Inside the $3.82 Billion Plan to Transform Indian Sport
Can India convert $3.82 billion of government spending into better athletes, stronger federations and a larger sports economy?
India has approved the largest sports development programme in its history, committing $3.82 billion between 2026 and 2031 to expand Khelo India and increase support for National Sports Federations. Of that amount, $3.05 billion will go to Khelo India and $774 million to federations. The programme is intended to connect schools and local training centres with academies, National Centres of Excellence, federations and the Target Olympic Podium Scheme. It also introduces Emerging Khelo India Athletes, feeder schools, specialist sports schools, a National Coach Accreditation Board and a single digital platform for athletes, facilities, competitions and funding.
Spread evenly across five years, the programme would require around $764 million annually, more than twice the Department of Sports’ current budget of $326 million. The announcement came after the Union Budget, so the full commitment has not yet been built into annual spending plans. The money will need to be introduced through future budgets and then moved through states, federations, academies, schools and other institutions capable of using it.
The next five years will show whether India can convert this commitment into active facilities, qualified coaches, regular competition, stronger federations and a larger pool of athletes progressing towards international sport.
The $3.82 Billion Commitment Still Has to Convert
The $3.82 billion approved for Khelo India and National Sports Federations is not immediately available to spend. The money must still be provided through each Union Budget or through additional allocations during the year. From there, it has to move through the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, the Sports Authority of India, central agencies, states, universities, academies and federations before reaching athletes and programmes.
Khelo India has generally spent most of the money made available to it, although its annual performance has been uneven. Between 2016 and 2025, the scheme received approximately $521 million and spent $480 million, an overall utilisation rate of about 92%. Annual utilisation was around 68% in 2018 to 2019, 88% in 2021 to 2022 and 83% in 2024 to 2025. In 2025 to 2026, the original allocation of $105 million was reduced to $73 million. By 28 February 2026, expenditure had reached $72.9 million, meaning the revised amount was almost fully spent even though the final budget was $31.5 million below the original allocation.
The new programme requires a far larger spending capacity. If Khelo India’s $3.05 billion allocation were spread evenly across five years, annual expenditure would rise to around $609 million, compared with the current Budget Estimate of $96.9 million. The scheme would therefore need to manage more than six times its present annual allocation. Spending will not be equal every year because infrastructure, schools, centres and technology systems will require funding at different stages, but the government still needs to publish how the money will be phased, which programmes will receive it and when delivery will begin.
The first clear evidence will come from the 2027 Union Budget, the Revised Estimate for 2026 to 2027 and the value of contracts and programmes approved during the first eighteen months. Until then, the $3.82 billion remains a five year commitment whose delivery schedule is still unknown.
India’s Sports Economy Changes Depending on What You Count
India’s sports economy is often described as either a $1.98 billion market or a $19 billion industry. Both figures are useful, but they measure different things.
WPP Media estimates that commercial spending around Indian sport reached $1.98 billion in 2025, up 13.4% from $1.74 billion in 2024. The market has almost doubled from around $1 billion in 2021, growing by approximately 18.5% a year. Media expenditure contributed just over $1 billion, sponsorship added $833 million and athlete endorsements generated $142 million.
KPMG uses a much wider definition. It values the Indian sports industry at approximately $19 billion for 2024 to 2025 and expects it to cross $40 billion by 2030. Its estimate includes professional leagues, media, infrastructure, participation, manufacturing, retail, sports technology, education, tourism, events and athlete services. KPMG also notes that some categories rely on estimates because reporting across Indian sport remains limited and inconsistent.
The two numbers are therefore not competing market estimates. WPP measures the commercial spending visible to teams, leagues, athletes, broadcasters and sponsors. KPMG measures the wider economy built around playing, operating, producing and consuming sport.
The distinction changes the scale of the new government programme. Spread evenly across five years, annual spending of $764 million would equal 38.6% of the commercial market measured by WPP, but only about 4% of KPMG’s wider industry estimate. The programme is therefore very large when compared with the money currently generated through media, sponsorship and endorsements, while remaining much smaller than the full sports economy.
