The inclusion of cricket in the Asian Games has always been a subject worthy of debate. 

For cricket-playing nations such as Sri Lanka, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, an Asian Games medal carries national significance. 

But, when the competition is squeezed into a multi-sport festival already packed with Olympic and Asian sporting disciplines, a serious question must be asked: is cricket genuinely adding value to the Asian Games, or is the Games adding another medal opportunity to cricket?

Cricket made its Asian Games debut in Guangzhou in 2010 and returned in 2014, before being dropped from the 2018 programme and reinstated for Hangzhou 2022. 

It is now being staged for the fourth time in five editions, including the 2026 Aichi-Nagoya Games.

The strongest argument for cricket's inclusion is its enormous popularity across Asia. India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh have millions of passionate followers, while Afghanistan and Nepal have demonstrated the growing reach of the sport. 

The Asian Games can also expose cricket to lands where the sport remains relatively small. 

Japan is a good example. The 2026 Games have given Japanese cricket an opportunity to host high-level international matches and develop infrastructure that could have a lasting legacy.

But there is another side to the argument. One of the biggest problems is the absence of cricket's strongest players from some editions. 

In 2010, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Pakistan sent understrength men's teams because of other international commitments, while India did not participate. 

That raises a fundamental question: if the leading cricket nation cannot or does not want to send its strongest team, how meaningful is the medal?

The problem became particularly obvious in Hangzhou. India won the men's gold without playing the final because rain prevented the match against Afghanistan, with the higher-seeded Indian team awarded the gold. 

Cricket's reliance on weather creates another complication for a multi-sport event operating under a tightly controlled schedule.

The 2026 Games have provided an even more striking example. Sri Lanka's men's quarter-final against Nepal was abandoned without a ball being bowled because of persistent rain, with Sri Lanka advancing on ranking. Bangladesh similarly advanced after its quarter-final was washed out.

And yet, there is an argument that Sri Lanka itself demonstrates why cricket belongs.

Sri Lanka won men's gold in 2014 and women's bronze in the same Games. In 2026, the Sri Lankan women's team again reached the final but lost heavily to India, 216–3 to 69. 

Cricket therefore provides Sri Lanka with medal opportunities that several other sports cannot consistently provide.

But that should not become an excuse for neglecting athletics, swimming, boxing, weightlifting and other Olympic disciplines.

The real issue is not simply whether cricket deserves a place. It is whether cricket should be treated as another medal-producing sport or as a strategic development sport for Asia. 

If included, it should have proper venues, meaningful participation by leading players, adequate scheduling and conditions that ensure medals are decided on the field rather than by rankings or rain.

The Asian Games should showcase the breadth of Asian sport. Cricket can certainly be part of that story – but its place should be justified by the development of the game across Asia, not merely by the commercial power and television audience surrounding international cricket.