Mohsin Naqvi’s PCB: Where Is Pakistan Cricket Heading

When Mohsin Naqvi was elected chairman of the Pakistan Cricket Board in February 2024, he promised to raise the standard of the game and bring greater professionalism to its administration. More than two years into his three year term, there is enough evidence to judge the direction of his tenure, and the picture is far more complicated than either complete success or complete failure. The PCB has taken several ambitious administrative and infrastructure decisions, but Pakistan’s performances on the field continue to raise serious questions about whether those reforms are addressing the most important problems.

There are areas where the Naqvi led PCB can point to genuine progress. The board has invested heavily in stadium redevelopment, including the major renovation of Gaddafi Stadium, while also increasing the domestic cricket budget from three billion rupees to four billion rupees for the 2026 to 27 financial year. The PCB has also approved higher match fees for national and Quaid e Azam Trophy players and moved towards greater administrative and financial autonomy for the Pakistan Super League. These are meaningful decisions, particularly if the additional investment eventually improves the pathway from domestic cricket to the national team.

The most interesting development may actually be the board’s new central contracts system. In June, the PCB announced a format based contract structure designed to recognise the different demands of Test, ODI and T20 cricket. In principle, this is a sensible response to the modern game, where players increasingly specialise and franchise cricket competes for their time. The real test, however, will not be the structure written on paper. It will be whether the system produces stronger Test players, rewards domestic performances properly and gives Pakistan a reliable pool of players capable of moving between formats when required.

That distinction between administrative reform and cricketing results is at the heart of the debate surrounding Naqvi’s tenure. A cricket board can renovate stadiums, redesign contracts, increase budgets and restructure competitions, but ultimately its most important responsibility is to create an environment in which the national teams can consistently perform. Pakistan’s recent Test struggles suggest that the connection between the board’s administrative decisions and the national team’s performance is still far from clear. The latest England series has only made that concern more difficult to ignore.

The decision to make sweeping changes during the England series is perhaps the clearest example. After two heavy defeats, the PCB replaced head coach Sarfaraz Ahmed, who had only been appointed in April, with Mike Hesson and released seven players from the squad before the final Test. There may be cricketing arguments for changing personnel, especially when a team is performing badly, but the timing inevitably creates questions about planning. If a coach and a group of players were trusted to begin the series, what changed so dramatically after only two matches?

This is where criticism of the current PCB becomes difficult to dismiss. Former Pakistan coach Mickey Arthur has argued that constant changes are contributing to the team's problems, while former chairman Ramiz Raja described the latest overhaul as a panic response. Their opinions should not automatically be treated as proof that every PCB decision is wrong, particularly because both men have their own histories with Pakistan cricket. But when experienced figures from different periods of the game reach similar conclusions about instability, the board should at least be willing to examine whether its decision making has become too reactive.

There is also a question about where the chairman's attention should be concentrated. Naqvi holds one of the most demanding positions in Pakistan cricket at the same time as carrying major responsibilities outside the PCB. That does not automatically mean he cannot run the board effectively, but it does make the structure beneath him especially important. A chairman cannot personally solve every selection, coaching or domestic cricket problem. The real measure of leadership is whether a strong professional system exists underneath him that can make consistent cricketing decisions without constantly waiting for another intervention from the top.

The PCB’s own recent work on domestic cricket suggests that there is at least an attempt to build such a system. The board says its 2025 to 26 domestic season included more live streamed matches, better pitches and expanded pathways for young players, while its talent hunt programme is planned to expand from 400 schools to 1,200 in 2026. Two additional regional teams are also being introduced for the new domestic season. These initiatives could become some of the most important parts of Naqvi’s legacy if they genuinely produce better players over the next few years rather than simply generating impressive announcements.

That is ultimately the standard by which the current PCB should be judged. Not by how many press releases it produces, how quickly a stadium is renovated or how many structural changes are announced, but by whether Pakistan develops better cricketers and becomes a more consistent international side. Infrastructure provides the platform, contracts provide incentives and domestic competitions provide opportunities, but none of them guarantee success. The final link in the chain is the quality and stability of the cricketing decisions made every day.

Naqvi’s tenure therefore deserves a more balanced assessment than the increasingly polarised debate surrounding it. It would be unfair to ignore the board’s investment in infrastructure, domestic cricket and modernising player contracts. At the same time, it would be equally wrong to use those reforms as evidence that Pakistan cricket is automatically moving in the right direction. The national team remains inconsistent, coaching changes continue to attract criticism and the latest England tour has exposed serious problems that cannot be solved simply by replacing another group of players.

The biggest challenge for Mohsin Naqvi now is therefore not announcing another major change. It is allowing the changes already made to mature into a functioning cricket system. Pakistan needs selection policies that players understand, coaches who are given enough time to work, domestic competitions that genuinely prepare players for international cricket and leadership that can resist the temptation to react to every poor result. Without that continuity, even good reforms can become another chapter in Pakistan cricket’s long history of starting over.

There is still time for the Naqvi era to define itself differently. The infrastructure work can leave a lasting legacy, the new contract system could become a model for managing modern international players and greater investment in domestic cricket could eventually strengthen the national teams. But those outcomes will require patience, consistency and accountability. If the PCB can connect its administrative reforms to sustained improvement on the field, Naqvi’s tenure will look very different in hindsight. If it cannot, the biggest question surrounding his leadership will remain the same: Pakistan cricket may be changing constantly, but is it actually moving forward?