India still lacks one official system for measuring sport’s contribution to employment, consumer spending, manufacturing, trade, tourism, health and urban development. A public investment of $3.82 billion should leave the country with a much clearer view of where money enters the sports system, where it is spent and what economic value it creates by 2031.
What $3.05 Billion Can Actually Buy
Khelo India currently supports 2,905 athletes across 22 sports through 322 accredited academies. Residential support has increased to approximately $6,588 per athlete each year, covering coaching, accommodation, nutrition, competition exposure, sports science, insurance, equipment, education and a monthly allowance of around $105. Supporting all 2,905 athletes at this level would cost about $19.2 million annually, less than 3.2% of the $609 million Khelo India would receive each year if its $3.05 billion allocation were spread evenly across five years.
The government plans to expand the structured athlete pool nearly tenfold. Applying that increase to the current base would take the programme to around 29,050 athletes. Providing every athlete with the full residential package would cost approximately $191 million a year and $957 million over five years, equal to 31.4% of the total Khelo India allocation. The actual cost is likely to be lower because many Emerging Khelo India Athletes may receive lighter support and continue training through schools, local centres or existing academies.
Khelo India Centres are cheaper to run. Each centre can receive up to $5,242 per sport annually, of which around $3,145 is reserved for the former athlete working as coach. Funding all 1,067 existing centres for one sport each at the maximum rate would cost approximately $5.6 million a year.
Infrastructure requires far more capital. By July 2026, Khelo India had approved 349 projects worth approximately $333 million, with an average approved cost of around $954,000 per project. Building another 349 projects at the same average cost would require a further $333 million, equal to 10.9% of the new allocation.
Even after funding a nearly tenfold athlete pool, every existing Khelo India Centre and another infrastructure portfolio of the same size, around $1.75 billion would remain for feeder schools, specialist sports schools, competitions, coaches, technology, Fit India, sports science and programme administration.
The size of the allocation is sufficient to fund a major expansion. The unanswered question is how much each part of the programme will cost and how many athletes it will serve. The government should publish unit costs and capacity for schools, centres, academies and competitions, along with the recurring expenses that will remain after the five year funding period ends.
The Real Test Is How Many Athletes Progress
India has built the basic structure for identifying and developing talent. KIRTI has completed 187,921 assessments through 174 Talent Assessment Centres across 35 states and Union Territories. More than 63,000 athletes have competed in the Khelo India Games since 2018. Parliamentary data show that 2,905 athletes were receiving Khelo India support, while TOPS was supporting 51 core athletes, 52 para core athletes and 130 development athletes as of April 2026.
These figures show the size of each programme, but they do not show how athletes move between them. KIRTI assessments cover different age groups and years, and some athletes may have been assessed more than once. Athletes can also enter through competitions, academies, federations and state programmes. TOPS supports a much smaller group already closer to international competition.
A broad comparison still shows how quickly the numbers narrow. The 2,905 Khelo India Athletes equal around 1.5% of all KIRTI assessments and 4.6% of total Khelo India Games participation since 2018. The 233 athletes supported across the three TOPS categories equal around 8% of the Khelo India Athlete pool. These are not formal conversion rates because the groups cover different athletes and periods, but they give a sense of how few reach the highest level of support.
India does not currently publish enough information about what happens after an athlete is identified. The public record does not show how many enter regular training, how many remain after twelve months, how many move into accredited academies, how many reach junior national teams or how many eventually progress into senior competition and TOPS. The same information should be available by sport, state, gender, disability, age, academy and economic background.
Even the headline figures are unclear. A parliamentary document published in February 2026 reported 2,905 Khelo India Athletes and 322 accredited academies. A PIB backgrounder published in July reported 2,745 athletes and 267 supported academies. The difference may reflect reporting dates, athletes leaving the programme or the distinction between accredited academies and those actively receiving support, but the documents do not explain it.
The strongest measure of Khelo India will be how many athletes remain in the system and how many move into better coaching and stronger competition each year. Medal results will only appear after many of the most important investments in coaching, nutrition, competition and athlete support have already been made.
