LA 2028 Men’s T20 Cricket: Regional Format Favours India, Australia As Pakistan, New Zealand Risk Snub

Cricket’s long-awaited return to the Olympics at the 2028 Los Angeles Games has already stirred controversy. The International Cricket Council (ICC) has opted for a regional qualifying system to determine the six men’s teams that will participate in the tournament, aligning with the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) preference for continental representation.

While this format ensures global spread, it has dealt a harsh blow to top-tier teams like Pakistan and New Zealand, both of whom are now in danger of missing out despite strong rankings.

According to a report by The Guardian, the decision, finalised during the ICC’s recent Annual General Meeting in Singapore, will see the top-ranked T20I teams from each of Asia, Oceania, Europe, and Africa qualify directly for the Olympics.

The United States will take the spot for the Americas as the host nation.

Based on current rankings, that would give India (Asia), Australia (Oceania), Great Britain (Europe), South Africa (Africa), and USA (Americas) a place in the LA 2028 men’s draw. The mechanism for the sixth and final spot is yet to be confirmed, but the early framework has already led to frustration in several quarters.

Pakistan, New Zealand Risk Olympic Snub Under New LA 2028 Cricket Format

Pakistan, who sit firmly among the top sides in T20 cricket, could be locked out because India, ranked marginally higher, would take Asia’s lone berth. Geography, not form, becomes the deciding factor under this model. New Zealand find themselves in a similar predicament.

Ranked just below England, they trail Australia in Oceania and are set to miss the cut as well. Sources at the Singapore meeting say both boards expressed their disappointment, but the model is unlikely to be reversed.

With only six teams allowed in both the men’s and women’s tournaments, Olympic qualification was always going to be competitive. But regional qualification, rather than performance-based global rankings, has tilted the balance. The IOC’s goal is to ensure the Olympics remain a truly global event, even if it comes at the expense of top-performing sides.

The United States, currently ranked 17th in men’s T20Is, benefit from automatic qualification as hosts. That too has raised eyebrows, especially after the ICC recently called for the resignation of the entire USA Cricket board amid governance issues. There’s still a chance that a Caribbean nation could replace them if the USA fail to resolve those problems in time.

The format also complicates matters for the West Indies, who compete internationally as a collective but may be required to qualify through individual island nations, like Jamaica or Trinidad, under the Olympic system.

On the women’s side, qualification will be determined at the 2026 ICC Women’s T20 World Cup. With England set to host, Team GB are well-placed to secure a spot if they reach the semi-finals, an outcome that looks likely given their pedigree under Charlotte Edwards.

The ECB, meanwhile, is moving quickly to establish a formal structure for Olympic cricket. Discussions are ongoing with Cricket Scotland and Cricket Ireland to create a new entity, GB Cricket, that would oversee Team GB’s Olympic campaigns.

A memorandum of understanding with Cricket Ireland is also being worked on to ensure Northern Irish players are eligible. The entity would then seek official recognition from both the ICC and the British Olympic Association.

The men’s and women’s cricket tournaments will take place in Pomona, California, around 30 miles east of Los Angeles. If successful, the ICC plans to push for expanded cricket events at the 2032 Brisbane Olympics. The governing body is also backing Ahmedabad’s bid to host the 2036 Games, alongside other confirmed contenders like Doha, Istanbul, and Santiago.

Cricket’s Olympic return after 128 years is set to be historic, but the road to LA is already lined with discontent from major cricketing nations that risk being sidelined, not by performance, but by policy.