NITI Aayog

Choose Report Type

Publications

Publication Date

Thu, 03/19/2026 - 11:47

Report Upload

Download (9.11 MB)

vertical

Economics & Finance-II

PDF Text

i
EVENT REPORT
Realising the
Export Potential of
India’s Sports Equipment
Manufacturing Sector
MARCH 2026 Disclaimer:
The information presented in this report is intended for general informational purposes only and
does not address the specific circumstances of any individual or entity. While every effort has
been made to ensure the accuracy of the information using reliable sources, no representation
or warranty is made regarding its completeness or accuracy. The information may change over
time, and readers are advised to seek appropriate professional advice before making decisions
based on this report.
Realising the Export Potential of India’s Sports Equipment Manufacturing Sector
Copyright@ NITI Aayog, 2026
Published: March 2026
NITI Aayog
Government of India
Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001, India iii
Realising the
Export Potential of
India’s Sports Equipment
Manufacturing Sector
March 2026 iv v vi vii viii MESSAGE – Ashish Dhawan
Sports equipment occupies a unique position in manufacturing: it is among the few product categories
where performance, safety, and quality matter as much as cost. Whether used by professional athletes
or young players, sports equipment is subject to visible scrutiny - failure is immediate, reputational,
and often public. As a result, global markets for sports equipment are shaped not only by price
competitiveness, but by quality and brand-pull built over time.
India’s sports equipment ecosystem has historically been led by organic cluster growth and legacy
manufacturing skills. While this model has sustained production in several clusters and allowed India
to manufacture high quality products, the sector’s ability to scale into demanding global markets
that require cost competitiveness, continuous tech upgradation and international visibility remains
constrained. This report starts from the premise that the next phase of growth in sports goods must
therefore be anchored in international market penetration and brand-building.
The report is designed as a decision framework, not a generic sector overview. It evaluates sports
categories based on their manufacturing requirements, domestic supply ecosystems, certification
intensity, key competitors etc. and uses this lens to identify where India can realistically build trust-
based competitiveness. It also highlights gaps in testing infrastructure, certification pathways, athlete
endorsement and coordination between manufacturers and sporting institutions—areas that are
essential for building reputation at scale. The recommendations focus on strengthening these trust
enablers: shared testing and certification facilities, clearer alignment with international standards,
structured use of athletes and institutions for product validation and eased policy frameworks that
allow manufacturers to invest with confidence.
At the Foundation for Economic Development, we believe that sectors which provide large scale
employment and have high export demand must be strengthened from ground-up - this is a sincere
attempt at facilitating the same. We are grateful to NITI Aayog for partnering with us on this effort, and
acknowledge the guidance of Shri BVR Subrahmanyam, as well as the leadership of Shri Sanjeet Singh
and the E&F II team. We hope this report contributes to a stronger and globally recognised sports
equipment ecosystem in India.
Ashish Dhawan
Member of Board of Advisors & Governing Council
Foundation for Economic Development MESSAGE – Piyush Doshi
India’s growth story over the coming decades will be shaped by its ability to create large-scale
employment while expanding its footprint in global markets. Labour-intensive, export-oriented
manufacturing is central to this objective, and the sports goods sector represents a powerful yet
underutilised opportunity in this regard. With its high employment potential, strong MSME participation,
and alignment with global demand, sports equipment manufacturing can play a meaningful role in
driving inclusive and sustained economic growth.
What distinguishes the sports equipment manufacturing is its inherent diversity. It is not a single
industry, but a collection of multiple sub-industries—each with distinct raw materials (rubber, polymers,
composites, wood, metals), manufacturing processes (cutting, stitching, molding, machining, finishing),
and skill requirements. As a result, strengthening sports equipment manufacturing creates shared
capabilities across design, quality control, supplier networks, and shop-floor productivity that can be
leveraged by several other labour-intensive sectors. This interlinkage makes sports goods particularly
well suited to cluster-led development and MSME-driven growth.
This report takes a differentiated, evidence-based approach by assessing global demand and export
capabilities across sports to provide targeted interventions and identify key opportunity areas. By
aligning policy support, cluster development and industry capabilities around priority segments, India
can use sports equipment manufacturing as a catalyst for strengthening a wider ecosystem of labour-
intensive industries.