Can India Use Eight Times More Money Effectively?
Khelo India already operates at national scale. It has approved 344 infrastructure projects, notified 1,067 centres, established 35 State Centres of Excellence, accredited 322 academies and identified 2,905 athletes. The question is how quickly those approvals become completed facilities and active programmes.
A recent parliamentary review found that only 17 of the 55 infrastructure projects approved during the previous three years had been completed. Those projects accounted for $40.4 million of the $71.2 million sanctioned, meaning 31% of projects and 57% of approved value had reached completion. An earlier review of 322 projects found that 198 were complete and 124 remained in progress, giving the wider portfolio a completion rate of 61.5%. The projects were approved at different times, so this is not a direct measure of annual construction speed. It does show that Khelo India is entering a much larger funding cycle with substantial unfinished work.
Money has also been delayed or left unused for administrative reasons. During 2024 to 2025, $12.8 million was returned to the Consolidated Fund following problems linked to the Treasury Single Account transition. That represented 16.5% of the $77.9 million made available to central nodal agencies that year. Another $4.1 million was moved from Khelo India to National Centres of Excellence over two years, while $2 million allocated to playfield development remained unused because eligible organisations did not submit proposals.
These figures show where delivery can break down. States may lack the technical staff needed to prepare project reports. Land records may be incomplete. Utilisation certificates may arrive late. Payment system changes can prevent agencies from drawing funds before the financial year ends. Khelo India already requires audited expenditure statements, utilisation certificates, progress reports, photographs, geotagged evidence and monthly updates, but the larger programme will place much more pressure on the same administrative system.
The government will need to increase delivery capacity alongside funding. Standard designs and procurement documents could reduce preparation time for common facilities. Technical teams could help states complete land records, cost estimates and project reports. Funding could be released in stages after independent engineering checks and verified progress.
Khelo India awards funding to proposals that arrive with suitable land, complete documentation, realistic costs and a workable plan. That protects the scheme from financing projects that are not ready, but it also favours states with stronger officials, engineers and procurement teams. Part of the new funding will therefore need to support project preparation and administration, particularly in states that currently struggle to submit viable proposals.
India has approved eight times more capital. Its ability to use it will depend on whether the people and systems responsible for delivery expand at the same pace.
India Has Built the Facilities. Now It Has to Make Them Useful
Khelo India’s own guidelines acknowledge that many sports facilities across India are underused. The problem is often not the building itself, but the lack of coaches, physiotherapists, equipment, suitable playing surfaces, maintenance and regular operating funds. The Khelo India Centre model was introduced partly to address this by placing former athletes in existing facilities and providing small annual grants to keep them active.
Spending has still been heavily weighted towards new construction. Parliament reviewed 328 infrastructure projects and found that 308 involved new facilities, while only 20 upgraded existing assets. New construction therefore accounted for 94% of the portfolio and renovation just 6%.
The funding structure helps explain why. The Union government can pay for construction, but the state, university or institution receiving the facility must cover maintenance and operations. A completed building is easy to record. Keeping it active requires coaches, equipment, electricity, security, competitions, school partnerships, public access and an annual budget.
Khelo India should therefore measure facilities by usage, not only completion. Every project should disclose how many days it is open, how many hours it is booked, how many athletes train there, how many competitions it hosts and how much it costs to operate. Participation by women and para athletes, periods of closure and public access should also be reported.
The average approved cost of Khelo India’s earlier infrastructure projects was approximately $954,000. A facility used for 20 hours a week provides around 1,040 hours of activity a year. A similar facility used for 70 hours provides 3,640 hours. Both currently count as one completed project, even though the second delivers more than three times as much use.
Khelo India Centres offer a cheaper way to activate existing facilities, although the funding is limited. Each centre can receive up to $5,242 per sport annually. Around $3,145 is reserved for the former athlete working as coach, leaving about $2,097 for equipment, kits, competition travel and other costs. The model can work where the state already provides the venue and additional support, but it is unlikely to fund a complete programme on its own.
Some districts will still need new facilities. Others may already have buildings that are largely empty. In those cases, spending around $52,000 on coaches, equipment, transport and competitions could create more sporting activity than building another $1.05 million facility nearby.
