Breaking: ICC Rejects PCB’s $70 Million Case Against the Indian Board

International Cricket Council has rejected Pakistan Cricket Board’s (PCB) case against the Board of Control for Cricket (BCCI) over the financial dispute due to Pak-India series.

ICC released the Dispute Panel’s judgment on its official website which states:

“On behalf of the Dispute Panel formed under the Terms of Reference of the ICC Disputes Resolutions Committee (DRC), the International Cricket Council (ICC) has announced the outcome of the recent DRC proceedings between the BCCI and the PCB.

Following a three-day hearing and having considered detailed oral and written submissions, the Dispute Panel has dismissed the PCB’s claim against the BCCI. The judgment, which can be found here in full, is binding and non-appealable.”


PCB had dragged arch-rival India to the ICC’s Dispute Resolution Committee to settle a case that, according to PCB, includes losses of USD 70 million incurred by refusing to play bilateral series that were agreed between the two boards.

PCB believes that India has failed to honor the contract that allowed Pakistan to host the Indian side twice, in 2014 and 2015, for a full series. Refusal to hold those series has cost PCB $70 million in losses.

The BCCI says that the contract allowed the Indian board to forego the series if its government rejected the bilateral series. It claims that it was a ‘letter of intent’ from the then Indian board Secretary Sanjay Patel, thus India owes no penny to Pakistan.

To settle the case, ICC formed a three-member Dispute Resolution Panel headed by Michael Beloff, along with Jan Paulsson and Dr. Annabelle Bennett.

The panel heard the case for three consecutive days on October, 1st, 2nd and 3rd and following the hearings, the verdict was reserved, which was announced today, more 50 days after the case summed up.

PCB’s Reaction on Verdict

In the initial response, Pakistan Cricket Board has termed the verdict as controversial and disappointing. It said further take would be announced after legal consultation.

  • >