5 Comments
User's avatar
Shraddha Joshi's avatar

Love how detailed this piece was!

Expand full comment
Ambika Pande's avatar

Appreciate you reading!

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
Ambika Pande's avatar

Hi! Thanks for reading:

My view is in India atleast for football, the problem is that because there is no money really to be made, its a secondary sport, because everyone who shows some promise gravitates towards cricket, because of the money and the ease of coaching involved. So thats problem 1: football doesn't really get the best natural athletes, who also have the backing (family / mindset / funds) to pursue the sport-> which could then play a role in developing "heroes" that the indian audience follows.

2. In India football is still very participative, as you mentioned. Its not become a "viewer" sport, and for those folks who want to watch football, there is way better quality football out there.

So by those logics: as an investible sport, football hasn't really taken off, and in my opinion still has a LONG way to go before it does.

Expand full comment
Tarang Nath's avatar

Hey! I really appreciate the reply. I totally agree with the 2nd for sure. I think I misconstrued that people watching a lot of Premier league and playing games on Sundays doesn't make football the primary sport of people. At least in the sense that the builders around the sport get to monetize the interest or "viewership" in the meaningful way.

I really appreciate the content you have put out on sport and personal insights and views you hold. I look for more engagement going forward.

Thanks

Expand full comment