What happens when a team is officially the home side but plays its “home” series in the opponent’s country?
It sounds like a contradiction, but international cricket has produced such an unusual arrangement before and it is relevant again in 2026, with Afghanistan officially hosting India in India.
The first major example came in 2009, when Pakistan hosted New Zealand for a three-Test series, not in Pakistan, but in New Zealand.
The story began with security concerns that had made Pakistan increasingly difficult for visiting teams. The situation reached a critical point in March 2009, when the Sri Lankan team was attacked in Lahore. New Zealand subsequently cancelled its planned tour of Pakistan, which was supposed to include three Tests, four ODIs and two T20Is.
Pakistan, however, needed to keep its international programme alive. The PCB considered moving the series to the UAE, but New Zealand offered another possibility: play the Tests in New Zealand itself.
For Pakistan, there was an important economic calculation. PCB chief Ijaz Butt said playing in New Zealand could be cheaper than staging the series in the UAE, particularly because Pakistan would avoid the heavy security costs associated with hosting international teams at home. Hotels were also considered cheaper than in the UAE.
The eventual arrangement was unusual. New Zealand provided the venues and staged the Tests, but Pakistan remained the home team. Pakistan retained the television rights and was responsible for the costs associated with New Zealand hosting the series.
New Zealand Cricket was clear that it was not looking to make a profit from the arrangement. Justin Vaughan, its chief executive, said hosting a Test series they lost money and that New Zealand did not own the broadcasting rights.
The three Tests were played at Dunedin, Wellington and Napier between November 24 and December 15, 2009. New Zealand won the first Test by 32 runs, Pakistan the second by 141 runs, while the third was drawn. The series therefore ended 1-1.
There was plenty of cricket drama as well. Umar Akmal, making his Test debut at just 19, scored 129 and 75 in Dunedin and finished as the series' leading run-scorer with 379 runs. New Zealand fast bowler Shane Bond, returning to Test cricket after a two-year absence, took eight wickets in the first Test, which unexpectedly became his final Test appearance. Pakistan's Mohammad Asif led the bowling with 19 wickets, while Daniel Vettori scored 287 runs.
But the most intriguing part of the story was happening away from the scorecard, the economics of being a home team thousands of kilometres from home.
The PCB was reported to have paid around US$500,000 to Cricket New Zealand towards the cost of staging the three Tests. Pakistan's income came mainly from its share of gate receipts and the sale of advertising and stadium hoardings.
The financial picture was not particularly attractive. The PCB failed to find a title sponsor for the Test series, with the unusual timing of the matches making the Pakistani market less appealing. Television rights were held by Dubai-based Ten Sports, while the normal New Zealand broadcaster, Sky Sport, did not have the rights.
So Pakistan had the commercial rights associated with a home series, but also had to carry significant costs. The arrangement ensured that the matches took place and that Pakistan remained involved in international cricket, but it did not automatically translate into a profit.
That was an important lesson. Being designated the home team and playing at home are two different things. Hosting status can be separated from the physical venue, broadcasting rights and even some of the traditional home advantages.
There was also a cricketing disadvantage. Although Pakistan officially remained the home side, it had little control over the conditions. The pitches were prepared by New Zealand's local curators, rather than Pakistani curators who had been used for Pakistan's matches in the UAE. Pakistan therefore lost much of the advantage normally associated with playing at home.
Yet the arrangement served its most important purpose: Pakistan did not lose an entire home series because it could not safely host the opposition.
Seventeen years later, the same broad principle has resurfaced in a different form. Afghanistan are officially hosting India in India, with the matches being staged in Delhi. The circumstances are not identical to Pakistan's in 2009, but the underlying idea is similar, a country can retain home-team status while using another country's infrastructure to stage its international cricket.
Also Read: Special Cricket Stories
The Afghanistan-India series therefore offers a reminder of an arrangement that once seemed extraordinary. And the experiment showed that in international cricket, “home” can sometimes be a status rather than a place.