Stop Pretending Cricket Is a Global Sport — It's a Colonial Relic

The ICC loves to call cricket a 'global sport.' It's one of the most laughable claims in all of professional athletics. Cricket is played seriously by roughly 12 nations, nearly all of which share one thing in common: they were once British colonies. That's not globalization — that's the lingering aftereffect of imperialism, and in 2026, it's time we stopped pretending otherwise.

Name a cricket-playing nation that wasn't colonized by Britain. You'll struggle. India, Australia, Pakistan, South Africa, West Indies, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh — the list reads like a map of the British Empire. The sport's 'expansion' into countries like Afghanistan and Ireland doesn't change the fundamental truth: cricket exists where the British planted it, and almost nowhere else.

The ICC has spent decades and millions trying to grow cricket in non-traditional markets. The results? China, the world's most populous country, has fewer registered cricketers than a mid-sized English county. The United States, despite hosting T20 internationals, treats cricket as an immigrant curiosity. Meanwhile, football has genuinely conquered every continent. Rugby has established itself across cultural boundaries. Cricket remains stubbornly confined to its colonial inheritance.

Cricket's governance reflects its colonial roots:

None of this means cricket isn't a magnificent sport. It absolutely is. But calling it 'global' insults genuine global sports and prevents honest conversation about why cricket's reach remains so limited. Until cricket reckons with its colonial DNA and fundamentally restructures how it shares power and resources, it will remain what it has always been: a brilliant sport trapped inside its own history.