to explore three possibilities including pushing WT20 to 2022

With just four months to go for the coveted T20 World Cup Down Under, the ICC have some decisions to make, with the COVID-19 pandemic wreaking havoc. Any decision pertaining to the coveted event will financially affect the board (CA) hosting the tournament, and, on top of that, the apex cricketing board will also have to take some stern decisions regarding the use of saliva once cricket resumes. 

However, in regards to the WT20, reports suggest that there are three vivid options in front of ICC. The first and obvious one would be for the tournament to go ahead as per schedule in front of the crowd, with a 14-day quarantine period. If that seems implausible, ICC might continue the tournament without a crowd or in an empty stadium. However, in the extremity, reports point out that the tournament would be shifted to the 2022 season, which will have a direct impact on Cricket Australia’s cash-flow. 

“We are expecting three options from the ICC Events Committee. First option is having World T20 as per schedule with 14-day quarantine with crowd being allowed. The back-up for this option could be tournament in-front of empty stadium. The third option could be shifting the tournament to 2022,” a Board member privy to development told PTI on conditions of anonymity.

The premier event stands as one of the crucial points of cash-influx for the Australian board, whose financial stability depends on the WT20 and the India series. However, in its absence, reports suggest that it would allow a window for the BCCI to host the two-month-long IPL, which will ultimately boost their cash-flow. 

“CA wouldn’t be too unhappy if the World T20 is shifted to 2022. At the end of the day, ICC is made up of members. If members decide that bilateral series are more important, you can’t discount that,” it added. 

“Also ICC might find its cash flow being hampered but it’s a short-term problem. If the tournament happens in 2022, the parent body doesn’t lose anything because it’s deferment not postponement,” the board member concluded.