[Author: Tushar Baruah, Law Student at Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University, India]

---

In May 2025, the BCCI abruptly suspended the Indian Premier League (IPL) following escalating India–Pakistan border conflicts. The one-week stoppage – later set to resume on May 17 – forced teams to disperse as foreign players rushed home. In announcing the suspension, BCCI officials emphasized extraordinary security concerns and stakeholder safety, noting the decision was made “after due consultation with all key stakeholders” in the collective interest. In the aftermath, the BCCI informed franchises that overseas players who declined to return under these war-like conditions would not be penalized under the usual rules. Instead, the league invoked the force majeure clauses in player contracts – treating the border crisis as an unforeseen event beyond anyone’s control. This article examines the meaning of force majeure in Indian law and sports contracts, the legal effect of BCCI’s decision (despite existing withdrawal penalties), and what this means for future IPL governance and sports arbitration.

Understanding Force Majeure under Indian Law

“Force majeure” (French for “superior force”) is not defined in any Indian statute, but courts recognize it through related doctrines. It generally refers to unforeseeable events – natural disasters, war, acts of government, etc. – outside the parties’ control that render contractual performance impossible. Under Indian law, such events are addressed by the doctrines of contingent contracts (Section 32 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872) and frustration (Section 56). Section 32 covers cases where performance depends on a specific future event (e.g. war or ceasefire), while Section 56 provides that if “after the contract is made”, an unforeseen event makes performance impossible or unlawful, the contract becomes void. For example, if a contract required material supply from Pakistan, a near-war border closure would most likely void the contract under Section 32.

In practice, parties embed force majeure clauses in their contracts to stipulate how such events will be handled. A typical clause will excuse non-performance due to listed calamities (acts of God, war, terrorism, epidemics, government orders, etc.), often concluding with a catch-all like “or any other similar event beyond reasonable control”. Legally, invoking force majeure suspends obligations (it excuses performance “in whole or in part” during the event) but does not necessarily terminate the contract.

By contrast, frustration under Section 56 discharges the contract. Crucially, Indian courts have held that mere hardship or increased cost does not amount to frustration. In Energy Watchdog v. CERC (2017), for example, the Supreme Court stressed that “mere commercial onerousness, hardship, material loss or inconvenience” does not void a contract. Only when performance is truly impossible – striking at the “root of the contract” – will Section 56 apply.

Force majeure clauses thus operate within this legal framework. They typically require timely notice and define what remedies (suspension, renegotiation, termination) follow an event. Sports contracts are no different. It is noted that player and event contracts routinely include force majeure clauses to address cancellations or postponements. For example, one analysis explains that a force majeure clause allows one party “to avoid, suspend or postpone” contractual duties for events beyond its control. In the IPL context, even broadcasting and sponsorship agreements use such clauses: when COVID-19 threatened the 2020 IPL, the media-rights contract explicitly shielded the BCCI from refunding fees if the tournament were cancelled on force majeure grounds.

Force Majeure Clauses in Sports Contracts

Sporting events have long been subject to disruptions, and contracts now routinely provide such scenarios. The COVID-19 pandemic illustrated this globally: leagues from the Indian Premier League to the English Premier League, NBA, Olympics and Wimbledon all were suspended or postponed in 2020. League agreements and player contracts anticipated such risks. Invoking force majeure in 2020 freed the BCCI, franchises, players and broadcasters from immediate obligations, allowing parties to arrive at negotiated settlements.

Since the pandemic, sports contracts have emphasized these clauses more explicitly. In effect, league organizers have realized that extraordinary crises (pandemics, wars, civil unrest) can occur, so they build mechanisms to postpone or cancel without penalty. This principle underpins the BCCI’s current approach: if a “warlike situation” forces players to withdraw, their refusal is exactly the type of risk contemplated by the force majeure clause.

