Tej Parikh, the Financial Times’s economics leader writer, delves into why, despite its population size and GDP, India does so poorly when it comes to sport.
…whether it is the Paralympics or Olympics, India underwhelms on the global sports stage, relative to its demographic heft. It has won just 41 medals at the Olympics since 1900. On the balance of probability alone — accounting for 1 in 6 people in the world — the nation’s recent performance is embarrassing. It amassed just six medals at the Olympics this year…
…Success at the Olympics tends to scale with GDP partly because it acts as a proxy for sport expenditure. “Capital-intensive sports — including gymnastics, sailing, swimming, rowing and diving — accounted for 28 per cent of available medals this year,” notes Green. America, China and Britain excel in many of these. “Economic development also means more leisure time and the creation of a sporting culture.”
India’s economic emergence has, however, not translated into stronger investment in sport, or more recreation. Expenditure on physical recreation has not been a priority for successive governments. As a result, wannabe athletes have faced significant hurdles in the form of poor funding and a lack of access to facilities, coaching and equipment.
Poverty remains a challenge. India’s GDP per capita by purchasing power parity is just over $10,000, according to the World Bank, placing it below the likes of Iraq and Eswatini. Parents and teachers, understandably, encourage children to pursue better paid, high-status professions as doctors and engineers.
There is, of course, one sport – cricket – that India does excel in.
[ft.com]