At the Foundation for Economic Development (FED), we believe that such ecosystem-oriented
thinking is essential to building sustainable manufacturing growth. I thank NITI Aayog for its close
partnership in developing this report, and express my appreciation to Shri BVR Subrahmanyam for his
guidance, as well as Shri Sanjeet Singh and the E&F II team for their leadership and collaboration. It is
our hope that this report supports informed decision-making and helps unlock the broader industrial
and employment potential embedded within India’s sports equipment sector.
Piyush Doshi
Operating Partner
Foundation for Economic Development Preface
India’s relationship with sport is ancient and enduring. Long before stadiums and scoreboards,
physical excellence found expression in the traditional wrestling akharas, the discipline of archery, and
indigenous games like kabaddi and kho-kho, which have been woven into the cultural and civilisational
fabric of the country since Vedic times. Sport in India has never been merely recreational; it has been
a marker of strength, resilience, community, and identity.
Over the decades, this relationship evolved. The colonial period introduced modern competitive sports
such as cricket and hockey, which India did not just adopt, but made its own. As a nation, we have
been united by moments of sporting triumph - Major Dhyan Chand’s unmatched dominance in hockey,
Milkha Singh’s unforgettable runs that redefined courage and perseverance, India’s historic 1983 &
2011 Cricket World Cup win and Abhinav Bindra’s Olympic gold that marked a turning point in India’s
individual sporting excellence.We have cheered from our homes, our streets, our stadiums, and we
have proudly hosted international sporting events, welcoming the world to compete on Indian soil.
This national momentum around sport is set to accelerate further as India prepares for the next phase
of its global sporting engagement. With the country set to host the Commonwealth Games in the
coming decade and actively pursuing a bid for the Olympic Games, sport is increasingly being viewed
not only as a source of national pride but as a strategic economic and industrial opportunity. Large-
scale international events bring with them sustained investments in infrastructure, training ecosystems,
and sporting culture, while also creating long-term demand for high-quality sports equipment across
disciplines. For India, this presents a timely opportunity to align its manufacturing capabilities with its
ambitions on the global sporting stage.
Yet, while India’s emotional and cultural engagement with sport runs deep, its participation in sports
equipment manufacturing has remained relatively modest. The foundations of the industry were laid
in Sialkot (now in Pakistan) before gradually shifting to manufacturing clusters such as Jalandhar
and Meerut. Over time, these clusters developed strong artisanal capabilities and a dense network of
small and medium enterprises. However, the sector has largely remained fragmented and has not fully
transitioned to the scale-driven, technology-enabled manufacturing that defines today’s global sports
equipment industry.
Globally, the sports goods and equipment market has expanded rapidly, driven by rising participation
in sports and fitness, increasing professionalisation of leagues, growing youth engagement, and the
emergence of new materials and performance technologies. This growth has not been captured by a
single country alone. While China continues to play a dominant role, several other countries, including
Pakistan and Vietnam, have successfully integrated themselves into global value chains, building scale,
specialisation, and export competitiveness across a wide range of sports categories. These examples
demonstrate that sports manufacturing is not merely capital-intensive, but ecosystem-driven, thriving
where policy, infrastructure, skills, and market access align.
India, in this context, finds itself well-positioned at the cusp of opportunity. The country already
possesses many of the foundational elements required for growth - a large domestic market with
rising sports participation, a deep base of skilled and semi-skilled labour, established manufacturing
clusters, and increasing policy focus on manufacturing and exports. While the ecosystem today remains
relatively small in global terms, it carries significant potential to expand, provided key structural and
operational barriers are systematically addressed and the sector is enabled to modernise, integrate,
and compete.
This moment of opportunity is further reinforced by recent policy signals from the Government of
India. For the first time, the Union Budget 2026 explicitly articulated India’s ambition to emerge as a global hub for high-quality, affordable sporting goods. A dedicated allocation of ₹500 crore for
the Promotion of Sports Goods Manufacturing marks a significant inflection point for the sector. The
budget places strong emphasis on innovation in equipment design and material sciences, revival and
upgradation of key manufacturing clusters such as Jalandhar and Meerut, and strengthening cost
competitiveness through improved infrastructure and technology adoption. Complementary measures,
including a ₹10,000 crore SME growth fund, enhanced support for branding and market access, and
closer alignment with sports infrastructure development, signal a coordinated push to unlock scale,
reduce import dependence, and position Indian manufacturers more competitively in global markets.
