There has been a significant uproar on social media after Sunrisers Leeds, an Indian-owned franchise, signed Pakistan mystery spinner Abrar Ahmed at The Hundred 2026 auction earlier this month. Sunil Gavaskar was among the most prominent voices to criticise the move, questioning the decision to sign the bowler for £190,000.
Amid the backlash, former IPL chairman Lalit Modi appeared to weigh in through a social media post directed at Kavya Maran, Executive Director of Sun TV Network and co-owner of the Sunrisers franchises.
Sharing a clip about the controversy, Modi wrote: “Investing ₹2.34 crore on a Pakistani player when the fans are already on edge? I know a thing or two about managing optics and building empires. Call me.” The post was captioned: “Controversy over players has hit The Hundred with the Sunrisers Leeds.”
The signing of Abrar has drawn sharp reactions from sections of the Indian public, especially given the long-standing absence of Pakistan players in Indian-run leagues. Political tensions between India and Pakistan have limited cricketing ties to ICC events for over a decade.
The England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB), which organises The Hundred, had earlier warned franchises against discrimination based on nationality and indicated it would take “robust action” if required. Abrar was one of two Pakistan players picked at the auction, with Usman Tariq joining Birmingham Phoenix.
Notably, this marks the first time an IPL-linked franchise has signed a Pakistan player in an overseas league.
Gavaskar, in his column for Mid-Day, strongly criticised the move, arguing that such payments could have wider implications. “Although belated, the realisation that the fees that they pay to a Pakistani player… indirectly contributes to the deaths of Indian soldiers and civilians is making Indian entities refrain,” he wrote.
He added that the backlash was “hardly surprising,” referencing the long-standing stance taken by Indian franchises since the 2008 Mumbai attacks.
Gavaskar also questioned the responsibility of Indian owners, writing: “Whether it is an Indian entity or an overseas subsidiary… if the owner is Indian then he or she is contributing to the Indian casualties.”
