Name-Image-Likeness and Unauthorised Cricket Events: What Shikhar Dhawan's Legal Action Actually Reveals

Introduction: Beyond the Boundary Cricket is no longer merely a game played on a field. It is a vast commercial ecosystem in which a player's name, image, signature, photograph and recognition are converted directly into economic value. A central pillar of this economy is name-image-likeness, or NIL. When a cricketer retires, his commercial value does not disappear. In many cases it becomes more permanent and emotionally charged, because fans' memories, affection and nostalgia are attached to his name. That emotion is itself a valuable commodity for sponsors, broadcasters, fantasy platforms and organisers of unofficial tournaments. When that commodity is used without the player's permission, it becomes a question of governance, consent and consumer protection. A recent episode has brought precisely that question to the fore. Former India opening batter Shikhar Dhawan has alleged that his name was included in a tournament without his knowledge or permission. The tournament is called the World T20 Continent Cup. The name sounds similar to an ICC global T20 event, but no clarity has emerged about its sanctioning. Dhawan has said he knows nothing about it and that his team will take appropriate legal steps. He has appealed to fans not to believe unauthorised announcements. This is not an ordinary rumour. It is an important governance case, because it raises three large questions at once. First, can a retired star's name be used commercially without him? Second, how do unauthorised events borrow credibility by mimicking ICC or BCCI branding language? Third, who verifies to sponsors, broadcasters, fantasy platforms and audiences that a player has genuinely consented to appear? This analysis will pursue those questions step by step. At the outset, one point must be clear: at the centre of this episode there is no match, scorecard, ranking or team selection. It is therefore not a cricket-performance story. It is a story about the cricket ecosystem, contracts, consent and reputation protection. Chapter One: The Borrowed-Credibility Strategy of Unauthorised Events An analysis of the name World T20 Continent Cup reveals a clear strategy. The International Cricket Council uses phrases such as World Cup and T20 World Cup for its global events. Over decades of broadcasting, sponsorship and popularity, those words have acquired a specific meaning. When an ordinary viewer sees the phrase World T20, he assumes it is an internationally recognised competition. Unauthorised organisers exploit exactly that assumption. But similarity of name must be matched by proof of sanction. In this episode there is no mention of approval from the ICC, the BCCI or any national board. On the contrary, a famous former Indian player has alleged that his name was used without consent. That is a significant signal, because in sanctioned events the contracts, NOCs and communication trail of participants are usually clear. The business model of unauthorised events rests heavily on borrowed credibility. They use a few recognisable names to attract sponsors, generate broadcast or streaming interest, boost ticket sales and draw fantasy or betting-related attention. But those names do not always have a genuine contractual relationship with the event. Sometimes a player does not even know he has been listed. A hidden but plausible point here is that such events often target retired stars rather than active players, because active players are bound by central contracts and NOCs. For retired players those controls are comparatively loose, making their names a lower-resistance route for organisers. That is why a brand like Dhawan's can end up being used in an unauthorised event. The biggest lesson of this case is that assuming an event is legitimate because of its name is dangerous. Names, logos and phrases can be imitated. Without verifying who the real organiser is, where it is registered, which board has sanctioned it and which players are contracted, no conclusion should be drawn. Chapter Two: Shikhar Dhawan's Player Profile and the Basis of His Commercial Value Understanding the Dhawan case requires understanding the nature of his cricket career. He is primarily an opening batter, left-handed. He achieved his greatest success in One Day International cricket. In ODIs his batting average is about 44.1, with 6,793 runs in 167 matches, 17 centuries and 39 fifties. By the benchmark of an elite opener, that is very high. In Test cricket his average is 40.6, with 2,315 runs in 34 matches, seven centuries and five fifties. That is respectable but somewhat below the highest elite top-order benchmark. In T20 internationals his average is 27.9, with 1,759 runs in 68 matches and 11 fifties, but no century. By the standard of a modern T20I opener, that is comparatively weak. These figures lead to a clear conclusion. Dhawan's primary strength was ODI cricket. It was in ODIs that he achieved his greatest success and lasting recognition. In T20 internationals his record is his weakest international dimension. But the tournament in which his name is alleged to have been used is T20-branded. That means the organisers were relying on his recognition, memory and brand value rather than on any current T20 skill set. Another point matters here. Dhawan retired from international cricket in 2026. He now appears mainly in T20 leagues, exhibition matches and freelance roles. In other words, his market value now depends on a retired-star persona rather than on active-player output. He is around 39 to 40 years old. At that age a player's peak is past. His name's value therefore comes from heritage, memory and his contribution to Indian cricket. That is precisely why he is an attractive target for an unauthorised event. His name draws a fan response. But using that name without consent harms his