Through this report, we undertake a comprehensive examination of the sports goods manufacturing
sector, both globally and within India. The analysis maps the size and structure of the global opportunity,
assesses India’s current positioning, and identifies the segments and categories where the country can
realistically build scale and competitiveness. It examines both demand-side factors, such as market
access, branding, procurement norms, and export linkages, as well as supply-side challenges, including
technology adoption, raw material access, quality standards, compliance, and workforce capabilities.
The report concludes with a set of targeted, actionable recommendations aimed at unlocking growth
across the value chain. If implemented, these measures have the potential to significantly boost
domestic manufacturing, enhance exports, generate employment, particularly within MSMEs, and create
sustained economic value. Beyond numbers, strengthening this sector offers India the opportunity to
align its manufacturing capabilities with its long-standing sporting passion, ensuring that the equipment
used on fields across the world increasingly carries the mark of Indian craftsmanship and capability.
This study is grounded in extensive primary and secondary research. It draws on consultations with over
50 stakeholders, including manufacturers across clusters, industry bodies, exporters, and ecosystem
participants, supplemented by detailed secondary analysis of trade data, policy frameworks, and global
benchmarks. To the best of our knowledge, this represents one of the most comprehensive, first-of-
its-kind assessments of India’s sports goods manufacturing ecosystem, aimed not just at diagnosing
challenges, but at charting a credible path forward for the sector. Table of Contents
List of Abbreviations��i
Executive Summary ��ii
Chapter 1: Understanding the Sports Goods Ecosystem
��2
Chapter 2: Objective of the Study
��4
Chapter 3: Global Market Overview
��6
Chapter 4: India Market Overview
��12
Chapter 5: Unlocking India’s Olympic Opportunity�� 16
Chapter 6: Opportunity��20
Chapter 7: Challenges
��22
Chapter 8: Where to Play: Strategic Prioritisation of Sports
Categories for Export Competitiveness
��60
Chapter 9: Key Recommendations
��64
Chapter 10: Conclusion��82
Appendix��83
References��96
Authors and Contributors��97
Acknowledgement��98 i
List of Abbreviations
Abbreviation Full Form
BSIBritish Standards Institution
BWFBadminton World Federation
CEConformité Européenne (European Conformity)
CNC Machine Computer Numerical Control Machine
DDDuty Drawback
DFISDuty Free Import Scheme
EVA Foam Ethylene Vinyl Acetate Foam
FIBAFédération Internationale de Basketball (International
Basketball Federation)
FIFAFédération Internationale de Football Association
(International Federation of Association Football)
FIHFédération Internationale de Hockey (International Hockey
Federation)
FIVBFédération Internationale de Volleyball (International
Volleyball Federation)
FTAFree Trade Agreement
ICCInternational Cricket Council
ITTFInternational Table Tennis Federation
MCMachinery related costs
PU/TPU Polyurethane/Thermoplastic Polyurethane
QCOQuality Control Order
RMRaw Materials
RoDTEP Remission of Duties and Taxes on Exported Products
UCIUnion Cycliste Internationale (International Cycling Union) ii
Executive Summary
The sports goods industry encompasses a wide range of products including apparel, footwear,
equipment, accessories and infrastructure, covering the entire range of athletes’ sporting needs.
Sports equipment in particular forms an important pillar of this ecosystem, supporting the core
growth of sporting culture across professional tournaments, grassroot participation in schools and
clubs. This report highlights the significant growth potential of sports equipment sector for India’s
manufacturing and export ambitions. With the global sports equipment market currently valued at
$140bn and projected to expand to $300bn by 2036, the sector offers a substantial opportunity for
India to increase its global market share, generate large-scale employment, and move up the value
chain. This executive summary presents the report’s key insights, covering global market trends, India’s
current manufacturing and export position, the untapped export opportunity, supply and demand-side
constraints and a targeted roadmap to position India as a competitive and reliable global supplier of
sports equipment.
