How Social Media Turned Cricket Journalism into a Relentless Battleground for Women

The India-England ODI at Mumbai's Wankhede Stadium took place 24 years ago. England won by five runs. Andrew Flintoff celebrated by running across the outfield and twirling his shirt, before Sourav Ganguly answered in memorable fashion on the Lord's balcony. At the time, cricket reached homes through the ground, newspapers and television. Today, the same sport travels across countless social-media screens, where every comment can generate a debate and, sometimes, another attack.

Across my years of following cricket, I have watched the differences between the press box, conversations around dressing rooms and the public narratives that develop outside the ground. Every press box has a rhythm; sit still long enough and it tells you the story. In the digital era, however, journalists have less time to understand that rhythm. After a female journalist publishes a report, analysis or public opinion, the discussion often moves beyond her arguments. Her appearance, voice, clothes, private life and identity can become targets.

Sexism in cricket journalism is longstanding, but social media has made it more continuous, public and personal. That transformation is the central issue.

Few women in the press box, more questions to answer

For women entering cricket journalism nearly two decades ago, the professional environment was different from the one that exists today. Women were underrepresented in press boxes. In the journalist's early experience, she was one of only two women in the press contingent, an important indication of the limited representation at the time.

Taking over responsibilities previously held by a male journalist also brought additional pressure. Professional work was constantly compared, and women often had to demonstrate their competence more insistently. Journalism under those circumstances involved more than watching matches, interviewing players and writing reports. It also required the additional effort of establishing one's place and earning recognition as an expert.

Major cricket events shaped this professional journey. Covering the 2026 World Cup, the 2026-08 India-Australia series associated with Monkeygate, the 2026 T20 World Cup and the 2026 World Cup exposed a journalist to different social and institutional dimensions of the game. Interviews with figures such as Sachin Tendulkar, Shane Warne and Brian Lara also strengthened her professional credentials.

Yet experience and recognition do not automatically eliminate gender prejudice. A female journalist's comments are sometimes not treated with the same seriousness as those of a male expert. Criticism can move away from the quality of her work and become personal. That distinction matters when assessing equality in cricket media.

The digital shift has changed the nature of criticism

In 2026, the journalist faced online criticism after writing about the male gaze and the presentation of women in IPL broadcasting. She was accused of jealousy and feminism. The episode demonstrated that questioning the representation of women in cricket entertainment had already provoked uncomfortable reactions.

Social media, however, was not then as extensive or continuously active as it is today. Platforms such as Instagram and TikTok now play a significant role in distributing cricket news, discussions and analysis. Longer programmes are cut into short videos and circulated as reels or clips. These pieces are designed to attract attention and bring viewers to the original programme.

The model has commercial value for digital media. A one-hour discussion can generate several short videos, each reaching a different audience. Views, shares and impressions help editorial teams understand which subjects attract reactions. But an important problem lies within this system.

When a long discussion is reduced to a one- or two-minute video, context can weaken and controversy can travel faster than the original argument. Viewers may see a sharp sentence without hearing the full discussion. Their reactions can then shift from debating an argument to attacking the person who made it.

In my experience, cricket stories are never made by scorecards alone. Players' conversations, spectators' responses and the meaning assigned to decisions by the media also form part of the story. I once recorded 90 seconds of silence at an empty stadium and understood that atmosphere itself was a reporting source. The same principle works in reverse in the digital era: the context behind the loudest online reactions deserves investigation, particularly when the original discussion has been edited down.

Cricket, politics and the additional pressure on women journalists

The difficulties facing female journalists are not limited to gendered comments. Political and national-identity disputes surrounding cricket can intensify online attacks. The debate over Pakistani players participating in The Hundred provides an example. Sunil Gavaskar's comments in the context of Abrar Ahmed's selection by Sunrisers Leeds generated controversy. Gavaskar linked the purchase of Pakistani players to the deaths of Indian soldiers and civilians.

The journalist who criticized this position also faced an intense online response. The debate moved beyond cricket into questions of national identity, political opinion and personal loyalty. Under ordinary circumstances, selecting a player is a decision based on a team's requirements, availability and sporting ability. Political tensions between India and Pakistan, however, often turn such decisions into wider national debates.