brand, harms fans' trust and harms the transparency of the cricket economy. Chapter Three: The Indian Team, Rankings and the Limits of Relevance This episode has no direct connection to the current Indian team or to rankings. Dhawan is a retired individual. He is not part of current team selection, squads or rankings. No conclusion about India's present strength, weakness or future should therefore be drawn from this news. Any analyst who does so is producing an unsupported claim. One relevant dimension does exist, however. Dhawan is part of India's opening lineage. In Indian cricket, a consistent opener holds a special place. That lineage is not merely a player's private property; it is a kind of nation-brand-linked asset. That is why the BCCI or a national board may have an indirect interest in who is using former players' names and how. A possible indirect effect of this episode is that other retired stars may begin to check where their names are being used. That could be a positive development, because it may build a culture of consent and verification in the future. Chapter Four: League and Commercial Ecosystem—The Economy of Borrowed Stardom Modern cricket has developed a two-tier event system. The first tier consists of events sanctioned by the ICC, the BCCI or national boards. The second tier consists of private, informal or unauthorised events. In the first tier, contracts, broadcast rights, player NOCs and anti-corruption surveillance all follow defined rules. In the second tier those rules are often absent. But the second tier seeks to borrow the credibility of the first. This episode is an example of exactly that collision. The name World T20 Continent Cup borrows the language of a globally recognised event. Then, it is alleged, a famous retired star's name was used to acquire further credibility. In this model the organiser's core assets are sponsorship, broadcast interest, ticket sales and, where possible, fantasy or betting-related attention. The most important point in this ecosystem is that there is no central mechanism for verifying consent. When a sponsor or broadcaster invests in an event, how does he confirm that the listed players have genuinely consented? There is no clear answer. As a result, sponsors, broadcasters and audiences are all exposed to fraud risk. A possible hidden factor is that such events are often run in jurisdictions or by organisers whose registration, funding and true ownership are not easily discoverable. That opacity is itself a major red flag, because transparent events have verifiable organiser identities, board sanctions and player contracts. Another lesson from this case is that a star's commercial value and his current sporting value are different things. In Dhawan's case, what has allegedly been misappropriated is his commercial and heritage value. That has no relationship to his or India's current competitive output. Failing to understand this distinction will lead analysis down the wrong path. Chapter Five: Rules, Governance and the Consent Crisis At the centre of this episode is consent. Dhawan has said his name was used without his knowledge or permission. In legal language this relates to matters such as passing off or false endorsement. If someone uses a person's name or identity in a way that suggests that person endorses a product or event, when in fact he has not consented, that can create legal problems. How effective the jurisdiction of the International Cricket Council or a national board is over an unauthorised private event is questionable. They may not be able to impose sanctions directly. The practical remedy therefore comes through civil or legal channels. Dhawan himself has said his team will take appropriate legal steps. That means the matter will likely move towards a cease-and-desist notice, takedown demands or civil litigation. Branding mimicry is also an important governance issue here. The name World T20 Continent Cup borrows the linguistic architecture of an ICC global event. That can create consumer confusion. A viewer may think it is a sanctioned competition. That confusion also creates risk for sponsors, broadcasters and fantasy platforms. Another important dimension is that no statement from the organisers has emerged in this episode. The dispute is therefore one-sided for now. A one-sided allegation should always be analysed with caution, because if the organisers can produce consent documents, the picture could change. But until those documents appear, the allegation is not proven, merely a serious claim. A possible point is that such organisers are often small, transient or based in weak regulatory jurisdictions. As a result, legal battles can be long, expensive and uncertain. Dhawan's phrase that his team will be taking the appropriate legal steps suggests that his professional management and legal apparatus are already active. Chapter Six: Risk Analysis—Reputation, Commerce and Integrity The risks in this episode can be viewed in several parts. First, reputational risk to the player. Dhawan's name has been linked to an unauthorised event. Although he has promptly disavowed it, some fans may still be confused. That confusion can damage his personal brand. The risk level is medium. Second, commercial risk. If sponsors and broadcasters invest without verification, they may pour money into an unauthorised project. That can cause financial and reputational loss. The risk level is medium. Third, integrity risk. If such events are linked to betting or fantasy concerns, the misuse of a star's name can become a vector for fraud. That risk is not proven now, but it should be flagged, because a star's name is the core attraction of fantasy and betting products. The level is medium to medium-high. Fourth, public opinion risk. If audiences cannot distinguish between sanctioned and unauthorised events, they may lose trust in cricket branding. The level is