Notably, force majeure does not excuse parties from liability for all breaches – only those caused by the covered event. Contracts often carve out exceptions. For instance, the IPL’s own replacement-player rules for 2025 state that an overseas player who withdraws post-auction “will get banned” for two seasons, unless the cause is injury or medical (with board verification). In legal terms, a safety threat or war would fall under the “beyond control” umbrella, whereas a routine withdrawal for convenience would not. Thus, when BCCI now invokes force majeure, it is applying the players’ own contract terms. In doing so, it effectively renders the ordinary penalty rule inapplicable for these circumstances. As one IPL executive bluntly put it, “[i]f a player refuses to return, he will not face any action, for this is a force majeure. We will not push anyone… this is an unforeseen event which is beyond anyone’s control”.

BCCI’s Force Majeure Invocation in IPL 2025

Legally, the BCCI’s decision to invoke force majeure has immediate significance. By doing so, the Board preemptively waives enforcement of the heavy penalties that normally attach to a mid-season withdrawal. Under the IPL’s 2025 rules, any overseas player who pulled out after being bought at auction without a legitimate reason would face a two-year ban from the league. This rule had already been applied to England’s Harry Brook when he withdrew for personal reasons, resulting in a ban. However, unlike Brook’s case, the current withdrawals occurred under conditions squarely covered by force majeure. Players like England’s Jamie Overton and Australia’s Jake Fraser-McGurk – who chose not to return after the pause – “will not face any ban” precisely because of the force majeure clause.

Effectively, the BCCI has declared that the force majeure provision “makes the rule redundant” in this situation. The new IPL rule itself acknowledges this hierarchy: it bans withdrawals absent a “legitimate reason” (medical, etc.), and here the Board recognizes the border threat as legitimate. Contractually, the players who refuse are merely excused from performance; they are not voluntarily defaulting. Thus, any attempt to fine or ban these players would likely be legally indefensible and could prompt legal challenges.

This also underscores that force majeure clauses in sports contracts are intended to capture precisely such crises. In sum, BCCI’s action shows that extraordinary external events can override even draconian league rules, so long as the contract’s force majeure language covers those events.

Conflict with IPL Withdrawal Penalties and League Rules

The IPL’s own regulations provide a stark example of how contract terms and league mandates interact. On paper, the two-year ban rule is unequivocal: any overseas player withdrawing post-auction faces a ban for two subsequent seasons. This rule was adopted to give franchises certainty and to deter last-minute dropouts. But such regulations assume normal circumstances. A war-like crisis falls outside normal parameters – it is precisely the kind of “extraordinary occurrence” that force majeure was meant for.

Under general contract principles, a valid force majeure clause will supersede conflicting penalties. Here, the player contracts effectively make their obligations conditional on safety. Thus, the BCCI had legal cover to release the players from those obligations without invoking disciplinary provisions. Indian contract law (as in Section 32) would also void performance if a specified future condition fails to occur – e.g. a ceasefire or ability to travel. Importantly, BCCI itself endorsed this legal view. In statements to the media, Board officials and franchise heads repeatedly framed the suspension as a collective force majeure. In other words, the war-like scenario nullified the normal application of the withdrawal penalties.

This episode illustrates how contract law can override sports regulations in extremis. Had the Board tried to fine or ban the foreign players anyway, it would have conflicted with the contracts. Instead, BCCI’s force majeure invocation harmonizes the league’s position with its contractual commitments. As a result, the foreign players walk away without disciplinary action, even though under ordinary IPL rules they would face severe sanctions.

Global and Historical Precedents

The IPL’s force majeure response fits into a broader pattern in sports law. Worldwide, leagues and arbitral tribunals have treated similar crises as force majeure. During the COVID-19 pandemic, almost every major sporting contract was interpreted through a force majeure lens. The IPL itself shifted venues (to the UAE in 2020 and 2021) under force majeure assumptions, as did the IPL in 2009 (moved to South Africa due to elections). Sports rights analysts observed that “pandemics or epidemics” often prompt organizers to suspend obligations or reimburse fans under these clauses.