Global Market Overview and Trends
The global sports goods market (including sports apparel and footwear, sports equipment, and sports
accessories) was valued at approximately $700bn in 2024 and is projected to grow at a CAGR of 4.6%,
crossing $1 trillion by 2036. Within this broader market, sports equipment constitutes around 20%,
representing a $140bn segment that is expected to grow steadily over the next decade.
While global exports for sports goods stood at $132bn, for equipment in particular, the exports were
valued at approximately $52bn in 2024. China dominates sports equipment exports, with a 40-
50% share across categories. Beyond China, the market is shared among the United States, Taiwan,
Germany, and Vietnam.
Additionally, while Vietnam and India held comparable export shares in 2013, Vietnam has since
expanded nearly threefold, whereas India has stagnated. Vietnam’s growth has been driven by an
ecosystem-led manufacturing strategy anchored by long-term partnerships with global brands,
aggressive utilization of free trade agreements, cost-efficient raw material sourcing from China, and
coordinated policy support – a trajectory that India must look to replicate.
India’s Position in the Industry
India’s global footprint in sports equipment exports remains limited at around 0.5% market share,
despite a sizeable domestic manufacturing base. In 2024, the country exported $275Mn worth of sports
equipment which was concentrated in a narrow set of products like cricket equipment, inflatable balls,
boxing gear and athletic/weightlifting equipment. On the other hand, India’s reliance on imports is
heightened by the lack of scale and a holistic ecosystem for all sports goods. Manufacturing is clustered
in legacy hubs such as Jalandhar and Meerut and is overwhelmingly MSME-led, which constrains scale,
technology adoption, and export readiness.
Recognizing this untapped potential, recent policy momentum (including a dedicated allocation of INR
500 Cr for sports goods manufacturing in Budget 2026, cluster revitalization, MSME scaling support,
and institutional realignment under the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports) provides a foundation to
address these constraints.
The report identifies an $8.1bn export opportunity over the next decade, achievable by targeting an
11% export market share in sports equipment. This ambition could generate ~54 lakh additional jobs by
2036, significantly boosting employment opportunities in the country. iii
2036: Olympics and the Make-in-India Opportunity
A decade-long global sporting event cycle (including the Los Angeles Olympics 2028, Commonwealth
Games 2030 in Ahmedabad, Brisbane Olympics 2032, and India’s planned bid to host the 2036 Olympic
Games) creates a continuing opportunity for large-scale procurement of sports equipment. India’s
ambition to host the 2036 Olympics must come with a strong emphasis on Make in India, as these
games can act as a powerful demand anchor, boost MSMEs and provide global visibility. Leveraging
this 10-year event-led demand can help Indian manufacturers integrate into international supply chains
well ahead of the Olympic Games.
The export opportunity for India’s sports equipment sector is therefore not aspirational but anchored
in India’s legacy manufacturing capabilities, which can be bolstered, especially given the global
opportunity and upcoming events within the sports ecosystem. While Vietnam and Pakistan have
capitalized on the China +1 opportunity, India is yet to do so. India currently faces a 10-20% cost
disadvantage relative to China/Pakistan, primarily due to higher raw material costs, lower levels of
mechanization, high land costs and inland logistics inefficiencies. Systematically addressing these cost
drivers, while leveraging event-led demand and policy momentum, could enable India to scale exports
and establish itself as a competitive global supplier of sports equipment.
Key Challenges Facing the Sports Equipment Industry
The sports equipment industry can be classified into 4 sub-groups that vary by manufacturing processes
and raw material inputs, machinery requirements, domestic capabilities etc. (as elaborated further in
the report). However, the key pain-points that persist across categories are as follows:
Supply-Side Challenges:
(i) Raw material costs: These are the largest contributor to the manufacturing cost gap. While
China has locally integrated supply chains, Pakistan imports most raw materials duty free. On
the other hand, Indian manufacturers pay high customs duties (10-20%) on raw materials that
are not available in India. Some raw materials also face additional anti-dumping measures.
Even metals available domestically are 10-15% costlier in India than in China due to Quality
Control Order restrictions. These significantly increase input costs.
(ii) Land prices: High land prices prevent expansion that is necessary for scale ups. Currently,
Indian units are much smaller than Chinese and Pakistani units, affecting efficiency.
