Can India turn sports equipment into an $8.1 billion export industry?

The $8.1 billion question

India's ambition to build an $8.1 billion sports-equipment export industry is not merely a sporting proposition, but a manufacturing challenge that will require cutting input costs, modernising factories, creating internationally accredited testing facilities and using major sporting events to generate orders for domestic companies.

The numbers come from NITI Aayog's March 2026 report, 'Realising the Export Potential of India's Sports Equipment Manufacturing Sector', as reported by Business Standard. The report sets a target of increasing annual exports from $275 million in 2024 to $8.1 billion by 2036, which would require India's share of global sports-equipment exports to rise from about 0.5 per cent to 11 per cent.

The operational challenges were discussed by policymakers and manufacturers at the IAMGAME Sports Conclave at Bharat Mandapam in New Delhi on Friday, as reported by Business Standard. The panel, moderated by Abhishek Anand, Head of the Sports & Physical Activity Centre, included Sanjeet Singh, Programme Director at NITI Aayog; Piyush Doshi, Operating Partner at The Convergence Foundation; and Kunal Anand, Director at Sanspareils Greenlands.

Their discussion suggested that India's expanding sporting calendar and rising domestic participation can provide a base for growth, but will not be enough by themselves. The country must first make its factories competitive with those in China, Vietnam and Pakistan.

Where India stands and what it costs

India's domestic sports-goods market is estimated at $2.5 billion, with equipment accounting for around $500 million, according to the report. About 63% of the sports equipment consumed in India is imported, with China supplying more than 60% of those imports. Vietnam, which had a global export share comparable to India's about a decade ago, expanded its presence nearly threefold, an example of what effective policy can do.

Indian manufacturers face an average cost disadvantage of around 15% compared with leading Asian competitors such as China and Pakistan. The report attributes around 77% of this disadvantage to structural factors such as expensive raw materials and machinery. import duties, anti-dumping measures and Quality Control Order restrictions increase the price of imported inputs such as carbon fibre, polyurethane, and thermoplastic polyurethane sheets.

Puneet Anand, Director at Sanspareils Greenlands, highlighted the price gap: for a cricket bat, Indian manufacturers get almost 30-40% better realisation selling in India than selling globally, because globally everything is about price.

The industry structure compounds the problem. Nearly 90% of India's sports-manufacturing production is driven by small and micro enterprises, as reported by both Business Standard and BSS (Lokmat Times). The report identified that Meerut and Jalandhar together contain more than 250 exporting units, over 1,000 domestic-market-focused enterprises, more than 4,000 micro enterprises and nearly 20,000 household units.

The cost of certification and the cluster solution

Testing is a major bottleneck. India does not have enough internationally accredited laboratories; companies must often send products overseas. For cricket helmet certification, a manufacturer may have to send as many as 60 helmets, costing Rs 6-7 lakh and taking four to six months.

To address these issues, the report recommends Rs 4,000 crore for four greenfield manufacturing clusters close to ports, and another Rs 1,000 crore to modernise the existing Meerut and Jalandhar clusters. Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu have been identified as possible locations because of their ports, industrial infrastructure, and access to workers.

Piyush Doshi noted that clusters reduce costs via co-location, and he advocated for government support as a 'starter motor', not permanent. He specifically called import duty a 'big one'.

The roadmap: public support and private potential

The overall government package is Rs 7,500 crore during 2027-31, broken down as: Rs 5,000 crore for clusters, Rs 1,700 crore for scale and competitiveness, Rs 200 crore for certification, Rs 100 crore for market access, and Rs 500 crore for the Brand India programme. The report also proposes a Sports Manufacturing and Export Promotion Cell.

The export opportunity phases are: $3.4 billion from balls, cricket equipment, boxing gear, and table-tennis products; $2.4 billion from rackets, cycling, sports flooring, hockey equipment; and another $2.4 billion from water sports, shooting, and golf.

The report also points to the missed opportunities of hosting events: India has hosted 17 major international sporting events since Independence without sufficiently using them to develop the industry. As Sanjeet Singh put it, these were '17 missed opportunities'. Tenders for events in India often specified Australian, American, or European makes, disqualifying Indian manufacturers. By contrast, Paris 2024 awarded contracts worth about €5 billion, with 90% of French-based companies and 78% small and medium enterprises, and London 2012 procurement of £6.9 billion with 98% UK-based.

Singh argued that Vietnam focused on manufacturing and export from the beginning and rationalised duties on inputs. He also suggested that India should not wait for a brand to manufacture; becoming an OEM for international brands is viable, citing Pakistan making footballs for Adidas.

Building the 'Made in India' brand

Sanjeet, Senior Advisor at NITI Aayog, said on Tuesday that the government has been focusing on sports manufacturing as a strategic growth driver, with a broader aim to build a globally recognized 'Made in India' brand, as reported by Lokmat Times.

"Branding is the essential lifeblood of making things work. But we don't have to wait for branded products to be able to boost our manufacturing in India. Simultaneously, our goal should be the 'Made in India' brand," Singh said.

He stress that building the brand cannot be the responsibility of a single individual or organisation; it would require collective effort from athletes, sportspersons, young people, corporate houses and platforms such as Sportscom.

Singh said that under the Aatmanirbhar initiative, NITI Aayog prepared a roadmap for the sector, which was subsequently converted into a scheme by the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports. He highlighted that detailed studies and interactions with manufacturers showed that most of the issues were non-financial in nature, relating to regulations and bottlenecks. With 90% of manufacturers being MSME units, addressing these procedural issues is critical for strengthening the ecosystem.

A growth story or another missed opportunity?

Karan Singh Chettri, CEO of ESP 360 Degree Solution, estimated that the broader sports ecosystem could become a $20-25 billion growth story over five years.

But the question remains, as Singh asked: with 17 missed opportunities behind, will this be the 18th? The hurdles—cost disadvantages, certification delays, fragmented industry, and import duties—are significant, but the report's framework of clusters, investment funds, and policy focus offers a path.