Cricket has always been more than a game in Pakistan. It is an emotional institution, a national passion and, increasingly, a powerful platform through which millions of people receive information.

That is precisely why they are certain cricket lovers and fans in Pakistan who are critical of an interview by former England Test cricketer Michael Atherton with Sulaiman Khan and Kasim Khan, sons of former Pakistan captain and former prime minister Imran Khan, during the England-Pakistan Test at Lord’s. Thus such a debate over such a matter deserves serious consideration, not merely as a dispute between a cricket board and a broadcaster, but as a question about the future of sports journalism.

The central issue is simple: how far should a sports broadcaster go when political controversy enters a live cricket programme?

There is nothing inappropriate about discussing Imran Khan’s cricketing legacy. His achievements as Pakistan’s World Cup-winning captain form an important part of the country’s sporting history. His leadership, playing career and contribution to international cricket are legitimate subjects for any broadcaster covering Pakistan cricket.

The difficulty begins when a sports programme moves from cricket history into highly contested contemporary political matters. An interview dealing with imprisonment, political persecution, alleged mistreatment, health concerns or accusations against state institutions is no longer merely a cricket discussion. It becomes political journalism, and political journalism carries a substantially greater editorial responsibility.

This distinction is particularly important during a live international Test match. Viewers tune in primarily to watch cricket, follow the contest between bat and ball and listen to expert analysis.

When serious political allegations suddenly become part of that broadcast, the broadcaster must recognise that it has moved into a different editorial territory.

That does not mean political subjects should automatically be excluded from sports broadcasting. Nor should journalists be prevented from asking difficult questions. Freedom of expression and editorial independence are fundamental principles of journalism. But with editorial freedom comes editorial responsibility.

The real test should therefore be context, accuracy, balance and fairness. Where allegations are made against a government, political institution or state organisation, the audience should be able to distinguish clearly between an allegation, an opinion and an established fact.

The responsibility of the interviewer is not simply to provide a microphone. It is to test claims, seek clarification, challenge questionable assertions where appropriate and provide relevant responses from those being criticised.

This becomes even more important when the programme reaches an international audience. A statement made during a major Test match can travel far beyond the cricket field within minutes. Social media can detach comments from their original context, amplify accusations and transform a sports interview into a political controversy almost instantly.

That is why broadcasters operating under UK jurisdiction must take their regulatory responsibilities seriously. The Ofcom Broadcasting Code provides safeguards concerning due impartiality, accuracy and the treatment of major political controversies. These principles do not require every political viewpoint to receive identical airtime, but they do require broadcasters to exercise appropriate editorial judgment and provide sufficient context where serious political issues are involved.

The debate in this context also provides an important lesson for cricket authorities and rights holders. Cricket boards, broadcasters and television partners should establish clear protocols for interviews that move beyond sport into sensitive political territory. Commercial rights agreements should not be allowed to create confusion over editorial responsibilities, while sports organisations should avoid attempting to control legitimate journalism merely because they dislike its content.

The reported decision of local broadcasters to interrupt or move away from portions of the interview, if contractually and editorially established, also raises another question: who ultimately decides what viewers should see during an international sporting broadcast? That question requires transparency rather than speculation.

Pakistan cricket has experienced enough turbulence in recent years. The game should not become another battlefield for political confrontation. Cricket needs credibility, stability and public trust. Broadcasters need editorial independence, but they must exercise that independence responsibly.

The Lord’s debate should, therefore, be treated as an opportunity rather than simply another dispute. Sports broadcasting has enormous influence, and with that influence comes a duty to protect the integrity of both journalism and sport.

The boundary between cricket and politics may sometimes become blurred, but the responsibility of a professional broadcaster should never be blurred: report boldly, verify carefully, provide context fairly and respect the audience’s right to informed coverage.

Cricket should remain a place where the drama belongs primarily on the field. When politics enters the commentary box, journalism must ensure that the rules of fairness remain firmly in place.

(The writer is former Punjab University Cricketer and Advocate High Court).