(iii) Certification costs: Manufacturers need internationally accredited certifications to supply for
competitions and improve global visibility. These usually carry high upfront costs, thereby
causing an additional burden to manufacturers already facing significant cost disabilities.
(iv) Other factors: Inefficient in-land logistics, high costs of importing machinery in India (due
to domestic unavailability of quality, up-to date machinery) and limited availability of skilled
labour/tech know-how further erode cost competitiveness and put Indian manufacturers at
a disadvantage.
(v) Additionally, certain categories like turfs and floorings, protective gear don’t face significant
cost disabilities. However, restrictions on Indian manufacturers in tenders released by the
government prevent growth (in the case of synthetic floorings). For helmets, the lack of a
robust testing & research ecosystem prevents Indian manufacturers from innovating and
garnering approvals at the pace of their UK counterparts.
Demand-Side Challenges:
(i) Weak demand-side pull and branding constraints: Indian manufacturers lack strong forward
linkages with global anchor brands and a cohesive Brand India narrative, resulting in low
global visibility despite adequate manufacturing capability. Limited athlete endorsements of
Made-in-India gear, low focus on manufacturing development through CSR initiatives, weak iv
co-branding through international federations and underutilised roles of National Sports
Federations in ecosystem building have further exacerbated these challenges.
(ii) Structural market-access barriers: Trade policy asymmetries and retail regulations constrain
access to both global and domestic markets. India currently does not have sports focus in its
existing FTAs (except the recent EU and UK FTAs). This limits brand building, distribution
reach, and the ability to capture demand at scale.
Strategic Roadmap and Policy Interventions
To reach the target of $8.1bn exports by 2036, we need a phased approach towards prioritising key
sports segments based on two things: the size of the global export market today, and India’s current
manufacturing readiness in each segment.
The sports goods market is divided into four groups.
Quadrant 1 includes categories where India already has strong capabilities and there is high export
potential. This includes ball sports such as inflatable and hard balls, supported by established
manufacturing clusters in places like Jalandhar and Meerut.
Quadrant 2 covers niche segments where India already produces but the overall global export
opportunity is smaller. Examples include table tennis, boxing, and cricket.
Quadrant 3 includes smaller categories where both current capability and export potential are low.
These include water sports, shooting, and golf. These will need longer term development before they
can scale.
Quadrant 4 includes categories with large global demand but limited Indian presence today. These are
“next wave” opportunities such as cycling, sports flooring, hockey equipment, protective gear, racket
sports, and swimming. India will need to build new capabilities here.
A three-stage roadmap shows the above sports categories prioritised over time. Horizon 1 focuses on
scaling existing strengths in Quadrants 1 and 2. Horizon 2 focuses on building capabilities in Quadrant
4, supported by better access to specialised inputs and a few anchor investments. Horizon 3 targets
a future presence in more specialised and smaller categories, so that India can gradually broaden its
global sports equipment portfolio. v
While the sector has significant export potential, it remains severely constrained by competitiveness
gaps that limits its ability to win global orders, meet lead time expectations and showcase compliance
readiness. Under a business-as-usual trajectory, India’s exports would continue to grow at 0.6% CAGR
(historical growth rates) and plateau through 2036, with its global share remaining marginal at 0.4%
To reach the $8.1bn mark and hence, ~11% of the global share, India needs a coordinated set of structural
reforms, targeted fiscal support and ecosystem building measures to expand manufacturing capability
while improving credibility and market access.
Our analysis reveals ~15% cost disability compared to leading Asian peers. Over 2027-2031, this gap
can be closed by structural fixes and a small fiscal outlay; key reforms in this area include: rationalizing
import duties and QCOs on raw materials including carbon fiber, PU/TPU, and EVA, to eliminate
inverted duty structures; accelerating duty drawback and other refund cycles, easing restrictions
on export-linked machinery & tooling. Other beneficial measures include streamlining customs for
product samples, harmonizing GST to reduce working capital blockages, and enabling faster tech
transfer through faster visa processes for foreign technical experts.