Beyond pandemics, political and military crises have also been treated this way. For instance, in September 2024 the Basketball Arbitral Tribunal decided Brantley v. BC Unics (an arbitration between an American player and a Russian club) – the Tribunal held that the Russian invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24, 2022 constituted a force majeure, excusing the player’s departure. The panel recognized that “no one could predict how the conflict would evolve” and that security concerns outweighed contractual duties. In its ruling, the BAT explicitly stated that the war was beyond the player’s control and thus his failure to perform (leaving Russia) was justified. In principle, the IPL’s situation is analogous: a border conflict (or any armed conflict) is the sort of event that sports tribunals now recognize can void the expectation of playing.

In Indian courts, there are few directly on-point sports examples, but general contract jurisprudence is instructive. As noted, the Supreme Court’s energy sector cases (e.g. Alopi Parshad v. Union of India, 1960, and Energy Watchdog, 2017) held that neither hardship nor market shifts amount to frustration. Only an objectively impossible performance qualifies. Here, sending foreign players back into a near-war zone could arguably meet that “impossibility” test. Commentators have pointed out that if travel bans or government prohibitions arise from the border crisis, Section 32/56 would void any lingering obligation. In practice, BCCI’s stance effectively treats the entire episode as an excusing event under the contract, avoiding a legal confrontation.

Expert Commentary

Legal analysts and sports lawyers have broadly endorsed this approach. Sports law experts noted in 2020 that force majeure clauses “allows the suspension of obligations” so parties can negotiate loss mitigation. Applying that insight to 2025, commentators agree that the border war is precisely the sort of force majeure the IPL clause was designed for. In media interviews, BCCI figures and team CEOs openly characterized the suspension as force majeure and insisted on giving players a safe exit. These public statements confirm a consensus interpretation.

Indian legal commentary also highlights the high threshold for invoking contract remedies. Crucially, none of the players are claiming mere inconvenience – they cite a security breakdown. Under this standard, BCCI appears to be on firm footing in treating the situation as force majeure.

Long-Term Implications for Contracts and Governance

The IPL’s 2025 crisis will likely reshape how future contracts and league rules are drafted. First, player contracts may now detail force majeure triggers more precisely. Teams and agents may insist on explicit language covering terrorism, war, or cross-border conflict, given this incident’s fallout. The fact that many IPL player agreements already include broad “acts of war” provisions has been confirmed by recent reports, but both sides will want clarity on scope and notice requirements going forward.

League governance also faces implications. The IPL’s handling suggests that the Governing Council will treat security advisories as contractual excuses, not disciplinary issues. Future IPL regulations may explicitly incorporate “safety exceptions” to the withdrawal and replacement rules. For instance, if a similar security stand-off occurs, franchises will expect official confirmation (perhaps even a governmental advisory) before invoking penalties.

Finally, this episode may influence how compensation and insurance are handled. Franchises and players may negotiate force majeure-linked insurance or remedies for lost fees. Broadcasters and sponsors, who have already insisted on force majeure protection in their own agreements, will take note of how the tournament rescheduling plays out. In sum, the IPL 2025 suspension demonstrates that exceptional events can trump even the strongest sports-specific penalties.

---

[For feedback or query, please reach out to the Author at tusharbaruah@dsnlu.ac.in]

*DISCLAIMER- The opinions and views expressed in this article are that of the Author(s) and not of SLRI- the expressed opinions do not, in any way whatsoever, reflect the views of any third party, including any institution/organisation that the Author(s) is/are currently associated to or was/were associated to in the past. Furthermore, the expressions are solely for informational and educational purposes, and must not be deemed to constitute any kind of advice. The hyperlinks in this blog might take you to webpages operated by third parties- SLRI does not guarantee or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any information, data, opinions, advice, statements, etc. on these webpages.

Preferred Citation: Tushar Baruah, “Force Majeure in IPL 2025: BCCI’s Legal Strategy amid India–Pakistan Tensions” Sports Law Review India, available at: https://sportslawreviewindia.blog/2025/06/24/force-majeure-in-ipl-2025-bccis-legal-strategy-amid-india-pakistan-tensions/ Published on 24 June 2025.