Every sport in the world is a function of star power, says Vinit Karnik | Cricket News

Vinit Karnik, managing director (entertainment and sports), WPP Media, South Asia, talks to Vanita Kohli-Khandekar in a video interview about why cricket still dominates and the way forward in the business of sports. Edited excerpts:

  Cricket dominates, but is it a profitable sport? 

It is profitable for everybody except the broadcaster. I have had multiple conversations with the top brass at the BCCI (Board of Control for Cricket in India). They say that whenever they conduct tendering, they keep a very modest benchmark base price.  The media rights community then bids it up. In the last cycle (2017-2022), TV plus digital rights for the IPL were sold for ₹16,347 crore, which has now gone up to ₹48,000 crore for the 2023-2027 cycle. The BCCI has an open and transparent tendering process. If somebody is offering ₹48,000 crore, why would it refuse?

Why have other sports performed so poorly in 2025? 

This was largely due to football. The ISL (Indian Super League) did not take place last year. That alone meant almost ₹250 crore plus out of the market.

Every year the question comes up as to why other sports do not grow. How can this be resolved? 

It is a question we should ask every year, if not more often. It is not that other sports have not tried. Badminton tried, but it did not work. We ourselves were at the centre of it, we got Vodafone as a title sponsor for four consecutive years. The work happening in emerging sports is only in the top of the funnel. Cricket actually did the work in the bottom and middle of the funnel and created IPL after 30 years of existence. All the regional and state boards contributed to that effort. If you look at the cricket World Cup team, except for Jasprit Bumrah and Hardik Pandya, there are kids from all over. There is diversity of talent.

In badminton, for instance, Pullela Gopichand and Prakash Padukone have academies that have produced good players. Why then does the sport still lag? 

 These two people (Gopichand and Padukone) can churn out four players in a year. Those four people is not grassroots for India. After Saina (Nehwal) and P V Sindhu, you have Lakshya Sen. According to me, Gopi and Prakash are still at the top of the funnel, not the bottom. That requires bodies, facilities, and private-public partnerships. Another issue is our entire governance ecosystem. The BCCI doesn’t come under the government purview. It has professionals running the show along with politicians. 

It is a good combination. In the other federations, there are only politicians and no professionals.

Are there any encouraging signs from emerging sports? 

The way athletes and emerging sporting leagues are re-engineering themselves is encouraging. For example, Neeraj Chopra did his content piece of The Neeraj Chopra classic on JioStar. That brings some money into the ecosystem. The Messi tour was messy but hugely successful from a money perspective. The World Pickleball League has a great starting point with two seasons. Prime Volleyball League re-engineered itself and did a good job in 2025. We saw Rugby League’s first season in 2025.

Does people paying to take pictures with Messi or a Chopra documentary mean anything for the ecosystem? 

Nothing. It just shows the popularity of the sport. Football is a hugely popular sport in India. The problem is Indians watch European and not Indian football. The money paid to take photographs with Messi is a testimony to this.

If football is popular, why did ISL not continue? 

Every sport in the world is a function of star power. Unless you create stars, a sport will never become big. Name a sport in the world where you don’t have stars but the sport is big? The Pro-Kabaddi League became popular, but the fandom and the relationship between the sport and the top players didn’t quite work out.