Every time there is a major cricket tournament and an Indian athlete from another sport achieves something remarkable, a familiar debate begins. People start saying that all the money in Indian sport goes to cricket. The criticism becomes even louder when the Indian cricket team underperforms while an athlete from another discipline shines on the international stage.
I find this argument unfair and often disconnected from economic reality.
First, let us understand a basic fact. Cricket in India is not rich because of government backing or funding. The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is a private body. It is registered as a society and does not receive regular government funding in the way many people assume. The money in cricket comes primarily from the market, not from the state.
Why does the market reward cricket?
Because people watch it.
India watches cricket on a scale that no other sport can match. International matches, the IPL, domestic tournaments, highlights, analysis shows, YouTube clips, fantasy leagues and endless debates dominate public attention.
In many parts of India, if two local teams are playing a match on an open ground, people will stop and watch for a few minutes. Very few sports command that kind of organic interest.
The Indian Premier League is not merely India's biggest sporting event; it is one of the most valuable sports properties in the world. The IPL ranks second only to the NFL in per-match media rights value and is among the most-watched sports leagues globally.
Because cricket attracts viewers, it attracts advertisers. Because it attracts advertisers, broadcasters are willing to pay enormous sums for media rights. Because broadcasters pay enormous sums, franchises become valuable. Because franchises become valuable, players earn more.
Brands do not pay Virat Kohli huge endorsement fees out of charity. They do it because he delivers visibility and consumer attention. IPL team owners do not invest hundreds of crores because they simply love the sport. They invest because there is a business case. The money follows the audience.
Now lets look at the example of Punjab sprinter Gurindervir Singh, who recently created history by clocking 10.09 seconds in the men's 100 metres at the National Federation Cup in Ranchi, becoming the first Indian ever to break the 10.10-second barrier and setting a new national record. It was a phenomenal achievement and a landmark moment for Indian athletics. The entire country should celebrate performances like these. We should be proud that Indian athletics is pushing new boundaries and producing athletes capable of rewriting long-standing records.
However...if I am not mistaken, the qualification standard for the men's 100 metres at the Paris Olympics was 10.00 seconds, while the world's elite sprinters regularly run in the 9.8 to 9.9-second range. In other words, while Gurindervir has become India's fastest man, he still has a mile to go in order to compete and perform at an even higher level. He needs support to continue to get better.
Will millions of Indians now start following athletics because of his achievement and to support him? A few people might. Most will not.
The same applies to many of India's sporting icons. We admire Neeraj Chopra. We admire Sunil Chhetri, Baichung Bhutia, Mary Kom, P. V. Sindhu and Saina Nehwal. We proudly celebrate their achievements whenever they bring glory to the country.
But admiration does not translate into viewership.
How many of us regularly watch Diamond League events because Neeraj Chopra competes? How many watch football leagues every week because we admire Sunil Chhetri and other Indian footballers? How many follow badminton tournaments throughout the season because we support P. V. Sindhu? The numbers are nowhere close to cricket.
This is precisely why cricket generates more money.
Even within cricket itself, the economics tell the same story. Many people ask why Smriti Mandhana does not earn as much as Virat Kohli or Rohit Sharma. The answer is not difficult to understand. Kohli and Sharma attract significantly larger television audiences, digital engagement and stadium attendance. Greater attention generates greater revenue.
To BCCI's credit, Indian men's and women's cricketers now receive equal match fees for international appearances. That is a progressive step but to be honest, it look likes an attempt to get some brownie points and popularity votes. Central contract payments are still different, and endorsement earnings remain vastly different, reflecting the commercial realities of the game and the revenue generated by each product.
Whether we like it or not, sport is also an entertainment business.
None of this means the government has no responsibility. It absolutely does. The government must provide infrastructure, coaching, training facilities, sports science support and roadmaps for talented athletes. India still has a long way to go in many of these areas. Better support systems can help athletes compete at the highest level and inspire greater participation. But there is a limit to what governments can achieve through funding alone. They must find a way to bring in corporates into the dynamics.
At this stage, corporates and brands may occasionally step forward to sponsor individual athletes, especially those who have achieved success on the international stage. In many cases, however, such support is driven more by corporate goodwill and social responsibility than by commercial considerations.
The economics become very different when it comes to investing in an entire sport. Brands are willing to spend large sums only when there is a sizeable audience and Return-on-Investment (ROI). Without sustained viewership, the commercial ecosystem simply cannot sustain itself.
That is why the real challenge for most sports in India is not merely producing champions. It is creating an audience. Because once the audience arrives, the sponsors, broadcasters and investors will certainly follow.
The fact is that cricket's wealth is, in large part, a reflection of our own choices. We created this market. We consume cricket more than any other sport. We discuss it more, watch it more and spend more time on it. So before blaming the government, the BCCI or corporate sponsors for cricket's financial dominance, perhaps we should ask a simpler question: do we watch other sports as much as we watch cricket?
If the answer is no, then we are part of the reason cricket has so much money and other sports do not.
No comments:
Post a Comment