Cricket placed just 2 personalities on Time's inaugural list of the 100 most influential people in sport. Faisal Hasnain argues the number reflects a sport with money and reach but no real global influence.
Two cricketers out of 100. That's cricket's presence on Time magazine's inaugural list of the 100 most influential people in sport. A sport followed by billions, generating billions, home to the IPL which ranks among the most valuable leagues on the planet — and yet only two personalities made the cut. That number says something cricket's administrators have been slow to hear.
The list itself is worth understanding before dismissing or celebrating those two spots. Time wasn't ranking the best athletes or the highest earners. They were measuring influence: through sporting achievement, yes, but also through leadership, cultural impact, commercial value, social change, innovation, and the capacity to shape the future of global sport. The question Time asked wasn't who is the best. It was who is shaping where sport goes next. And on that question, cricket is almost entirely absent.
Cricket is in a cocoon by itself and living in its own misguided little world.
Smriti Mandhana's inclusion makes sense the moment you understand what Time was selecting for. She's one of my favourite cricketers and the way she bats is a genuine pleasure to watch — but Time didn't pick her for her batting. They picked her because she represents one of the most significant growth stories in world sport right now: the rise of women's cricket.
Over the past 20 years, women's cricket has gone through an extraordinary transformation. It started with the merger of the ICC and the International Women's Cricket Council, which laid the structural foundations for everything that followed. ICC women's events now routinely set new attendance and viewership records. Digital audiences are at record levels. The Women's Premier League in India has accelerated the commercial side further still. Sponsors and advertisers are actively seeking female athletes as brand ambassadors, and Mandhana sits at the centre of that shift.
Female athletes like Mandhana are no longer simply sports stars. They are major commercial brands.
Not long ago, the overwhelming majority of sports sponsorship money flowed toward male athletes almost by default. That is changing, and Mandhana's inclusion on this list is recognition that women's cricket, and female athletes broadly, represent the future direction of commercial sport.
Temba Bavuma's inclusion might surprise some cricket fans. There are certainly players with better statistics, larger social media followings, and higher commercial profiles. But influence, as Time measures it, is not only about numbers. It is also about what a person represents.
Bavuma is South Africa's first permanent Black African men's captain, and that fact alone places him in a unique position in his country's sporting history. His influence extends well beyond cricket. He represents inclusion, transformation, and progress — themes that resonate not just in South Africa but across the entire sporting world. His leadership has made him a symbol of how sport can contribute to broader social change, and that is precisely the kind of influence Time was looking to recognise.
"Influence is not measured only by numbers, it is also measured by what a person represents."
The two inclusions are genuinely positive for cricket. But they also expose something uncomfortable: 2 out of 100 is a 2% presence on the global sporting stage, and that is a damning number given everything cricket claims about itself.
No Virat Kohli. No Pat Cummins. No Ben Stokes. No Jasprit Bumrah. No Kane Williamson. And perhaps even more telling: no cricket coach or administrator, no franchise owner, no ICC official, none of the so-called high-profile figures who run the game. The IPL is worth billions. Broadcast rights are worth billions. Cricket is heading to the LA 2028 Olympics. And yet not a single person running cricket appeared on this list.
Cricket has money and reach, but no power or influence. That is a remarkable position to be in.
Cricket has money and reach, but no power or influence.
Part of the answer lies in governance. For years, observers have raised concerns about lack of transparency, accountability, and the concentration of power within cricket's structures. The perception, whether entirely fair or not, is that cricket is dominated by a relatively small group of powerful stakeholders rather than operating as an equitable, balanced, global sport. The Lord Woolf Report and various position papers from the World Cricket Association have put these questions on record.
Perception influences reputation, and reputation influences influence. A sport that is seen as internally fractured, opaque in its decision-making, and primarily serving the interests of a few cannot credibly present itself as a modern global enterprise. And a game that truly benefits just a few cannot be considered global.
The deeper concern is not about who holds power. It is whether cricket's governance system is helping the game reach its full global potential, or actively preventing it.
Mandhana and Bavuma made Time's list because they represent something bigger than their own performances. Mandhana represents change; Bavuma represents progress. Both represent a future-oriented version of cricket while, unfortunately, those who govern the game remain stuck in short-term thinking.
My recommendation is straightforward: cricket's administrators and so-called custodians of the game need to wake up and take notice. The challenge for them is whether they can demonstrate the same qualities that got Mandhana and Bavuma onto this list. If they can, future editions of this Time list might have more than two cricket personalities on it — which would be great for cricket. But given where things stand today, that will not be easy.
