Indians’ outrage at Sunrisers Leeds signing Abrar Ahmed is puzzling. Are we fans or bullies?

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.

On X, many struggled to differentiate between Sunrisers Leeds and SRH. They labelled the purchase “”, wrongly claiming that SRH had bought a player “who openly mocks Indians”. 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.

(Edited by Prasanna Bachchhav)

Source