Does cricket risk apathy if status quo continues?

It concluded 1,000km from where it started, 2,000km from where it should have ended.

India were crowned 2025 Champions Trophy winners on Sunday in Dubai after making hard work of a four-wicket win over New Zealand.

The win cemented India's place as the leading white-ball side in the world, coming after their victory in the T20 World Cup last June, and eases the pain of the defeat by Australia in Ahmedabad at their own 50-over World Cup 16 months ago.

But, as the thousands of India fans celebrated in this city built in the desert, the tame inevitability of this tournament should act as a warning sign to those running the world game.

It has seemed like India's from the start with visits to their matches feeling more like an exhibition while the rest of the action took place in Pakistan.

Teams were flown in to face 11 superstars in immaculate electric blue in front of thousands wearing those players' names on their backs.

Would Hardik Pandya have been introduced in Lahore with deafening cries of "Kung-fu Pand-ya!", as he was in Dubai?

Sadly, we will never know.

It should be made clear, there are no easy answers here.

India announced they would not travel to Pakistan in December because of long-standing political tensions between the two nations. The International Cricket Council (ICC) has been in a tricky spot ever since.

Play the tournament without India? Indian markets make up a significant portion of the ICC's income, reported to be as much as 80%.

Take away the opportunity for Pakistan to host a first tournament for 29 years at the last minute? Not feasible either.

The result was India playing the tournament in one city, remaining in one hotel, as the row over the advantages they held rumbled on throughout.

New Zealand covered more than 7,000km travelling to matches, while the nearest an India player got to a plane was Kuldeep Yadav's wide-armed celebration after claiming the crucial wicket of Rachin Ravindra in the final.

At every turn, India denied the obvious, until Mohammed Shami said the situation had "definitely" helped them after their semi-final. Moments earlier, in the same room, coach Gautam Gambhir suggested anyone that said so needed to "grow up".

Opposition players remained largely quiet, until South Africa's David Miller said he would be supporting New Zealand in the final.

Speak to players in private and the power India seemingly hold is simply met with a shrug. This is the path cricket is on.

In 2023, there was the controversy of the semi-final pitch switched at the last minute in a move that appeared to suit India's spinners.

Eight months ago, India beat England in the T20 semi-final in Guyana, when again Rohit Sharma was the only captain to know where his side's matches would be played before departure.

That fixture was played at 10:30am to suit Indian TV, limiting the local crowd. This time India's last group match was played on a Sunday - when TV viewership in India is highest - and caused the farcical situation of South Africa having to fly to Dubai but return to Pakistan less than 24 hours later.

Home advantage for a tournament you are hosting is one thing. Having a similar benefit for a tournament hosted by your rivals is another entirely.

Of course, none of this is the fault of India's players.

Rohit, who caused a stir by sending vice-captain Shubman Gill to the pre-final captains' interview this week, and Virat Kohli are two 50-over greats.

Ravindra Jadeja, who hit the winning runs against New Zealand, is not far behind, while Gill will probably get there too if given the chance.

India's strength is such that they might well have won this tournament wherever it was played. The fact they have not had injured star fast bowler Jasprit Bumrah for the Champions Trophy has largely been forgotten.

But these ICC men's events - increased in number to include either a Champions Trophy, T20 or 50-over World Cup every year until 2031 - are supposed to be the internationals game's counter to the money-spinning Indian Premier League.

Instead, they now come so often, follow such a familiar pattern, that indifference is perhaps beginning to set in.

There were no written journalists from India's fellow semi-finalists, Australia, South Africa or New Zealand, at the Champions Trophy - hardly the sign of a healthy sport.

The fallout from England's dismal exit was loud among the diehards but outside of that?

You be the judge about whether this tournament came up in the family WhatsApp group.

Their chaotic organisation does not help either, with the schedule for this competition confirmed just 57 days before it began.

No English media were able to witness that Guyana semi-final because of the quick turnaround, a lack of flights and the fact it took place in a country US authorities advise against visiting on safety grounds.

In cricket, these things are simply waved through.

Things will not get easier in the next two tournaments - the women's World Cup later this year and the men's T20 version in the spring of 2026.

Both will be held in India, in partnership with Sri Lanka in the case of the T20, meaning should Pakistan qualify they will get the treatment their rivals had here.

Pakistan could find themselves with the same advantages India had but uncertainties - two venues needed to be lined up for a final - are not going anywhere.

It is not that hope is lost.

This tournament has shown, yet again, that the product of international white-ball cricket on the field remains strong, despite two washouts and too many one-sided games.

Australia batter Josh Inglis' century against England was an all-timer, Ravindra continued to emerge as one of the next stars of the sport and Afghanistan all-rounder Azmatullah Omarzai should be the want of every Hundred team in Wednesday's draft.

A dearth in quality is not a threat to international cricket's future. Apathy is.