Harsh Goenka says Rishabh Pant’s Rs 12 crore salary cut is unimaginable in corporate world, netizens react
In a post shared on social media, Goenka highlighted the contrast between professional sports and traditional employment, citing Pant’s IPL earnings. Using the example to illustrate how market-driven auctions can dramatically change a player’s value from one season to the next, he noted that the wicketkeeper-batsman’s valuation had fallen from ₹27 crore to ₹15 crore.
“Rishabh Pant: ₹27 crore ₹15 crore,” Goenka wrote.
Drawing a comparison with the corporate sector, the billionaire businessman asked readers to imagine that a managing director is informed that their salaries will drop from ₹27 crore to ₹15 crore due to performance and market conditions.
“Imagine a CEO being told, ‘Last year we paid you ₹27 billion. This year, we are reducing that amount to ₹15 billion, based on performance and market demand.’ This is unthinkable in corporate life,” he wrote.
Goenka pointed out that player values in the IPL are determined through an auction process where franchises bid for talent based on their assessment of the player’s current market value and potential contribution.
“In IPL, it is an auction that determines your present value,” he said.
He concluded his post with a light-hearted observation about the stability of corporate careers compared to professional sports, writing: “Thank goodness, most of us work in corporate life.”
Internet reacts to Goenka’s comparison
The post sparked a flurry of reactions, with some users disagreeing with Goenka’s comparisons of both cricket and corporate.
One user questioned Pant’s assessment and wrote: “No hate on him, he doesn’t deserve ₹15 crore either. I don’t see seriousness and dedication in any game.”
Others objected to the suggestion that corporate compensation be exempt from performance-based deductions. One commentator argued that annual stock-based awards in the corporate sector are often adjusted based on results.
“In corporate life, compensation based on annual share renewals is entirely conceivable. Every year, RSU renewals are calibrated based on performance. It’s a myth that the company works differently,” the user wrote.
Some participants suggested that a senior executive’s performance should be evaluated over a longer period of time before compensation decisions are made.
“I think it would be better if we judge the CEO for a fixed period like 3 years or 5 years and then do the salary revision,” one user commented.
Others have broadened the discussion beyond leadership responsibility. One social media user questioned whether top executives should be solely responsible for an organization’s performance, asking: “Sir, so you think CEOs are mainly responsible for the ups and downs? What about the rest of the team and the owners? Why don’t they cut their perks and perks?”
Another commenter argued that boards and company leadership structures should also be held accountable when performance falls short.
“In fact, the CEO will be fired, not the uninformed President or Board of Directors who failed to devise appropriate corporate strategy and direct senior management in the right direction,” the user wrote.
Responses reflected differing views on performance-based compensation, leadership accountability, and similarities between professional sports auctions and corporate compensation structures.