medium. The overall risk rating is medium. There is no direct evidence of match-fixing, injury or financial crisis. But reputational, governance and integrity-related risks are significant. A possible hidden factor is that Dhawan may not be the only retired player whose name appears without consent. If so, this is not a single incident but the beginning of a whole class of claims. Chapter Seven: Public Opinion and the Expectation Gap The prevailing narrative of this episode is retired star versus rogue tournament. In that narrative Dhawan is the victim and the organisers are the accused. Public opinion generally favours the star, because he is protecting his name and warning fans. But analysis must remain cautious. The narrative is currently entirely one-sided. There is no organiser statement. If consent documents or different information emerge later, the narrative could shift. Viewed through the expectation gap, the event presents itself as a World T20, but its sanctioning status is doubtful. The player's participation is implied, but the player denies it. On the legal outcome, Dhawan has spoken of appropriate steps, which will likely move towards a cease-and-desist or a settlement. Another dimension of public opinion is that Dhawan has appealed to fans not to believe unauthorised announcements. This is in fact a conscious effort to reduce hype. He does not want the event to receive more publicity. But if the media amplifies the story too much, the visibility of that very event could inadvertently increase. That is a possible unintended consequence. The durability of this narrative is short-term, because it is a single incident with a single voice. If no litigation or organiser response follows, the story will fade within weeks. Chapter Eight: Transmission Effects Across the Cricket Industry The effects of this episode can spread across several layers of the cricket industry. Broadcast and media: neutral effect, short term. South Asian heartland market: slightly negative, because trust in event branding may be marginally damaged. Talent supply chain: neutral. Capital and investment networks: neutral, short term. Fantasy and betting sports: potentially negative, because integrity scrutiny of unauthorised events may increase. Medium impact over the medium term. Derivative markets in endorsements, licensing and player brands: slightly negative to an NIL-enforcement signal. Medium impact over the medium to long term. The most important transmission channel is the fantasy and betting connection, because a star's name is the core engagement currency of those products. But that connection is not proven now. It is a flag, not a conclusion. A possible hidden factor is that boards may in future tighten NOC or consent rules for retired players' commercial appearances. That could be a positive change. Chapter Nine: What Should Be Done and What Should Not Several clear guidelines for stakeholders emerge from this episode. For journalists: before publishing news about any World T20 or globally named event, its sanction, organiser and player contracts should be verified. A one-sided allegation should not be presented as established fact. Efforts should be made to obtain the organisers' response. For sponsors: before investing in any event, player consent and event sanction should be verified. Deciding on the basis of a star's name is dangerous. For broadcasters: before broadcasting an unauthorised event, legal and reputational risks should be assessed. For fans: the use of a star's name does not by itself mean he is in that event. The player's own statement or recognised sources should be checked. For players: the use of one's name, image and signature should be regularly audited. Especially after retirement, the limits of commercial use should be clearly defined. For boards: a consent verification mechanism should be created for the use of retired players' names. That protects not just the player but the whole ecosystem. Conclusion Shikhar Dhawan's episode is not a cricket-performance story. It is a warning. As cricket's commercial reach expands, a star's name has become a valuable asset. When that asset is used without permission, questions of law, ethics and trust arise. The core lesson of this case is that the difference between sanctioned and unauthorised events must be understood. Unauthorised organisers borrow the language, names and stars of recognised brands to manufacture credibility. That borrowed credibility can eventually harm sponsors, broadcasters, fans and the entire cricket ecosystem. The best defence is transparency and verification. If event sanction, player consent and organiser identity are publicly verifiable, the market for borrowed credibility will shrink. Dhawan warned fans in his statement and spoke of legal action. If that action succeeds, other retired stars will be protected in future. Cricket is now not just a game but a global media and commercial product. The most valuable asset of that product is the reputation of its players. Protecting that reputation is everyone's responsibility—players, boards, sponsors, media and fans. Because once reputation is damaged, it is hard to restore. And if the market for unauthorised events keeps growing, the damage will not be to one star alone, but to the whole game. Sources and Notes The player statistics used in this analysis are the widely reported figures of Dhawan's international career. T20 strike rate and some fine-grained splits were absent from the original source, so they have not been treated as verified data. Judgements about event sanction are contextual analysis rather than official documents. No statement from the organisers was available, so the episode is treated as a one-sided allegation. There is no direct evidence of betting or fraud; that connection is flagged as a possible risk, not a conclusion. These points remain open to the reader's careful consideration.