Misogyny in Cricket Journalism: How Social Media Turned Old Sexism into Relentless Abuse

Hook: From the Wankhede Press Box to the Court of Social Media

Twenty-four years have passed since the India-England ODI at Wankhede Stadium, but the questions surrounding women's place in cricket journalism remain relevant. England won that match by five runs. After the victory, Andrew Flintoff celebrated by running across the field and twirling his shirt. Sourav Ganguly later answered with his famous shirt-waving celebration from the Lord's balcony. The incident became part of cricket's memorable rivalry, but for a female journalist present in the Wankhede press box, it also marked the beginning of a professional journey.

More than two decades later, the profession faces a different challenge. Female journalists once had to establish their place in newsrooms. Now, alongside demonstrating their expertise, they must also deal with sexualized comments, racist abuse and threats of violence on social media. The problem facing women in cricket journalism is about representation, but it is equally about the right to work safely and independently.

Delhi taught me the language of an appeal, and the review room taught me the burden of proof. The same principle should apply to journalism: an opinion should be answered with an argument, not an attack on the identity of the person expressing it.

Context: Changing Cricket Journalism and Persistent Inequality

Following the India-England encounter, international cricket journalism moved through several major events. The 2026 World Cup, the 2026-08 India-Australia series and Monkeygate controversy, the 2026 T20 World Cup and the 2026 World Cup helped shape cricket reporting. Interviewing legends such as Sachin Tendulkar, Shane Warne and Brian Lara also became an important part of the profession.

Behind those achievements, however, was another newsroom story. In the early years, women were severely underrepresented in press boxes. According to the journalist's account, she was accompanied by only one other woman in that environment. Comparisons with her male predecessor and the pressure to prove her professional ability were also part of the experience. This demonstrates that gender inequality did not begin with social media. Its roots were already established.

In 2026, an article questioning the male gaze and the presentation of women in IPL broadcasting attracted accusations of jealousy and feminism. The reaction illustrates an important distinction. Criticism of the commercial or cultural aspects of sport can be treated as a normal professional activity when expressed by men, while similar criticism from women is sometimes attributed to personal insecurity.

The first level of the problem was institutional: women had to struggle harder to be recognized as experts. The second is digital: that struggle now comes with the risk of public humiliation around the clock.

Core Analysis: How Digital Platforms Changed the Environment of Sports Journalism

Traditional sports journalism involved criticism, but its reach and speed were limited. Editorial processes, newspaper deadlines and broadcasting structures provided some control over public discussion. Social media changed that arrangement. Platforms such as Instagram and TikTok began distributing cricket coverage through short videos, reels and viral clips.

Longer programmes such as The Scoop are converted into shorter clips lasting one to three minutes. These videos are useful for reaching new audiences and increasing programme visibility. However, the process also creates a risk of losing context. When a comment from a longer discussion is separated from its original setting, viewers may react to the controversial extract rather than the complete argument.

The commercial mathematics matter here. Impressions, shares and audience reactions influence content distribution. Videos generating greater engagement may reach more people. This does not mean every viral piece of content is deliberately created to provoke controversy. However, when popularity becomes more important than contextual quality, the boundary between journalism and provocative entertainment begins to weaken.

Years of watching matches have taught me that a decision cannot be evaluated from one frame. The sequence of events and the decisive angle must also be examined. The same standard should apply to digital journalism. A female journalist's comment must be understood in its full context. A short clip cannot define years of professional experience.

The second aspect of the problem is online abuse. In the journalist's experience, abusive comments did not remain limited to criticism of her opinions. They included gendered insults, sexual references, racist remarks and political accusations. Some responses also took the form of threats of physical violence. It is essential to distinguish disagreement from harassment. Disagreeing with a journalist's opinion is part of public debate. Targeting her body, gender, sexuality or racial identity is not debate.

The professional consequences are significant. A journalist facing continuous abuse may avoid certain subjects, public appearances or social-media participation. This opens the door to self-censorship. If commenting on a controversial cricket issue comes at the cost of personal safety and peace of mind, editorial independence risks becoming merely theoretical.

Cricket, Politics and the Professional Question of Representation

The question of gender representation in cricket extends beyond journalism. The presentation of cheerleaders in the IPL has also attracted criticism. The journalist questioned the predominance of white female performers, connecting it to colorism and the objectification of women. This is a cultural criticism that requires evidence about recruitment policies, presentation and actual representation. Nevertheless, the question matters: are female performers given independent professional identities, or are their roles primarily reduced to their appearance as entertainment for spectators?

Similarly, the controversy surrounding Pakistani players in England's The Hundred demonstrates that franchise cricket is not governed exclusively by sporting strategy. Sunil Gavaskar's comments following the selection of Abrar Ahmed by Indian-owned Sunrisers Leeds generated political debate. Gavaskar linked the purchase of Pakistani players to the deaths of Indian soldiers and civilians. The journalist challenged that argument and subsequently faced online attacks.

There are three distinct levels here: a player's professional selection, a franchise's commercial decision and the public reaction shaped by national politics. Treating them as a single issue weakens the debate. Franchise cricket needs international talent, but it must also operate in a political environment where every selection can be viewed through the lens of national identity.

This situation becomes even more difficult for journalists because questioning the statement of an influential former player can trigger personal attacks. Everyone has the right to criticize, but professional journalism requires an argument to be evaluated through its evidence and reasoning.

The Contrarian Angle: Social Media Has Also Given Women a Voice

It would be incomplete to criticize digital platforms without acknowledging their positive contribution. Social media has allowed female journalists to establish identities outside traditional editorial structures, communicate directly with audiences and raise issues that previously received limited attention. Whether discussing the presentation of women in the IPL in 2026 or online harassment today, digital platforms have helped bring these subjects to wider audiences.

However, greater visibility does not automatically guarantee equality. The same platform can bring a female journalist to millions of viewers while exposing her to a flood of abusive messages. The solution cannot be to advise women to withdraw from social media. Responsibility also belongs to the institutions and platforms that benefit from this digital economy.

Publishers should establish clear procedures for reporting threats, escalating serious cases to security professionals and providing moderation support to journalists. Social-media companies must respond effectively to repeated gender-based harassment and violent threats. Cricket boards, franchises and broadcasters should also make the protection of female employees and contributors part of their professional policies.

The 40-second rule taught me that delay is a kind of evidence. Institutional silence over journalist safety raises questions about who carries responsibility and when meaningful action will follow.

Takeaway: Safety Must Become a Measure of Progress in Cricket's Next Innings

Cricket has expanded considerably over the past two decades in broadcasting, franchise structures and digital distribution. But this expansion should not be evaluated only through audiences, advertising and popularity. Journalistic independence, women's representation and digital safety are equally important indicators of the industry's quality.

The journey from the Wankhede press box to the world of social media shows that the challenge of establishing women's professional expertise has not disappeared. The difference is that opposition no longer remains confined to the newsroom; it is now present on a phone screen at all hours.

The next improvement will not come from advising female journalists to speak less. It will come when cricket institutions, publishers and digital platforms ensure that disagreement remains free, criticism is based on arguments and those making threats are held accountable. Fifteen seconds is a shape for making a decision, but achieving equality requires the willingness to change the entire system.