India does not need to stop building sports infrastructure. It needs to make sure the facilities it has already funded are being used.
India Needs a State Sports Balance Sheet
Khelo India operates through 36 state and Union Territory systems, each with different budgets, administrative capacity and sporting priorities. States control many of the schools, facilities, coaches, competitions and athlete reward programmes that determine whether central funding produces results. Since Khelo India funding is based on eligible proposals, states with stronger planning teams, land records and technical staff are usually better placed to secure support.
The current distribution shows why state performance cannot be judged through one number. As of February 2026, Jammu and Kashmir had 100 Khelo India Centres, Assam had 66, Arunachal Pradesh had 54, Madhya Pradesh had 52, Maharashtra had 43, Gujarat had 34 and Haryana had 22. Athlete numbers followed a different pattern. An August 2025 parliamentary response recorded 497 Khelo India Athletes from Haryana, 303 from Maharashtra, 160 from Karnataka, 140 from Delhi and 17 from Bihar.
Haryana had far fewer centres than Jammu and Kashmir but many more supported athletes. That does not automatically make its model better. Jammu and Kashmir may require a wider network to provide access across difficult terrain, while Haryana can concentrate talent through established wrestling, boxing and athletics systems. Some states use centres to widen participation, while others rely on specialist academies or private institutions to produce elite athletes.
India therefore needs a state sports balance sheet showing what each state spends and what that spending produces. It should bring together central grants, state budgets, local government spending, university funding, corporate support, private academy investment and major event capital. It should then show the facilities, coaches, sports scientists, academies, school programmes and competitions supported by that money.
The results should include regular participants, supported athletes, junior and senior national selections, athlete retention, international finalists, medals, facility usage, sports employment and the average cost of supporting an athlete. This would allow states to be judged on both access and performance.
Parliament has already recommended clearer funding criteria and a state sports performance index. That index should account for population, income, geography, existing infrastructure, access for women and the cost of reaching remote areas. States with strong delivery can receive more support to expand successful programmes, while weaker systems may first need engineers, planners, coaches and programme managers capable of preparing and managing projects.
Khelo India will only become a national system when every state has a model suited to its own geography, population and sporting strengths.
The $774 Million Federation Reset
The government has approved $774 million for National Sports Federations over five years, equal to around $155 million annually if distributed evenly. That is a major increase from recent spending. Federation assistance received $44.6 million for 2026 to 2027, while actual expenditure was $28.6 million in 2022 to 2023, $33.8 million in 2023 to 2024 and $26.8 million in 2024 to 2025. The Ministry had estimated that it needed $65.6 million for 2026 to 2027 but received $44.6 million.
The new annual level is almost six times what federations spent in 2024 to 2025 and is close to the $158 million spent on sponsorship across all emerging sports in India during 2025. In many disciplines, government funding could therefore become larger than the commercial income available from sponsorship, events and other private sources.
The additional money can improve national camps, coaching, sports science, international exposure, equipment and domestic competition. It can also increase dependence on public funding if federations have little reason to develop sponsorship, ticketing, memberships, licensing, digital content and their own events.
Federations receiving larger grants should therefore be expected to publish audited accounts, annual calendars, athlete service standards and a clear split between administrative costs and money spent on athletes, coaches, camps and competitions. Public funding can support national teams, junior development, athlete welfare, officiating, inclusion and other areas that commercial income is unlikely to cover fully. Federations should still be expected to grow their own revenue.
The funding model should also reflect the needs of each sport. An individual medal sport has different costs from a team sport that requires a national league and a larger player base. Indigenous sports may create value through participation and local engagement, while para sport carries additional costs for classification, accessible equipment, specialist staff and travel.
Federations with strong governance, audited accounts, regular competition and growing commercial income could receive more flexibility. Those with weaker systems may need tighter controls, technical support and funding linked to specific results.
By 2031, the clearest measure will be whether the extra $774 million has produced stronger governing bodies, better athlete support and more commercial income, or simply larger programmes funded by the government.
