The Question That Exposed Cricket’s Grip on Indian Sports Media
The moment was supposed to be about Manu Bhaker. The 24-year-old shooter had just returned from the Olympics with a medal—a feat that, by any measure, should have placed her at the center of the conversation. Instead, at an event marking the NRAI’s 75th anniversary, a reporter pivoted to Vaibhav Sooryavanshi, the teenage cricket sensation whose IPL exploits had dominated headlines for weeks. The framing reflected a broader trend in Indian sports coverage, where cricket often takes precedence even in settings meant to celebrate other sports.
Bhaker’s response focused on the importance of mentorship for young athletes. I would say that if the mentorship is good, the company around him is good, and the people around are good, then age is just a number,
she said, emphasizing the support systems young athletes need. Great things happen at 60, they happen at six. So if the people around him mentor him well and guide him properly, then I am sure he will be the next big star.
The question sparked immediate reactions online. Joy Bhattacharjya, the former Kolkata Knight Riders team director, commented on the imbalance in sports media coverage. In a social media post, he noted that Bhaker’s status as an Olympic medallist should have made her the focus of the event, rather than a source for commentary on cricket. His remarks underscored a recurring issue in Indian sports journalism, where cricket frequently overshadows other disciplines.
The incident pointed to a larger pattern in how sports are covered in India. While cricket enjoys extensive media attention, athletes from other sports often find their achievements relegated to secondary status. Bhaker’s medal, earned in a sport that demands precision and discipline, was briefly overshadowed by discussions of a young cricketer, despite the latter’s sport already receiving a significant share of the country’s sports coverage.
Olympic Glory vs. Cricket’s Cultural Dominance: Why Bhaker’s Achievement Was Overshadowed
To understand the context of the question, it helps to compare the trajectories of the two athletes involved. Vaibhav Sooryavanshi, at 15, has become one of the youngest players to score 1,000 T20 runs—a record that, in the high-stakes environment of the IPL, has positioned him as a rising star. His performances have generated considerable excitement, particularly in a country where the IPL holds significant cultural and commercial influence.
Manu Bhaker’s journey, in contrast, has been marked by perseverance. Shooting is a sport where success is determined by fractions of a second, and where the difference between victory and obscurity can be minimal. Bhaker’s Olympic medal was not just a personal triumph but a milestone for Indian shooting, a discipline that often struggles for visibility and resources. Yet, at an event meant to celebrate her sport, the conversation shifted to cricket, highlighting the challenges non-cricket athletes face in gaining recognition.
The contrast was striking. Bhaker’s achievement was historic, making her the first Indian woman to win an Olympic medal in shooting. However, the question at the NRAI event positioned her as a secondary figure in a narrative centered on cricket. Social media reactions noted that the framing reflected a broader issue in Indian sports media, where non-cricket athletes are often sidelined, their accomplishments treated as incidental to the dominant cricket narrative.
Bhaker’s Response: A Masterclass in Mentorship—and a Subtle Rebuke
Bhaker’s answer to the question demonstrated her focus on the broader needs of young athletes. Instead of addressing the awkwardness of the question directly, she highlighted the importance of guidance and support. By emphasizing that age is just a number, she underscored the need for mentorship, particularly in a country where young athletes often face immense pressure to perform.
Her remarks aligned with discussions among cricket analysts about how to nurture young talent. Former West Indies all-rounder Carlos Brathwaite referenced the example of Brian Lara, who was mentored by senior players before making his international debut. Brathwaite noted that Lara’s development was supported by a system that allowed him to grow alongside experienced players. Similarly, former cricketer Deep Dasgupta pointed out that while Sooryavanshi’s technical skills are evident, the mental challenges of professional cricket require careful handling. Both analysts emphasized the need for a balanced approach to developing young talent.
Bhaker’s response went beyond graciousness. It served as a reminder of the importance of creating environments where young athletes can thrive. By shifting the focus from age to mentorship, she redirected the conversation toward the factors that truly matter in athlete development. Her comments subtly critiqued a media culture that often prioritizes hype over the long-term well-being of athletes.
What This Reveals About Athlete Recognition in Non-Cricket Sports
The reaction to the question at the NRAI event highlighted deeper issues in how non-cricket athletes are covered in India. Cricket’s dominance in media coverage creates a cycle where its prominence is continually reinforced. For athletes like Bhaker, breaking into this cycle can be challenging, as their sports often receive limited attention.
In the weeks leading up to the Olympics, Bhaker’s preparations received sporadic coverage, while cricket events, including IPL matches and press conferences, were extensively analyzed. The difference in media focus reflects broader assumptions about what constitutes newsworthy sports content. When an Olympic medallist is asked about a teenage cricketer at an event meant to celebrate her sport, it underscores the default preference for cricket in Indian sports journalism.
Bhattacharjya’s critique addressed this imbalance directly. He noted that cricket’s popularity in India means that sports editors often prioritize it, sometimes at the expense of other sports. Bhaker’s medal, despite its historic significance, was treated as secondary to a narrative centered on cricket. This pattern raises questions about how sports media can better represent the diversity of athletic achievement in the country.
Moving forward, the incident offers an opportunity for reflection. For the media, it serves as a reminder that context matters in sports coverage. Asking an Olympic medallist about a teenage cricketer is not just a harmless cross-sport reference but a reflection of deeper biases. For fans, it highlights the importance of seeking out and celebrating athletes from disciplines that may not always receive front-page coverage. And for athletes like Bhaker, it reinforces the need to continue advocating for their sports, ensuring that their achievements are recognized on their own terms.
The question at the NRAI event was a moment of misalignment, but it also presented an opportunity. It prompted discussions about why some athletes are treated as stars while others are overlooked. It encouraged a rethinking of how sports are covered in a country where cricket’s influence is significant but not absolute. And, most importantly, it provided a platform for athletes like Bhaker, who continue to redefine what it means to be a champion in India.
