The decision to host the games raises questions over security, public spending and the potential cost to Cyprus’ reputation as a safe destination

There is something deeply troubling about the decision to allow Maccabi Tel Aviv to make Cyprus its home for its EuroLeague basketball matches this season.

There is nothing inherently wrong with hosting an Israeli basketball match, but this is a decision that carries risks beyond the basketball court.

We are not talking about a one-off exhibition match. We are talking about a series of high-profile European fixtures, stretching over several months, involving some of the biggest clubs and most passionate supporters in basketball. Real Madrid, Barcelona, Olympiacos, Panathinaikos, Fenerbahce and others would all be coming to Limassol.

Under normal circumstances, that would be something to celebrate. But these are not normal circumstances. The security concerns are sufficiently serious that extraordinary precautions are being planned by Cyprus’ authorities. Attendance is to be restricted, visiting supporters tightly controlled and the Spyros Kyprianou indoor stadium secured well before matches begin.

If the authorities themselves consider such measures necessary, why are we taking this risk in the first place?

One incident could cost us dearly

Cyprus has spent years marketing itself as a safe, welcoming tourist destination. The reputation we have cultivated over the years is a valuable national asset that must be protected. We saw how tourist arrivals were affected as a result of the drone strike on Akrotiri base in early March. Suddenly, the island was being presented as a potential target in the US-Israel war on Iran. It was not but damage had been done.

Those circumstances were entirely different, but events with a security dimension can change the international perception of a destination overnight. It would take only a single violent incident connected to one of Maccabi’s fixtures to spark negative international publicity for Cyprus. Fan clashes, an attempted attack on a team bus or a credible security scare could generate negative international headlines.

Admittedly, nobody can predict there will be such an incident, but why are we putting the country at risk? What does Cyprus stand to gain from hosting the matches with such potential risks? A few thousand additional visitors on matchdays? Some hotel bookings, restaurant spending and international sporting publicity? These are benefits, but do they justify the risks?

Whose security operation will this be?

And who, precisely, will be responsible for security? Cyprus police, obviously will be in charge, but reports indicate that Maccabi will also use private security. Considering the Israeli state’s sensitivity over the safety of Israelis abroad, would Israeli security or intelligence personnel be in Cyprus to ‘supervise’ security? Has the Cyprus government discussed how security will be managed with the Israeli government?

And then there are the Turkish teams

The fact that Maccabi will have matches against Turkish clubs Anadolu Efes and Fenerbahce in Limassol adds another major concern. Relations between Israel and Turkey are at an all-time low and current tensions could affect spectators watching the match.

Then there are Cyprus’ relations with Turkey that need no explaining. Do our authorities have to deal with the demanding security situation involving visits of Turkish clubs, for the sake of Maccabi?

How much of Limassol will be affected by road closures, policing and security restrictions when Maccabi plays a Turkish club? And who will bear the cost?

Is this about sport or politics?

Interestingly, Maccabi’s request to use Limassol for its ‘home’ games was addressed directly to President Nikos Christodoulides, who communicated his government’s approval. What made him give his approval? Was it a commercial decision, backed by a detailed cost-benefit analysis? Or was the decision unavoidable, given the Cyprus government’s close ties with Israel?

The president is entitled to pursue stronger relations with Israel, but this does not mean accepting any Israeli request especially when there could be risks for Cyprus. Cyprus’ interests should come first.

Last year the Cyprus government rejected a similar request from Maccabi citing security and operational concerns. What has changed? There is greater regional instability this year than there was in 2025, so why have the police’s security and operational concerns ceased to exist? Have the police acquired new capabilities or has Maccabi offered to cover all security and policing costs?

Who benefits, and who pays?

This is the big question? Will Cypriot taxpayer pick up the bill for the additional police deployments? Will businesses and residents face restrictions on movement and access around the arena whenever Maccabi has a ‘home’ game?

Cyprus is a small country with a great deal to protect.

Its reputation for safety, its tourism industry, its international standing and the security of its residents should not be placed on the line without compelling justification.

The government owes the public more than assurances that security measures will be strict.

It owes an explanation of why this arrangement is worth pursuing at all.

Because if everything goes smoothly, Cyprus will have hosted some excellent basketball matches. If something goes badly wrong, the consequences could extend far beyond sport.

Is that really a gamble we need to take?