Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Shraddha Joshi's avatar

Love how detailed this piece was!

Expand full comment
Tarang Nath's avatar

Hi! I appreciate the key ideas mentioned in the piece. Viewership for sure can make or break the commercial viability of a sport. Here is a confusion/thought I would like you to help me with:

So Crossfit as you have mentioned is a secondary sport - eventually summing to the questionable competitiveness - questionable viewership- and questionable commercials. I shared a gym with India's best Crossfitter, his primary sport (in school) was cricket before switching to Crossfit. He opened two gyms and built a strong community, but had to close one after COVID. However, none of those who got into Crossfit felt they were in it to compete. They got in because they felt they could benefit and speak the language. But the growth of the sport might have been stunted because of the inaccessibility of gyms and higher entry to the sport itself. On the other hand, think of commercial bodybuilding gyms. How many Indians think they do bodybuilding almost perfectly vs how many can do a Crossfit open workout? Easier entry, easier language. How many Indians are watching Mr. Olympia vs how many follow Chris Bumstead? Low viewership but high engagement. Bodybuilding though has higher competition than Crossfit, it is surely not as established as Cricket or Kabaddi. Yet a commercially viable space.

Can I extend this to football? The grassroots are nowhere internationally competitive—there's no Neeraj Chopra story, really—but the local discussions and "entries" are abundant. Does it have the makeup of "investable" sport? I wonder.

Ps - With you on all concerns for the wave of Pickle and paddle taking away the light from Tennis.

Expand full comment
3 more comments...

No posts