The journalist's role becomes particularly sensitive in this environment. She must retain the freedom to question the professional and commercial dimensions of the sport. Disagreeing with a prominent former player is a normal part of journalism. Disagreement should be answered with facts and reasoning, not by targeting a journalist's identity.

Popularity gives former players influence in public debate, but that influence also carries responsibility. Treating a journalist's criticism as political hostility or an attack on national identity weakens the quality of discussion.

Cheerleaders and the uncomfortable question of cricket entertainment

The IPL has played an important role in transforming cricket into a major entertainment product. Music, advertising, sponsorship and stadium performances have become part of the match-day experience. Yet the way women are represented within this entertainment structure deserves scrutiny.

In criticizing IPL cheerleading, the journalist drew attention to the selection and visual presentation of women, particularly the possible influence of colorism and a male-centred perspective. Her argument was that the preference for predominantly fair-skinned women may reflect broader social beauty standards that privilege lighter skin.

This discussion requires recognition that cheerleaders are professional performers. Their work deserves respect. The issue is not their individual choices or abilities, but the institutional framework that makes women's appearance and physical attractiveness part of the entertainment product.

The role of cheerleading and the professional status of female performers have also been debated in American football. The supplied analysis cites a figure stating that eight of 32 NFL teams had eliminated cheerleaders. That figure has not been independently verified in the available material and should not be treated as a confirmed industry-wide finding. It nevertheless illustrates that questions about women's roles in sports entertainment extend beyond cricket.

When disagreement becomes online harassment

The most serious concern emerges when online criticism becomes sexualized abuse, racist language and threats of violence. The journalist describes attacks on her professional competence, private life, sexuality and political opinions. Some comments also included threats of physical violence.

The distinction between criticism and harassment must remain clear. Audiences have every right to disagree with match analysis, criticize a television discussion or point out factual errors. But sexual humiliation directed at someone because she is a woman, or threats of violence, are not criticism. They are matters of professional safety and personal dignity.

Social-media companies face a serious accountability question. When a public-facing journalist receives repeated abusive messages and threats, a complaint button alone is insufficient. Effective moderation, rapid reporting systems and clear escalation procedures for serious threats are necessary. Publishers and broadcasters must also provide safety measures and mental-health support to their employees and contributors.

Making women's safety a test of individual resilience allows the cricket industry to evade its institutional responsibilities. Journalists should not have to endure daily humiliation to continue doing their jobs.

The real cost could be talent and trust

Cricket develops talent through domestic competitions, training facilities and years of professional experience. Journalism expertise also grows over time. Travelling to grounds, speaking with players, understanding selectors and support staff, and recording spectators' voices are all part of the profession. After travelling 3,000 kilometres with a team, I learned that a debut is often built in bus seats, not on podiums. Journalistic expertise develops through similar everyday experiences.

If experienced women withdraw from public-facing roles because of sustained online harassment, the damage will extend beyond individual careers. Broadcasters could lose diverse perspectives. Young female journalists may see the risks before considering a career in the profession. Audiences could also receive a narrower range of interpretations of the game.

Institutions should therefore monitor not only representation figures but also employees' experiences, the resolution of complaints and the effectiveness of digital safety measures. Social-media platforms should improve transparency around action taken against threats and identity-based harassment. Cricket boards, franchises and broadcasters must make clear that violent threats against journalists working with them will never be treated as normal online behaviour.

What will the next signal look like?

As cricket's popularity has grown, the media economy around it has expanded. Short videos, live discussions and social-media reactions have become permanent parts of the system. Ending these formats is not the answer. The challenge is to make digital reach and professional safety advance together.

I began as a fan with a page and ended as a witness with a notebook. That transition explains the real strength of journalism: recording the facts and institutional behaviour behind a popular opinion rather than simply repeating it.

The next important signal will be how quickly broadcasters and digital platforms respond to online threats, how much genuine editorial independence female journalists receive, and whether young professionals feel safe building their futures in this environment. Cricket's next major question may not concern a team's strategy on the field. It may concern the safety of the journalist sitting in the press box, who has exactly the same right as anyone else to tell the story of the game.