Even after structural fixes, a residual competitiveness gap (largely existing due to lack of scale) should
be bridged through targeted fiscal support over 2027-31 with an outlay of ~₹2,000 crore. This should
include co-funding export-enabling investments like capex support for MSMEs, bulk procurement
programs for machinery and critical raw materials, and certification & testing support to meet
international standards for procurement eligibility.
Beyond immediate actions, three key long-term solutions are essential. First, the sector requires a
cluster-led development approach involving four greenfield clusters in port-proximate locations/
states. This will require an outlay of ₹4,000 crore (for four new clusters). Readiness assessment of
key states on parameters such as strong plug and play infrastructure, policy favourability, logistics
infrastructure, and event-led tailwinds reveal that Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu can
serve as initial prospects. Simultaneously, upgrading legacy clusters like Meerut and Jalandhar with
₹1,000 crore enables quick wins by modernizing infrastructure and scaling production in established
ecosystems. Secondly, India must build a strong testing infrastructure to help manufacturers reduce
the costs associated with getting certified, as well as reduce lead times and boost innovation. Thirdly,
India must also look to develop a domestic raw material ecosystem by anchoring critical upstream
capacities in key advanced inputs (like carbon fiber or composites). Manufacturing nodes within or
around clusters can be set up through PPP models or JVs, inviting global anchor investments, to
reduce import dependence in the long-term.
On the demand side, a unified ‘Brand India’ framework (₹500 crore outlay) coordinated by the Ministry
of Youth Affairs and Sports as a facilitator is essential to complement supply reforms with building
global demand and credibility. This requires a multi-stakeholder collaboration including anchor brand
partnerships to create demand pull and transfer quality systems; federation engagement to improve
representations in International Federation committees for securing approvals for major events;
manufacturers adopting quality standards and compliance, and government led promotion through
international trade fairs, buyer roadshows, and co-funding certifications and accredited testing labs
within clusters. Corporates can speed this up, shouldering responsibility with the government with a
‘One Corporate, One Sport’ model, offering not just CSR funding and sponsorship support for brand
amplification but also building operational depth of grassroots level sports academies, ecosystems
and building visible credibility as evidenced in Odisha’s successful hockey ecosystem.
Sports equipment manufacturing as a sector should be prioritised as it offers credible export-
oriented manufacturing opportunity. It offers an opportunity where targeted interventions can help
industry players integrate into global markets, create jobs at scale, and build capabilities in adjacent
manufacturing ecosystems. The policy case should focus on removing competitiveness bottlenecks
and accelerating global market integration. vi
Implementation and Impact
The proposed interventions for the sports equipment sector require coordinated action across
the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, central and state governments, athletes, corporates,
manufacturers and sports federations. Easing duties and QCOs and the eventual development
of domestic ecosystems for raw materials like carbon fibre can reduce per-unit costs and improve
competitiveness, thereby enabling scale. The development of integrated, world-class manufacturing
clusters would address constraints related to scale, infrastructure and technology adoption. Targeted
market-access and branding reforms would improve global competitiveness and demand visibility.
Transitional support mechanisms can help sustain momentum where structural reforms take time to
materialise. Collectively, these measures can position India as a credible global manufacturing hub for
sports equipment, enabling it to capture share from established exporters such as China, Vietnam, and
Pakistan.
The potential economic impact is significant. Scaling India’s participation in global sports equipment
value chains would strengthen the country’s trade balance while generating large-scale employment
across MSMEs that dominate the sector. Thus, over the next decade, the sports equipment sector can
evolve from a domestically oriented industry into a competitive export engine.
Conclusion
The report on ‘Realising the Export Potential of India’s Sports Equipment Manufacturing’ India’s makes
a strong case for targeted, long-term investment to unlock India’s global potential. India is at a critical
inflection point, with shifting global supply chains, a decade of upcoming mega sporting events,
and growing policy momentum creating a unique opportunity to scale exports and reduce import
dependence. By addressing structural cost disadvantages, strengthening anchor brand partnerships,
upgrading manufacturing clusters, and improving market access and branding, India can transform its
sports equipment industry into a globally competitive export sector over the next decade. Achieving
this vision will require coordinated policy action, close collaboration between government, industry,
and sports institutions, and sustained execution to overcome legacy constraints. The potential upside
is substantial: $8.1 bn in equipment exports and the creation of 54 lakh additional jobs (cumulative)
by 2036 across MSME-led clusters. These are certain to establish India as a trusted global supplier of
high-quality sports equipment. 1 2
Chapter 1: Understanding the Sports Goods Ecosystem
The sports goods ecosystem comprises of four major sub-segments. These include:
Sports Apparel & Footwear
Clothing designed for sports and active use, offering comfort, performance, and for team identity.
