All eyes are the semi-final match of T20 World Cup semi-final clash between India and England, and the world stage is set for a thrilling clash, but controversy swirls off the field.

Media outlets in the UK and Australia are accusing the International Cricket Council (ICC) of prioritizing TV audiences in India over fair play.

The heart of the controversy lies in the scheduling of the semi-finals. While the Afghanistan vs South Africa match has a reserve day in case of rain, the England vs India clash in Guyana does not.

This disparity raises concerns, as Guyana's rainy season coincides with the tournament. Should a washout occur, India, due to their higher Super 8 group stage finish, would automatically advance to the final, leaving England out in the cold.

British media outlets like the Daily Mail are particularly critical. They point out that India's semi-final location and timing were pre-determined, prioritizing prime-time viewership in India over fairness and scheduling consistency.

Australian publication 'The Roar' echoes these concerns. They highlight the unusual scheduling choices of the tournament, including early morning and late-night matches seemingly tailored for Indian audiences.

They further reveal that this scheduling strategy reflects India's financial clout within the ICC.

While acknowledging India's strong-arming tactics, some commentators offer a more nuanced perspective. They acknowledge that India's financial contribution to world cricket grants them significant influence.

Furthermore, they argue that historical dominance by England and Australia in cricket governance shouldn't be ignored.

The underlying issue seems to be a power struggle within the ICC. With India now a major financial force in cricket, their influence clashes with the traditional powerhouses of England and Australia.

This clash raises questions about the balance between financial gain and maintaining a fair and competitive sport.

The current controversy highlights the commercialization of cricket. While some argue that India's financial power allows the sport to grow globally, others fear it compromises the integrity of the game. The question remains: can cricket accommodate the demands of powerful nations without sacrificing its core values?