Confirmation of India’s participation in the Champions Trophy was the most desirable outcome of the BCCI’s special general meeting last week. Anything else would have been destructive, not only for the tournament, but the sport itself.

Mutually antagonistic positions adopted by the BCCI and ICC had set cricket on a dangerous roller-coaster ride in recent months. India skipping the Champions Trophy would have precipitated a split that could have left the sport fractured beyond repair.

Thankfully, saner counsels prevailed. I believe that none of the parties involved — ICC, BCCI, the Committee of Administrators appointed by the Supreme Court of India, and India’s players — saw a boycott as a final solution.

Each one’s position was defined by self-interest. While BCCI might appear to have ceded ground to the ICC, it would be misleading to see it as a walkover. By all accounts negotiations for a better revenue sharing deal and — more importantly — matters of governance haven’t ceased.

It would be not just churlish but foolish, in my opinion, to see this as a triumph of one party to the dispute over the other. As the past few decades have shown, cricket politics is unpredictable, and there is no winner — except in the very short term.

How the BCCI’s decision to play the Champions Trophy pans out will be known in the June meeting of the ICC, where the resolutions passed last month will be ratified. The BCCI was massively outnumbered in revenue sharing as well as governance matters. Is there a new dimension to the give-and-take after India’s participation in the Champions Trophy?

In any case, the complexities of governance in cricket can’t be seen only through the prism of just the voting pattern at the ICC. Wheels within wheels and are still whirring and deals above deals are still being struck or pursued.

For instance, a story from Down Under last week said that the Australian cricket board is wooing several of its star players — Steve Smith, David Warner, Mitchel Starc among them — with handsome retainerships to prevent them from playing in the IPL.

This would run contrary to the status quo implicit in India’s participation in the Champions Trophy. Indeed, if entirely true, it would be a potent threat to the BCCI, which would then have to draw up a counter-thrust.

As I understand it, the Australian players being offered extra bucks by their board have not buckled under the offer. There is still no comparison with what the IPL can offer. If it comes to a bidding war, there is no saying which way the wind would blow.

History suggests that while a majority of cricketers from all over the world still see representing their respective country as the highest honour and matter of biggest pride, the vast majority of them also don’t want to be arm-twisted.

Universally, they also want the maximum financial rewards for their talent. The Kerry Packer saga of 40 years ago is classic example of these attributes. There were also the disruptive rebel tours to South Africa in the 1980s.

If anything, money and opportunity in cricket has only increased since the Packer Circus and the rebel tours. The threat of fragmentation emerges greater when you see the pitiful state of West Indies cricket today.

Several established and young players have forsaken their ‘official’ careers. Something similar has been brewing in South Africa for a while. As things stands, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, New Zealand and Bangladesh are no less vulnerable.

One can take a moral position on this, but this does not obviate the threat that exists. Which is why it is important that cricket administrators from across the cricket world take a holistic and pragmatic view of the situation.

The best position for every stakeholder to take would be that the comity of cricket has to be preserved. Working backwards from that premise, all kinds of solutions to keep all boards and the ICC become possible.