By Rupinder Singh
New Delhi, Feb 19 (UNI) The latest Indian Premier League auction once again underlined a familiar truth about India’s sports economy: cricket commands capital; the rest compete for crumbs.
A 29-year-old uncapped cricketer from Jammu & Kashmir, Aaquib Nabi, was signed for Rs 8.2 crore at the IPL auction. At the top end of the market, marquee names fetched sums touching Rs 27 crore. The numbers barely raise eyebrows anymore in a league that has mastered the alchemy of television rights, sponsorship bundling and celebrity branding.
Now consider the contrasting trajectory of India’s rising javelin thrower, Sachin Yadav. Fresh from a fourth-place finish at the World Championships in Tokyo, and widely seen as a potential medal contender at future Asian Games, Commonwealth Games and even the Olympics, Yadav has yet to secure a single major corporate sponsor.
The contrast is not merely anecdotal; it reflects structural disparities embedded in India’s sporting ecosystem.
Corporate India follows visibility. Cricket, amplified by the IPL’s prime-time telecast and year-round marketing machine, delivers guaranteed eyeballs. Track and field athletics, despite global icons like Neeraj Chopra, struggle for consistent broadcast slots, let alone sustained narrative building.
Sponsors buy recall. The IPL offers repeat exposure across two months of wall-to-wall programming. Athletics offers sporadic international meets, limited domestic coverage, and modest television ratings. In such a marketplace, brand managers gravitate toward certainty.
But that explanation, while economically rational, leaves a troubling policy question unanswered: should medal prospects in Olympic disciplines be left to fend for themselves in a ratings-driven marketplace?
To its credit, the government has expanded institutional backing. Yadav has been placed under the Target Olympic Podium Scheme (TOPS), and private initiatives such as Olympic Gold Quest provide supplementary assistance. These mechanisms ensure coaching, equipment and travel support.
Yet state subsidy is not the same as corporate endorsement. Sponsorship confers more than money; it builds narrative capital. It signals belief. It multiplies visibility.
When a promising athlete with global podium potential fails to attract a single major sponsor, it points to a deeper coordination failure between federations, marketing bodies and corporate India.
India’s sports economy resembles a steep pyramid. At the apex sits cricket — commercially dominant, culturally entrenched and institutionally powerful. Below it lie Olympic sports, many dependent on episodic bursts of attention during multi-sport events.
The gap is not simply about paychecks; it shapes career choices. Young athletes and their families make pragmatic calculations. Cricket offers financial security, league contracts and brand endorsements. Athletics offers uncertainty, sporadic funding and reliance on government schemes. Over time, this imbalance risks narrowing India’s sporting base.
It would be simplistic to frame the disparity as corporate indifference alone. Sports federations in non-cricket disciplines often lack professional marketing arms. Storytelling around athletes remains underdeveloped. Domestic competitions are poorly packaged for broadcast.
But athletes like Sachin Yadav should not bear the cost of administrative inefficiency or media imbalance.
If India aspires to be a consistent Olympic contender rather than a sporadic medal winner, its sports economy must diversify. That requires federations to professionalize marketing, broadcasters to invest in narrative-building beyond cricket, and corporate India to view Olympic disciplines not merely as charity but as long-term brand partnerships aligned with national aspirations.
For now, the message from the marketplace is clear: cricket is premium inventory; athletics is peripheral. Whether these changes will determine not just endorsement figures, but the breadth of India’s sporting future.
(The author was a national-level sportsperson. Views are personal.)