India Needs More Competition, Not Just More Talent Identification
India has become better at finding young athletes, but they still need regular competition to improve. One major event a year may help selectors notice an athlete, but it does not provide enough experience against stronger opponents, different conditions and competitive pressure.
Since 2018, more than 63,000 athletes have taken part across the Khelo India Youth, University, Winter, Para, Beach, Water Sports and Tribal Games. The operational guidelines estimated that each group of major competitions could involve around 8,000 athletes and officials, with sponsorship expected to cover costs beyond the government allocation.
The expanded scheme plans to add school, university, regional and sport specific leagues alongside national championships. The most useful measure will be how often each athlete competes. One athlete entering ten events receives far more development than ten athletes appearing once each, even though both can be reported as ten participations.
The women’s league programme shows the scale India can create. By early 2026, the government had reported 2,407 competitions across 34 sports involving more than 200,000 participants. The next step is to show how many were individual athletes, how often they competed and how many later progressed into state or national programmes. (Digital Sansad)
The calendar also needs to work with the education system. Previous Khelo India events have faced changing dates, examination clashes and scheduling at unsuitable points in the sporting season. Schools, universities, federations and Khelo India need a common calendar that allows district and state events to feed into national competition without forcing athletes to choose between sport and education.
A reliable competition calendar also creates commercial value. Local events require venues, officials, transport, accommodation, medical support, equipment, technology and sponsors. Most will remain community events, but some can develop into national properties that are streamed and sponsored throughout the year. A five year calendar would give brands, broadcasters and host cities enough certainty to invest.
Khelo India’s strongest competition product may eventually be a connected season of school, university and age group events leading into the national Games. The national event provides the headline. The athlete development and economic activity are created through the competitions held across the rest of the year.
India Needs More Coaches Before It Expands the Athlete Pool
India is creating a National Coach Accreditation Board to standardise qualifications, but the larger problem is the shortage of people available to work across coaching, sports science and facility delivery.
A parliamentary review found that the Sports Authority of India had filled only 1,378 of its 2,498 sanctioned positions. The remaining 1,120 vacancies represented almost 45% of the workforce. The coaching division had 653 vacancies across 1,524 positions, the sports science division had 138 vacancies across 384 positions, and only three of 25 engineering roles were filled.
These shortages exist before Khelo India expands its structured athlete pool from 2,905 to around 29,000. Using a simple ratio of one coach for every ten athletes, the larger system could require approximately 2,900 coaches. Actual needs will differ by sport. National Centres of Excellence aim for one coach for every eight athletes in individual sports and one for every twelve athletes in team sports.
The full cost would remain small compared with the programme. Paying 2,900 coaches around $6,300 a year would cost approximately $18.2 million annually. Even if that amount doubled to include senior coaches, benefits and employment costs, it would still represent less than 6% of Khelo India’s planned annual spending of $609 million.
The current Khelo India Centre model pays former athletes around $262 a month to coach at the local level. That can help activate centres and create work for retired athletes, but it is unlikely to attract enough specialists in strength and conditioning, physiotherapy, psychology, nutrition and performance analysis.
The accreditation board therefore needs to be linked to paid roles and career progression. Coaches should be able to move from community programmes into state academies, National Centres of Excellence and national teams. Former athletes running local centres and specialists developing international performers will require different qualifications, experience and pay.
International coaches and sports science experts can help close the gap, but their contracts should include training for Indian staff and clear succession plans. India can afford to support a much larger athlete pool. Its progress will depend on whether the number and quality of coaches grow with it.
Feeder Schools Will Decide How Wide the Athlete Pathway Becomes
Khelo India Feeder Schools and Khelo India Utkrishta Vidyalayas are intended to bring talent identification and athlete development into the education system. Their value will depend on what happens after a child is identified. Each athlete needs regular coaching, frequent competition and a clear route into a Khelo India Centre, district academy or specialist sports school.
KIRTI has already completed 187,921 assessments through 174 centres, equal to around 1,080 assessments per centre. Reaching ten times as many children at the same rate would require capacity equal to roughly 1,740 assessment centres. Feeder schools can extend that reach more efficiently because the students, teachers and playing spaces are already in one place.