Footwear includes shoes engineered for physical activities, and optimised for performance, and sport-
specific movements. Key product segments:
●Team kits, performance tops, tees, shorts, track pants.
●Outerwear (jackets, hoodies, windcheaters) and innerwear/compression wear.
●Swimwear or specialized sportwear (e.g. wrestling singlets, leotards).
●Running & training shoes, sport-specific shoes, indoor/outdoor court shoes, and athleisure
shoes.
Sport Equipment
Core hardware/equipment used to play or practice a sport including gear and protective equipment.
Key segments include:
●Balls, Sticks, Bats, Rackets, Goals, Nets.
●Training and Fitness equipment, Gym equipment, among others.
Sports Accessories
Supporting items and add-ons that enhance participation, convenience, safety, or monitoring in sports
but are not core equipment. Key segments include bags/carry gear, headwear, socks, wearables and
tech.
Others
Others include ancillary industries such as sports infrastructure (stadium seats, electronic signages),
sports ticketing, sports tourism. 3 4
Chapter 2: Objective of the Study
Objective
The study aims to identify the key structural and operational challenges faced by manufacturers
in India’s sports goods sector and to recommend targeted interventions to strengthen domestic
manufacturing capabilities, expand sectoral exports, and increase India’s participation in the global
sports goods market.
Target
●Exports: Increase India’s share in global exports in sports goods from $2 bn to ~$24 bn and in
equipment from current $275 Mn (0.5% global share) to $8.1bn (11% global share) by 2036.
●Domestic Production: Increase India’s domestic production from current $183Mn to $800Mn
by 2036.
Impact
The proposed growth trajectory is expected to generate ~54 lakh cumulative jobs by 2036. 5 6
Chapter 3: Global Market Overview
The global sports goods market, encompassing sports apparel and footwear, sports equipment, and
sports accessories, was valued at around $700 billion in 2024. It is projected to grow at a compound
annual growth rate (CAGR) of 4.6%, expected to cross $1 trillion by 2036. [Figure 1]
Figure 1: Global Market Size (in $ bn) for Sports goods and percentage share by category (in 2024)
Sports equipment market represents 20% of the $700 billion market, sized at $140 billion and expected
to reach $283 billion by 2036, growing at the CAGR of 6%. It is dominated by Fitness & Strength
equipment (33%) like treadmills and Ball games equipment (32%) like footballs etc, followed by Athletic
training equipment (14%) and Racket/Net games (10%). [Figure 2]
Figure 2: Global Market Size (in $ bn) for Sports equipment & percentage share by category (in 2024) 7
World exports of sports equipment were valued at approximately $52 billion in 2024, rising at the
CAGR of 2.4%. It is majorly led by gym and athletic equipment (27%) and bicycles (17%) as the largest
export categories, followed by leg pads, nets, bats, and golf gear. [Figure 3]
Figure 3: Global Exports (in $ bn) for Sports equipment and percentage share by category (in 2024)
The global sports equipment market comprises a diverse set of sports categories. Within the top ten
categories by export value, India’s export footprint remains relatively small, with a combined share of
around 0.5 percent. [Figure 4]
Figure 4: Top 10 categories of Global Exports (in $ bn) for Sports Equipment (in 2024)
The export market is dominated unsurprisingly by China. After China, the market is fragmented with
USA, Taiwan, Germany, and Vietnam taking 3-6% share each. USA is the largest consumer of sports
goods and is also the largest importer. USA is followed by European countries such as Germany,
France, and the UK. India, also, is an importer of sports goods. [Figure 5] 8
Figure 5: Percentage share of countries in Global Exports and Global Imports for Sports Equipment
If we examine the export trends for the last ten years, telling trends emerge. China’s dominance in
sports equipment exports is driven by export-facilitation zones located near major ports and a highly
localized supply ecosystem that lowers raw-material and input costs. Taiwan has carved out a niche
in high-end, premium manufacturing, particularly in bicycles supported by strong R&D capabilities
and well-integrated manufacturing clusters. Vietnam and India held comparable export shares in 2013;
however, Vietnam has since expanded its share by nearly threefold, supported by development of
adjacent industries like footwear, extensive free trade agreements (including CPTPP and EVFTA), cost-
efficient sourcing of raw materials from China, and a growing presence of global brands leveraging
the China+1 strategy. Contrarily, India’s marginal share has reduced from 0.7% in 2014 to 0.5% in 2024.
