In August 2025, Indian Manpreet Singh walked up to receive his “Hero of the Match” award at the Hockey Asia Cup. The team had fought hard, and Singh’s performance was pivotal. Cameras flashed, applause followed until the prize money was revealed.
A cheque of USD 200 (around ₹16,500).
What should have been a moment of pride quickly turned into a national talking point. Across social media, fans and journalists alike asked: Is this what a hockey hero deserves? That cheque became more than a cash prize. It became a symbol of inequality in Indian sport.
The Cheque That Sparked a Firestorm
For Singh, the award was recognition of his grit. But for millions of Indians, the prize amount looked like an insult. Platforms like X (formerly Twitter) filled with comments comparing the amount to what cricketers earn. “Heroes getting peanuts, while cricketers make crores,” read one viral post. The outrage was less about the number itself and more about the message it sent. How could the vice-captain of the national team in a sport often hailed as India’s “national game” be rewarded with such a modest sum?
A Tale of Two Sports: Hockey vs. Cricket
To understand the uproar, one only has to glance at cricket.
- A cricket Man of the Match typically gets ₹1,00,000 (USD 1,200) — six times hockey’s payout.
- In the IPL, awards like “Most Valuable Player” or “Orange Cap” bring in ₹10 lakh (USD 12,000).
- The IPL 2024 prize pool alone stood at ₹46.5 crore (USD 5.6 million), with the champions pocketing ₹20 crore (USD 2.4 million).
Even beyond India, cricket’s numbers soar. The ICC Women’s World Cup 2025 will feature a record USD 13.88 million prize pot, surpassing the men’s event in 2023. In contrast, hockey’s prize money often depends not on tournament revenues but on government bonuses and federation grants. After the Asia Cup, Hockey India rewarded players with ₹3 lakh each, while the Tamil Nadu government added ₹5 lakh per player. Generous, yes but also proof that hockey’s ecosystem cannot fund itself.
How the World Does It. This is not just an India problem; it’s a global reflection of how sports economies work.
- NBA and NFL: The MVP in the Super Bowl or NBA Finals receives no direct cash award just a trophy. But it doesn’t matter because athletes are already on multi-million-dollar contracts. NBA stars earn an average of USD 11.9 million a year, with playoff bonuses exceeding USD 800,000 per player.
- Football (Soccer): “Man of the Match” awards in the Premier League or FIFA World Cup are symbolic. Salaries are enormous already the average weekly EPL wage is USD 75,000. At the 2022 FIFA World Cup, the prize pool was USD 440 million, with winners earning USD 42 million.
- Tennis: Here, rewards are directly tied to performance. At the US Open 2025, winners will take home USD 5 million, while even first-round losers earn USD 110,000.
These examples underline a key truth: symbolic awards only make sense when player incomes are already secure. For hockey, where stable, lucrative salaries are rare, a USD 200 cheque is not just symbolic it feels dismissive.
Why the Gap Exists
The imbalance between cricket and hockey isn’t accidental. It’s the result of different business models and cultural traction.
- Media Rights : Cricket thrives on billion-dollar broadcasting deals. Hockey’s media value is limited, keeping revenues modest.
- Market Size : Cricket dominates the Indian subcontinent, which translates into unmatched commercial power. Hockey enjoys emotional value but struggles to pull in similar audiences.
- Structures of Governance : Cricket runs on a franchise-based, profit-driven model through the IPL. Hockey remains federation-run, focusing on governance rather than commercialization.
The Athlete’s Dilemma
For athletes, the impact is personal. A young Indian with talent in both hockey and cricket doesn’t need to think twice. Cricket offers contracts, endorsements, and financial stability. Hockey offers passion but little security. This financial gap leads to talent drain. Many promising athletes either switch sports or abandon professional sport altogether. Even those who remain, like Manpreet Singh, face the reality of their efforts being undervalued on the biggest stages. The public outrage over the USD 200 prize reflected a collective frustration: how can India expect its hockey stars to shine when the system doesn’t reward them adequately?
Where Do We Go From Here?
If hockey is to rise again, it must rethink its commercial model. The solutions aren’t easy but they’re essential.
- Update Prize Structures: Man of the Match prizes should be at least USD 1,000, matching other tournament awards and sending a strong signal of respect.
- Tap into National Pride: Hockey’s legacy as India’s national game is an underused asset. Campaigns that tie pride to sponsorship could unlock new commercial avenues.
- Broaden Revenue Streams: Merchandise, digital engagement, and local fan communities can provide sustainable income beyond government handouts.
More Than Just Money
At its heart, this debate isn’t about a cheque. It’s about respect and recognition. In cricket, a ₹1,00,000 award is just decoration; the real money is elsewhere. In hockey, a USD 200 cheque feels like the sport itself is undervalued. If India wants to keep hockey alive and competitive, it must do more than rely on nostalgia. It must build a modern, financially viable ecosystem where players are rewarded not just with applause, but with careers they can sustain.
Until then, every cheque like Manpreet Singh’s will spark the same uncomfortable question: Do we truly value our hockey heroes?
