The 2024 Paris Olympics came to a close and with it India’s modest medal count of six, thus reopening the timeless debate related to the prized possession of non-cricket sports in the country’s future. With a string of 117 athletes, India had tried to do its best on the global stage, raising a question about the impact that it would have on brand value outside the realm of cricket.

Compared to the 2020 Tokyo Games, the contingent did better, winning seven medals at the Summer Olympics, including India’s first-ever gold from Neeraj Chopra in men’s javelin throw. The Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports made this revelation: the government has shelled out a humongous amount of Rs 470 crore to prepare the athletes for Paris. For those, however, which fell below expectation in numbers of medals accrued, there were certain questions that were raised with regards to the efficacy of sports development programs in India and even over the athletes’ performance themselves.

The six-medal haul from Manu Bhaker, Aman Sehrawat, Swapnil Kusale, the Hockey team, and Neeraj Chopra is an improvement from the pre-Olympics but falls far below expectations, with the huge Indian contingent that has been put in, including fresh investments.

A number of Indian athletes went as strong medal contenders in their respective games but had to return with disappointing results in the Paris Olympics. Satwiksairaj Rankireddy and Chirag Shetty had come to Tokyo as one of the medal favorites, but they failed in their intended goal. In other disappointments, badminton player PV Sindhu also fell short in the singles competition. In fact, two-time world champion Nikhat Zareen also exited early from boxing, which was a really heart-breaking moment. The shooting contingent, which included hopes like Sift Kaur Samra and Anjum Moudgil, could not deliver as per expectations.

This may not be compared to the general success of Indian cricket, but will it make a difference in sponsorship and brand association for athletic events other than cricket?

While they admit that the medal tally this time around may not be up to expectations, industry experts see a bright side to all these Olympics, with the real victory lying in the increased visibility and public engagement with these sports. By this probably optimistic reckoning, there is some rationale to the logic. Namrata Parekh is the co-founder and a director of the sports marketing agency Meraki Sports & Entertainment.

‘To be honest, I really think it’s a little unfair to say that the Olympics were underwhelming,’ said Parekh. ‘There are too many factors, too many technicalities that play into an athlete’s performance at this level. All that’s needed is one bad day or one great moment, and this is sport.’

Parekh does suggest what would be the biggest plus point or silver lining: a surge in public interest and understanding, minus a misconception about the sport. “How could you characterise it as a poor campaign when all of a sudden nearly every man and his dog across the nation, who previously would have never taken interest in the sport, knew all about wrestling weight categories, the in’s and out’s of fourth-quarter tactics in hockey, weightlifting point scoring, doubles qualifiers in badminton, etc. I can’t help but view this as a good thing.”

With greater engagement and understanding of different sports, it is likely to lead to this upliftment for other non-cricket athletes in terms of brand value. As people gradually start to become familiar with these sports, immense scope lies in store for a fan base, and with the increase in viewership, it simply amounts to more lucrative propositions for brands to be in association with that athlete.

The other contributory factor might have been the greater alacrity afforded to this sudden vigilant consciousness by JioCinema streaming the whole damn thing from Paris for free. This is the aspect to which Siddharth Raman applies this new line of thought in his role as CEO of Sportz Interactive, a sports digital agency:.

“Free streaming of the Paris 2024 Olympic Games may have been an important factor in enhancing the visibility of non-cricket athletes in India,” says Raman. “In no small measure, this visibility celebrates the athletes across sports such as shooting, javelin, hockey, badminton, table tennis, and wrestling, amongst others, but also paves the way for increasing the fan base and support for such disciplines, thereby changing the way the future of sport might evolve in this country, particularly.”

The reach of online platforms goes much farther than the traditional television viewers and extends even to the television-dark areas. Such extended reach may help expand and diversify further the fan bases of various sports, which could finally bring about higher brand values for athletes.

Dr. Santosh Patra, head of Mudra Institute of Communications (MICA) Centre for Media and Entertainment Studies (CMES), relates it with the development in a cricket-crazy nation. “Take cricket for example, it took almost thirty years between 1982 to 2011 to get the World Cup. We didn’t have the success in between, but there was a lot of buzz around cricket through and through,” he explains.

Some expectations are not met, but it is a fact that whatever we saw go successful in Paris initiated a whole lot of discussions amidst fans and consumers.

Stating this, Patra says, ” Success is not the only driver for consumer interest in sports. While some expectations were not met, we should acknowledge that whatever success we have seen in Paris has led to a lot of discussion among fans and consumers. It isn’t necessary that only success can bring consumer interest in sports but the larger discussions around them can play a big part in doing that,” he says.

Experts agree that the key to increasing brand value in non-cricket athletes lies in fostering communities around these sports. As Parekh notes, “Brands especially need to see the wins here. Don’t just get on the bandwagon when there are medals, but help build the pathway to the podium.”