For Karnataka’s transmen cricketers, the challenge is not only to perform at a national tournament. It is to secure the basic conditions that make regular performance possible: affordable practice nets, cricket kits, medical supplies and travel that does not cost players several days of income. The team’s experience exposes how access to urban sports infrastructure can determine who gets to participate, compete and remain visible.
The 13-member team is preparing for the third edition of the Transgender Persons’ Cricket Tournament, scheduled to be held at Lovely Professional University in Punjab in November. In December 2025, Karnataka participated in the national tournament for the first time and reached the semifinals, finishing as second runners-up in a competition involving teams from five other States.
That result created an expectation that the team could prepare more consistently for its next opportunity. Instead, the gap between tournament participation and year-round sporting support has remained stark. The team estimates that it will require ₹2,74,500 for all 13 players this year. The amount includes practice facilities, cricket kits, medical kits and travel tickets.
The figures show that the cost of participation begins well before a match. Team captain Aadhityanath said a practice net in Bengaluru can cost close to ₹1,400 an hour. Booking nets for full days across several days is beyond the team’s budget. For players who work in textile shops, as cooks or with non-governmental organisations, the expense is not a minor sporting outlay. It competes directly with household and livelihood needs.
This makes the city’s sports infrastructure relevant in a way that is often missed when sporting success is discussed. A team may have the ability and motivation to compete, but that does not automatically translate into access to the facilities required for training. The cost of a net, the availability of a ground and the price of travel together shape whether players can sustain a sporting pathway.
The team has been practising occasionally at the grounds of RBANMS College. Aadhityanath said practice on a rough ground with gravel is different from net practice, and that the ground is not always available. The result is an irregular schedule rather than a continuous training programme. The team’s account does not establish that Bengaluru lacks sports facilities altogether. It shows instead that facilities may remain inaccessible when cost, availability and the players’ working conditions are considered together.
That distinction matters. Infrastructure is not only about whether a ground exists on a map. It is also about whether users can book it at a price they can afford, whether it is available at workable times and whether the facility suits the activity. For a team preparing for a national cricket tournament, a rough and intermittently available ground cannot fully replace regular access to practice nets.
The funding gap is also linked to the limited institutional support available to the team. Raahi, a Kerala-based non-profit working on LGBTQIA+ rights, covered a major portion of the team’s expenses last year. This year, however, the organisation has found it difficult to provide financial support beyond a limit. The team is therefore seeking assistance for costs that are essential to participation but not covered by the tournament’s existing arrangements.
The organisers provide train tickets for the team, according to the report. That support reduces the direct cost of travel, but it creates another burden: longer journeys require players to take more days off work. Several players faced difficulties at their workplaces after last year’s tournament. Most cannot afford flight tickets, which would reduce travel time but increase the financial burden.
The effect is visible in the team’s selection opportunities. After the 2025 tournament, three Karnataka players were selected for a national team taking part in the Rashtriya Cricket League beginning on October 22. One player withdrew because of the difficulties involved. The episode demonstrates how financial and workplace constraints can interrupt progression even after a player has achieved recognition through performance.
This is the central institutional issue in the team’s experience: participation is being treated as an event, while the conditions required to build sporting ability exist throughout the year. A tournament can provide a platform, but it cannot by itself solve the costs of practice, equipment, medical preparation, travel and lost wages. When those costs are shifted to players who are already working small jobs, the opportunity to compete becomes dependent on informal support and personal sacrifice.
The same pattern also affects visibility. Aadhityanath said many people do not know the team exists. Limited public awareness can make it harder to attract sponsors, facility providers and supporters. In turn, the lack of support restricts training and participation, keeping the team less visible than it might otherwise be. The supplied account does not establish a formal sponsorship or public-facility policy for transmen athletes. It does, however, document how the absence of dependable support leaves the team dependent on ad hoc assistance.
The team’s experience raises a broader question about how inclusive sports infrastructure is planned and funded. Access cannot be measured only by the presence of a stadium or ground. It also involves affordability, scheduling, equipment, safe participation and the ability of athletes to reach events without losing essential income. These factors are particularly important for players whose employment and financial circumstances make unpaid time away from work difficult.
There is also a difference between one-time inclusion and sustained inclusion. A team may be welcomed at a tournament and still lack the means to train for it. Travel may be arranged while practice facilities remain unaffordable. A player may be selected for a national squad but withdraw because participation requires more time away from work than they can manage. Each measure addresses one part of the problem, but none guarantees a continuous sporting pathway.
The Karnataka team’s ₹2,74,500 estimate puts a clear value on that pathway for 13 players. It covers immediate, identifiable expenses rather than an abstract demand for support. The calculation includes nets, kits, medical supplies and travel, while the players’ own accounts add the less visible cost of missed work. Together, these expenses show why sporting access is also connected to livelihoods.
The evidence available does not show whether government sports bodies, municipal authorities, colleges or private facility operators have been formally approached by the team, or whether any dedicated funding mechanism exists for transgender athletes in Karnataka. It also does not establish how many other teams face similar barriers. Those gaps should be distinguished from what is already clear: this team has demonstrated competitive ability, but its preparation is constrained by the cost and availability of basic sporting resources.
The immediate milestones are the team’s fundraising effort, its preparation for the November tournament in Punjab and the Rashtriya Cricket League beginning on October 22. Whether the players can practise regularly, obtain the required equipment and travel without unacceptable income loss will determine how far their performance can reflect their ability. Their experience makes a wider urban question difficult to ignore: facilities are not genuinely inclusive when the people seeking to use them cannot afford consistent access.
