The International Cricket Council (ICC) has rejected the Pakistan Cricket Board’s (PCB) claim for US$62.9 million in compensation against the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), after the Indian national team pulled out of the first two of seven scheduled series against Pakistan specified in an April 2014 letter. In a 26 page judgment (PDF below), an ICC Panel concluded that the April letter did not constitute a Future Tours Program (FTP) agreement, as it had not been approved by other ICC members.

The April 2014 agreement committed the India and Pakistan cricket team to a schedule of test and one day international matches running from December 2014 until 2023. It also stipulated that the ‘BCCI will make all efforts to engage in a limited over format short tour to Pakistan in November of 2014 based on the availability of possible dates’.

It specified that ‘The BCCI and PCB will enter into a long form FTP Agreement in respect of the above Future Tours’. The BCCI therefore considered that a future FTP Agreement would make the April letter legally binding. The PCB argued that the letter was legally binding, and the future FTP Agreement was a formality, as the ICC had approved changes to its rules in February 2014 that required Members to agree such FTP Agreements with other Members they wished to compete against.

However, an Indian Tour of Pakistan did not take place in 2014 or in 2015. ‘Ultimately, however, no FTP Agreement between the PCB and the BCCI was ever signed’, pointed out the Panel. ‘The Panel concludes that, looking at the April Letter, in isolation, as it were through a microscope, the PCB’s argument that it was a contractually binding document burns bright. If, however, a telescope is deployed, which brings into perspective the circumstances out of which that letter arose, the argument is extinguished. In the Panel’s view, the reasonable observer apprised of all the facts would conclude that the April Letter was no more than a declaration of intent, albeit an intent sincerely held by the BCCI (and of course by the PCB) at most, as Mr Manohar (President of the BCCI from October 2015 to May 2016) put it, creating a “moral obligation” but not a legal one. Context trumps text. It follows inexorably that the PCB’s claim must fail. If there was no obligation on the BCCI to engage in the tours in either 2014 or 2015, its omission to do so was no breach and gave rise to no damages claim.’

In a statement, the BCCI said that it would now move to recover costs from the PCB. In a statement provided to Reuters, the PCB said that it would decide on a future course of action following discussions with stakeholders.