It’s time we gave cricket some space to breathe. Space to stay clear of politics, and space to simply be a sport.
But the recent backlash against Sunrisers Leeds, after they bought Pakistan’s mystery spinner Abrar Ahmed shows it isn’t happening anytime soon. Sunrisers Leeds is a team in The Hundred league, and owned by Chennai-based media conglomerate Sun Group, also the owners of Sunrisers Hyderabad (SRH).
As if the long-standing India-Pakistan rivalry wasn’t enough, where players don’t even shake hands after a match, nationalism and hyper-patriotism are now seeping even into league and franchise cricket.
Professional decisions by franchises, such as this one by Sunrisers Leeds, are quickly interpreted as ideological statements rather than sporting choices. And the game begins to lose its ability to transcend borders.
The shift is becoming increasingly visible in India, where the line between sporting judgment and political sentiment is growing thinner by the day.
Ahmed became the first Pakistan player to be signed by an Indian-owned franchise in the tournament. Sunrisers Leeds paid £190,000 (approximately Rs 2.34 crore) to acquire him after a bidding war with the Trent Rockets.
His signing also put to rest the speculation that the Sunrisers Leeds owners would not bid for Pakistani players, as IPL franchises have not engaged them since 2009 due to strained diplomatic relations between the two neighbours.
Also read: Prada learnt its lesson. Where are ‘humara culture’ Indians on Ralph Lauren’s jhumka?
Puzzling reactions
On X, many struggled to differentiate between Sunrisers Leeds and SRH. They labelled the purchase “disgusting”, wrongly claiming that SRH had bought a player “who openly mocks Indians”. Some called it a “black day for SRH fans”. Amid the controversy, Sunrisers Leeds’ official X account has also been suspended.
These reactions are puzzling. Why should a cricket league that is neither governed by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) nor hosted in India provoke such outrage among Indian fans? The tournament in question, The Hundred, is organised by the England and Wales Cricket Board. It operates independently of the Indian cricket administration. In such a context, expecting Indian franchise owners to completely avoid Pakistani cricketers is unreasonable.
This also raises a fundamental question: Are Pakistani players not allowed to play cricket anywhere in the world? Cricket is an international sport, and leagues across countries are built on the principle of global participation.
If Indian franchise owners deliberately excluded Pakistani players in foreign leagues, it could easily open the door for accusations that India is politicising cricket and unfairly influencing the sport’s global ecosystem. We aren’t bullies.
Why should cricketers bear the burden of political tensions between two countries? Are we going to target athletes every time there is a diplomatic disagreement? And why does cricket so often become the first sport where these conflicts are expressed?
When political rivalries dictate who gets to play and who does not, the spirit of the game suffers. Allowing players to compete on merit—regardless of nationality—is not just fair, it is essential for preserving the integrity and universality of any sport. And, above all, for preserving one’s credibility as a sporting nation.
Views are personal.
(Edited by Prasanna Bachchhav)
This is Peacenik Punditry at Its Worst.
The author calls Indian outrage puzzling — what’s puzzling is this breathtaking selective amnesia.
The same world that cheers Russia’s Olympic bans, debates Afghanistan’s ICC status over Taliban governance, and sympathizes with boycotted Israeli athletes suddenly demands sport stay “pure” — but only when Indians react.
Calling Indian fans bullies while completely ignoring Pakistan’s documented “Bleed India with a Thousand Cuts” doctrine, state-sponsored terrorism, and decades of cross-border carnage isn’t neutral commentary. It’s a political choice wearing a sportswriter’s jacket.
Furthermore, Indian capital, Indian audiences, and Indian eyeballs built the commercial value enabling Sun Group’s global ownership ambitions. Expecting accountability to primary stakeholders isn’t hyper-nationalism — it’s basic logic.
You cannot ask Indians to compartmentalize their grief, their dead soldiers, their bombed civilians — then label them bullies for not complying. Demanding Indians alone separate sport from politics while the rest of the world freely conflates them isn’t peacekeeping.
It’s asking the victim to be more civilized than the aggressor.
There is no unfair influence, countries get banned from olympics, other sports, economic activities get sanctioned and so on when Western countries don’t like someone. There’s no need for us to act like Saints.