Former IPL chairman Lalit Modi has stirred fresh controversy in Indian cricket after posting a strongly worded message on X regarding allegations of blackmail and corruption linked to an IPL cricketer and an aide of a senior cricket board official.
Reacting to a report published by CricBlogger, Modi wrote, “Just learnt from my many sources - the man is shockingly Rajeev Shukla secretary - this needs to be seriously looked into. How low can people go.” His post quickly gained traction online, intensifying discussions around transparency and alleged misconduct within cricket administration circles.
The controversy stems from a report claiming that an upcoming IPL cricketer was allegedly targeted in a blackmail racket involving the secretary of a prominent board official. According to the report, the player was allegedly asked to pay a commission in exchange for facilitating an IPL contract. When the cricketer reportedly refused to comply, the secretary allegedly began blackmailing him.
The report further claimed that the individual later teamed up with a reporter to allegedly expose aspects of the player’s personal life on social media after receiving little response from the cricketer. The allegations have sparked concern within cricket circles, especially given the suggestion that sensitive player information may have been used as leverage.
CricBlogger also alleged that this is not the first instance of players being pressured financially for opportunities in professional cricket, though the reported involvement of someone connected to a senior board representative has made the matter more alarming. The report suggested that similar practices may exist even in domestic cricket, where some players allegedly surrender portions of their match fees in pursuit of selection opportunities.
The developments have reignited conversations around player protection, ethics in cricket administration, and the growing influence of unofficial intermediaries around professional cricketers. However, no official statement has yet been issued by the board or the individuals named in the controversy.
