2025 Asia Cup: The Win That Was, The Trophy Wasn't, And The Cricket That We Lost

2025 Asia Cup: Began political narratives eclipsing cricket, ended with a trophy presentation minus the trophy.

2025 Asia Cup: The events from the India vs Pakistan final.

(Photo: BCCI)

Sport has often seen how trophy presentation ceremonies double as stages for protest and politics.

At the 1968 Olympics, it saw the famous Black Power salute, where two black athletes who had won medals in 200m sprint — Tommie Smith and John Carlos — raised a black-gloved fist to protest against racial discrimination in the USA. At the 1972 Olympics, it saw the US men’s basketball team refusing silver medals, in a protest against controversial referring. The medals are unclaimed till date, and are believed to be kept in a vault in Lausanne. Two decades later, Ghana’s men’s football team echoed the act, when they lost to Ivory Coast in the 1992 AFCON.

But what transpired on 28 September in Dubai was something new. For perhaps the first time in sporting history, a trophy presentation ceremony concluded without — wait for it — the trophy presentation itself!

Understanding The Chronology: The Action

The sheer absurdity of the spectacle defies logic, so the best we can do is retrace the sequence of events.

The flashpoint came when the Indian team declined to accept the trophy from Asian Cricket Council (ACC) president Mohsin Naqvi. It is customary for the ACC chief to present the cup, but Naqvi wears other hats. He is also the chairman of Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB), and more importantly, the country’s Interior Minister.

In the post-match press conference, Indian captain Suryakumar Yadav claimed that it was the team’s decision to not accept the trophy from Naqvi. This is along the lines of Yadav claiming the handshake refusal was his decision, on 14 September. The office bearers at BCCI, however, have hinted at the call coming from higher powers.

The board secretary commented that it is morally and ethically wrong to accept a trophy from a leader of a nation waging war against India. Notably, Naqvi had tweeted a video of Cristiano Ronaldo’s plane crash celebration, in muted support of Haris Rauf’s gesture.

India is fighting a war with a country and a leader belonging to that country was supposed to hand over the trophy to us. We cannot accept a trophy from a person who represents a country that is waging a war against our country. So we have refused to take that trophy. We had decided not to take the trophy from the ACC chairman, who happens to be one of the leading leaders of Pakistan. But that does not mean that the gentleman will take away the trophy along with the medals. It is very unfortunate, very unsporting and we hope that the trophy and the medals will be returned to India as soon as possible. We are going to protest against this at the ICC conference in November.

BCCI Secretary Devajit Saikia, to ANI

Understanding The Chronology: The Reaction

And so, sidelining the game of cricket, the game of optics began. In this game, there's only one rule. The rule being Newton's third law — every action must provoke an equal and opposite reaction.

India were open to receiving the trophy from UAE’s Khalid Al Zarooni or Bangladesh’s Aminul Islam Bulbul, both present on the podium. But Naqvi reportedly insisted on not stepping away from his responsibility.

Amid prolonged, and at times, animated discussions among the officials, the post-match presentation was delayed by an hour. The Pakistani team had retreated to the dressing room, Indians were busy celebrating and shooting reels on the ground, and while all of this happening, the trophy — which was initially on display — was chaperoned out of the field.

The presentation saw only individual awards being dished out, with presenter Simon Doull saying:

Ladies and gentlemen, I have been informed by the Asian Cricket Council that the Indian cricket team will not be collecting their awards tonight. So that does conclude the post-match presentation.

Simon Doull

Understanding The Chronology: The Talk

The scene carried a bizarre comic undertone when the Indians mimicked a trophy lift, a gesture that seemed equal parts parody of the fiasco and protest against EA Sports’ notorious glitch in EAFC (formerly FIFA).

And even that was not the end of it.

Yadav, at the press conference, expressed his bemusement.

I have never seen a champion team not getting the trophy. This was not easy, we worked very hard for it. We have been here since 4th September. We played two back-to-back games. We deserved it.

Suryakumar Yadav

Pakistan’s Salman Ali Agha, meanwhile, stood firmly by his board chairman. Only minutes ago, he had thrown the runners-up cheque.

The trophy has always been presented by the ACC chief. Why does it have to be someone else now? You have to see who has started all of this. It wasn’t us. I want to say that cricket has been disrespected. We are role models. The kids see us as inspirations. What are we teaching them? What's the message that we are giving out? I have to say this — India have disrespected cricket.

Salman Ali Agha

Talk Intensifies. Enter the Big Players.

That, the match will be turned into a political spectacle of showcasing supremacy, was always likely. In fact, on Sunday morning, The Quint had predicted that regardless of the outcome, headlines will inevitably be centered around non-cricketing events. Sporting brilliance will inevitably be eclipsed by performative nationalism.

We were right.

The Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, likened the event to Operation Sindoor.

The BCCI secretary termed the win ‘Operation Killa.’

Our armed forces have delivered it in the border area, now the same thing has been repeated in Dubai. So this is an excellent moment, a momentous occasion for Indian cricket. It was Operation Sindoor earlier then, and now it is Operation Killa. So it is an extremely befitting reply to all the nonsense activities done by some of the hostile people from that country.

BCCI Secretary Devajit Saikia, to ANI

Union minister Kiren Rijiju, sharing a picture of Jasprit Bumrah’s airplane celebration after dismissing Haris Rauf, added that Pakistan deserve to be punished.

Mohsin Naqvi, again adhering to the sole rule in the game of optics, came with the equal and opposite reaction to Modi’s statement. In his turn, he stated:

When Cricket Became A Proxy Battlefield

This tournament, then, was never just about cricket. It was a theater for political muscle-flexing, each symbolic act met with its counterstrike.

Like when Suryakumar Yadav announced that he will be donating his match fees from the tournament to the Indian Armed Forces and the victims of the Pahalgam terror attack, and it was immediately followed by Agha’s announcement of the entire team donating their match fees to the victims of the May 7 attacks during Operation Sindoor. He went on to say that the attacks were carried out by India, though the mention has been omitted from PCB’s statement.

The Pakistan Cricket Team has dedicated its Asia Cup final match fees to the innocent victims martyred in the May 7 attack, in which civilians, including children, lost their lives. Our thoughts and prayers are with their families.

Pakistan Cricket Board

In an ideal scenario, we should be talking about Tilak Varma. All of 22, how he remained the embodiment of composure and control during his match-winning knock of 69. We should be talking about how, in this age of minute inspection of every delivery, Kuldeep Yadav remained nearly impossible to pick, and claimed four more wickets in the final. We should be talking about Abhishek Sharma, and how he outclassed and outshone every cricketer at this Asia Cup. We should be talking about India winning eight consecutive matches over Pakistan. We should be talking about Axar Patel and Varun Chakaravarthy’s spells, alongside Sanju Samson and Shivam Dube’s supporting acts with the bat.

But here we are, spending words and time on something which could easily have been avoided. The game of cricket is well and truly a political spectacle now, and this was always likely to happen.

How can we tell with such certainty?

Because we had told you so.