At the National Rifle Association of India’s 75th anniversary event, a media interaction involving double Olympic medallist Manu Bhaker quietly captured a familiar pattern in Indian sport journalism.

Bhaker, a two-time Paris 2024 Olympics medallist, was asked about teenage IPL star Vaibhav Sooryavanshi. The question while routine in tone, reflected how often other sports are largely still framed through cricket references in India’s media ecosystem.

Her response was notably understated. “Talent has no age,” she said. It was a simple line but it effectively shifted the framing back to where she comes from, an Olympic discipline built on years of repetition, precision and delayed recognition.

ALSO READ

Cricket as the default reference point

India’s sports economy remains overwhelmingly cricket-led. Industry estimates as per the WPP media report place the sector at nearly Rs 18,864 crore, with cricket accounting for close to 89% of consumption and the bulk of endorsement value.

In that structure, cricket has become more than a dominant sport, it is often the reference language through which other sports are interpreted. Even an Olympic medallist speaking at a domestic federation event is, more often than not, pulled into a cricket-linked frame.

That is what stood out here, not the question itself, but how instinctive it felt at least to the reporter and the editor in question.

Two different sporting timelines

The contrast between Bhaker and Sooryavanshi reflects two very different systems of value creation in Indian sport.

Bhaker represents long-cycle sporting capital. Her brand has been built over years of international competition, institutional backing and Olympic success, where credibility compounds slowly but carries long-term weight.

Sooryavanshi, by contrast, sits at the other end of the spectrum, where the IPL ecosystem allows for rapid visibility and even brief performances can accelerate public and commercial recognition almost instantly. Although in Sooryavanshi’s case, the boy has been in the news for over an year and has two IPL hundreds already while also scoring a world record century in the U19 World Cup final.

But largetly the two pathways operate on fundamentally different timelines of attention and reward.

What Bhaker’s response actually signalled

What made Bhaker’s answer stand out was not just its brevity, but its framing. She did not engage with the cricket comparison at all. Instead, she reset the discussion back to sport as a universal continuum, where age, format and platform are secondary to performance.

It was a small moment, but it quietly resisted the hierarchy the question implied.

The larger imbalance remains

Despite a 46% rise in non-cricket endorsements according to the GroupM ESP Sporting Nation 2025 report, the structural imbalance in media attention remains.

Cricket continues to drive the majority of media cycles, commercial narratives and public recall. Olympic sport, meanwhile, still tends to break through in bursts tied to major events rather than sustained everyday visibility.

Until that changes, even Olympic success stories will continue to be filtered through cricket-first framing in mainstream coverage.

ALSO READ

The Sooryavanshi question to Bhaker was not a controversy. It was routine. And that is precisely what makes it telling.

It reflected a sports ecosystem where cricket is still the default lens and where Olympic athletes are often asked to operate within it, even when their achievements come from an entirely different arena.