The school network should reflect local sporting strengths and realistic travel times. Districts with established athletics or wrestling systems can focus on those sports. Coastal areas can build programmes around rowing, sailing and water sports, while regions with strong archery or weightlifting traditions can use the coaches, facilities and knowledge already available.
Education will also determine how many athletes remain in the system. Parliamentary reviews found cases where residential athletes continued to be enrolled in schools in their home states while training elsewhere. The Committee recommended easier access to nearby Kendriya Vidyalayas so athletes could continue their education where they trained. Feeder schools and specialist sports schools will therefore need clear rules covering attendance, examinations, residential support and academic flexibility.
The cost will vary by institution. A feeder school using existing facilities may only require coaches, equipment, transport and competition funding. An Utkrishta Vidyalaya may need residential facilities, teachers, sports scientists and specialist infrastructure. The two models should therefore have separate budgets, staffing standards and athlete capacities.
Private schools and academies can help expand the network, but access should not depend on a family’s ability to pay. The government should track whether athletes from government schools, rural districts, lower income families and remote communities are progressing into academies and higher levels of competition.
The success of the feeder school network will be measured by how many identified children receive regular coaching, remain in sport and move into stronger competition. Increasing the number of assessments alone will not produce more developed athletes.
India Needs One Reliable Sports Database
The Cabinet has proposed a single digital platform covering athletes, facilities, competitions, coaches, talent assessments, funding and Fit India participation. Its first task should be to establish one reliable set of numbers across Indian sport.
At present, data are spread across Ministry releases, Sports Authority systems, Khelo India dashboards, federations, states, universities and academies. Different sources may count facilities that have been approved, completed or are currently operating. Athlete figures may refer to those identified, selected, funded or still active, without making that distinction clear.
Recent government figures show the problem. A parliamentary document reported 2,905 Khelo India Athletes, while a PIB backgrounder published several months later reported 2,745. The same sources listed 322 accredited academies and 267 supported academies. Both sets of figures may be correct, but the documents do not explain whether the difference reflects reporting dates, athletes leaving the programme or separate definitions.
Every athlete should have one record covering assessments, coaching, academy placements, competition results, injuries, funding and movement between programmes. Facilities should also remain visible after construction, with information on ownership, approved cost, funding released, completion, public access and actual usage. Coaches should have verified qualifications and employment histories, while grants should be linked to the athlete, academy, federation or facility receiving them.
Public information should show expenditure, project progress, participation and overall performance. Medical, educational and personal records will require stricter protection because the platform will hold sensitive information about children, health and sporting performance.
A reliable system would also help academies verify competition histories, universities identify athletes, federations track age group depth and companies understand participation and equipment demand. Its value will come from replacing conflicting figures and duplicate reporting with a clear view of who is active, where the money has gone and what the system is producing.
Can Khelo India Build a Bigger Sports Economy Beyond Cricket?
India’s commercial sports market reached approximately $1.98 billion in 2025, but cricket generated around $1.75 billion and increased its share from 85% to 89%. All other sports combined fell 12.2% to $226 million. Cricket also accounted for 81% of sponsorship spending, 87% of athlete endorsements and 95% of media expenditure, while sponsorship outside cricket declined 16.7% to $158 million.
The fall partly reflected disruption to the Indian Super League and the absence of a major global event comparable with the Paris Olympics in 2024. It still shows how quickly commercial activity can decline when a league, event or period of international success disappears.
Khelo India can strengthen this market by producing more athletes, regular competitions and a larger volume of sports content. Commercial growth will depend on whether audiences can follow recognisable athletes through reliable calendars and easily accessible events. That attention can then support sponsorship, media rights, ticketing, merchandise, participation and licensing.
The opportunity will vary by sport. Badminton combines broad participation, established athletes and a format suited to regular indoor competition. Kabaddi already has cultural familiarity and a professional product. Wrestling and weightlifting have strong athlete pipelines but need more reliable events and governance. Volleyball, kho kho, table tennis and chess can grow through lower cost venues and digital distribution. Para sport combines strong Indian performance with a commercial market that remains largely undeveloped. Athletics has clear participation and Olympic value, although its domestic commercial model is less obvious.
