New Delhi, Sept 29, Desk: The much-anticipated Asia Cup 2025 final between India and Pakistan ended with India lifting the trophy, but the cricketing world is now abuzz with a controversy that unfolded off the field. At the heart of the storm is Mohsin Naqvi, chairman of the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) and president of the Asian Cricket Council (ACC), whose role in the post-match presentation has triggered widespread outrage and social media trolling.
Trophy Drama Overshadows India’s Victory
India’s Asia Cup final against Pakistan witnessed an unusual and entertaining moment. India’s 5-wicket win over Pakistan was a A very great moment. Then when the issue of taking the champions trophy from Naqvi came up, the Indian team players showed a reluctance. They refused to take the trophy from Naqvi.
As cameras rolled, Indian players walked away from the stage, leaving Naqvi holding the trophy. Moments later, viral videos showed Indian cricketers celebrating with an “imaginary trophy,” a symbolic gesture that fans described as a silent protest against Naqvi’s presence.
“Trophy Chor” Trends Online
The bizarre turn of events sparked an online storm. Social media platforms, particularly X (formerly Twitter) and Instagram, exploded with memes, dubbing Naqvi as “Trophy Chor” (trophy thief). Clips of him leaving the dais with the cup were shared millions of times, while even Indian Premier League (IPL) franchises joined the trolling by posting cheeky comments and edited videos.
The phrase “Mohsin Naqvi Trophy Chor” trended across India and Pakistan, reflecting the scale of digital outrage. For many fans, the incident was less about cricketing rivalry and more about symbolism, blurring the line between sport and politics.
Naqvi Defends Himself, Calls Out India
Responding to the criticism, Mohsin Naqvi expressed disappointment over India’s actions. He claimed that refusing to share the stage or even exchange a post-match handshake was “utterly disappointing and against the spirit of the game.”
Naqvi added that the ACC is meant to be a neutral platform, and personal or political disagreements should not interfere with cricket. His remarks, however, did little to calm the storm, as critics pointed to his political ties in Pakistan and argued that he cannot act as an impartial figure in Indo-Pak cricket affairs.
Divided Reactions
While social media mocked Naqvi, several Pakistani cricketers and commentators came to his defense. Former captain Shoaib Malik sharply criticized India’s boycott, saying, “This will haunt them. You don’t disrespect the ACC president like this; they will regret this decision.”
On the other hand, Indian analysts argued that the BCCI had already made its position clear before the tournament, with reports suggesting that India would not share the dais with Naqvi if they won the final.
Bigger Questions for Asian Cricket
The controversy has raised pressing questions about governance and neutrality in Asian cricket. The dual role held by Mohsin Naqvi—as PCB chief and ACC president—has become a flashpoint for debates about whether administrative leadership can remain independent in the highly charged political atmosphere of South Asia.
The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is expected to escalate the matter to the International Cricket Council (ICC), demanding reforms in how trophies and official ceremonies are conducted when political sensitivities are at play.
What Lies Ahead?
With the Asia Cup 2025 now remembered as much for its off-field drama as for India’s triumph, the spotlight remains firmly on Mohsin Naqvi. His every move is under scrutiny, and the controversy may influence not just bilateral cricket ties between India and Pakistan but also decision-making within the ACC and ICC.
For fans, however, the memory of Team India lifting an “imaginary trophy” while social media crowned Naqvi the “Trophy Chor” may endure far longer than the match itself.
_________________________
Disclaimer: This article is for informational and news purposes only. All events, statements, and opinions reported are based on publicly available sources. The publisher is not responsible for any personal views or interpretations of the content.