Not every sport needs to become commercially independent. Some will continue to justify public support through participation, inclusion, health or medal performance. The commercial test is whether more federations and properties can generate part of their income from audiences, sponsors, events and participation instead of relying almost entirely on government grants.
By 2031, the clearest measure will be whether sports outside cricket have grown meaningfully from their current $226 million base. If Khelo India creates more athletes and events while cricket continues to control close to 90% of the market, India will have expanded sporting activity without materially changing the commercial structure of its sports economy.
Khelo India Can Also Strengthen India’s Sports Manufacturing Industry
NITI Aayog estimates India’s sports goods market at approximately $2.5 billion, with sports equipment accounting for around $500 million. India imports nearly 63% of the equipment used in the country, and more than 60% of those imports come from China. As Khelo India expands schools, centres, academies and competitions, a large share of the resulting equipment spending could continue leaving the domestic economy unless local production improves.
India already has a substantial manufacturing base in Jalandhar and Meerut. Together, the two clusters contain more than 250 exporters, over 1,000 businesses serving the domestic market, more than 4,000 micro enterprises and close to 20,000 household units. Almost 90% of Indian sports equipment production comes from small and micro businesses.
That manufacturing base has not translated into a stronger global position. India’s share of sports equipment exports fell from 0.7% in 2014 to 0.5% in 2024. Vietnam began the period with a similar share and expanded it almost threefold by improving sourcing, attracting global brands and building related manufacturing capacity.
The Union Budget has separately allocated around $52.4 million to sports goods manufacturing. Khelo India can make that programme more effective by creating predictable demand for equipment, playing surfaces, fitness products, timing systems, para sport equipment and performance technology. Long term procurement contracts could give manufacturers enough confidence to invest in machinery, materials, testing and product development.
Domestic purchasing still needs to be tied to safety and performance standards. India needs common testing laboratories, certification support and stronger links between manufacturers, federations, academies and athletes. The government should also publish what it buys, which suppliers receive contracts, how much domestic value each product contains and where imports are still required. This would show which categories Indian companies can already supply and where further investment is needed.
By 2031, Khelo India should be able to show whether equipment imports have fallen, manufacturing employment has grown, more Indian products have received recognised certification and the country has recovered some of its lost export share. The same spending used to develop athletes can also help Indian manufacturers build better products and compete in a larger global market.
What India Should Have to Show by 2031
By 2031, Khelo India could be supporting between 25,000 and 30,000 athletes, depending on how Emerging Khelo India Athletes are finally defined. That figure will only be meaningful if the government can also show how many athletes remain in the system, how often they compete and how many progress into academies, federations, national teams and TOPS.
The same standard should apply across the programme. Every Khelo India Centre should be identified as approved, funded, staffed or fully operational. Facilities should report public access and actual usage. Academies should disclose athlete retention and progression, while federations should publish audited accounts, annual calendars, athlete spending and income earned outside government grants.
The movement of money should be visible from the original approval through to completed delivery. India should be able to show how much entered each annual Budget, how much was released, contracted and spent, and what that spending produced. Capital expenditure should be separated from recurring costs, while administrative spending should be shown separately from money spent directly on athletes, coaches and competition.
Khelo India should also enter 2031 with fewer unfinished projects, lower vacancies in coaching, sports science and engineering, and a clear record of how many accredited professionals are working across the system. Competition reporting should show unique athletes, annual starts and progression, including whether women and para athletes receive regular access to coaching and events.
The wider economy should also be stronger. Sports outside cricket currently generate around $226 million in commercial value. Federations should be earning more through sponsorship, events, media and participation. India should also reduce its current 63% dependence on imported sports equipment and improve its 0.5% share of global sports equipment exports.
The proposed digital platform should bring these figures into one verified system. By 2031, India should be able to show where the money went, who benefited and what the $3.82 billion programme produced.
Found this report valuable, do share it ahead!