[Figure 6] 9
Figure 6: Percentage share of countries in Global Exports of Sports Equipment
Case Study 1: Understanding Vietnam’s Growth Story
Vietnam’s more than 3x growth in sports equipment exports over the past decade highlights the
importance of a long-term, ecosystem-led manufacturing strategy anchored by global brands.
Figure 7: Ecosystem development in Vietnam for Sports goods manufacturing (phase wise) 10
Vietnam’s 20-year compounding advantage required: [Figure 7]
●Anchor investor strategy - landing a long-term partnership with Nike and Adidas that catalysed
ecosystem development.
●FTA aggressiveness enhancing competitive free trade access.
●Unified policy under a single national framework.
●Infrastructure investment with textile and footwear cluster hubs in Southern Vietnam offering
faster port access. 11 12
Chapter 4: India Market Overview
India’s sports goods market remains relatively small in scale. The total market size is currently estimated
at approximately $2.5 bn, of which around $0.5 bn comprises sports equipment. India’s domestic
market accounts for less than 1% of the global sports goods market, underscoring the limited scale
of consumption relative to global demand. This makes it imperative for India to focus not only on
domestic market expansion but also on export-led growth as a primary driver of sectoral scale and
competitiveness.
At present, India imports nearly 63% of the sports equipment consumed domestically. This import
dependence reflects gaps in technology adoption, manufacturing scale, and access to specialised raw
materials across several product categories. Addressing these constraints will be critical for expanding
domestic production and reducing reliance on imports, particularly in high-volume and performance-
sensitive segments. [Figure 8]
Figure 8: Market Size (in $ bn) of India’s sports goods and sports equipment
On the export front, India’s sports equipment exports are geographically concentrated. Over 50%
of the exports are directed to the United Kingdom, the United States, and Australia. Major export
products include protective gear, cricket bats, gym and athletic training equipment, hard balls, and
inflatable balls. On the import side, more than 60% of India’s sports equipment imports originate from
China, followed by Japan and the United States, highlighting India’s dependence on a narrow set of
global suppliers.
Manufacturing activity within India is concentrated in a few key clusters. Jalandhar (Punjab) and
Meerut (Uttar Pradesh) form the backbone of the sports goods manufacturing ecosystem, together
comprising approximately 250+ exporting units, 1,000+ domestic-market-focused units, over 4,000
micro enterprises, and nearly 20,000 household units. Other notable clusters include Ludhiana
(bicycles), Delhi and Mumbai (sports accessories and apparel).Overall, India’s sports manufacturing
landscape is predominantly MSME-led, with nearly 90% of the production driven by small and micro
enterprises. [Figure 9] 13
Figure 9: India’s major sports goods manufacturing clusters
Despite its modest scale, India has produced several globally recognised brands that demonstrate the
sector’s underlying capability and potential. [Figure 10]
Figure 10: Represents India’s major sports retailers, exporters and manufacturers
Government Initiatives 14
For the first time, Budget 2026 has highlighted India’s potential to become a global hub for high
quality, affordable sporting goods. It provides support through dedicated focus on sports goods
manufacturing, legacy clusters revival and equity support for SMEs. Key highlights are:
●A first-ever allocation of ₹500 crore specifically for the “Promotion of Sports Goods
Manufacturing”.
●The initiative emphasises innovation in equipment design and material sciences to create
lighter, stronger, and more ergonomic sports gear.
●Scheme to revive 200 industrial clusters (e.g. Jalandhar, Meerut) to improve tech infrastructure,
cost competitiveness.
●10,000 Cr SME growth fund (equity & scaling support) to benefit sports manufacturers, 90%
of the sector comprises MSMEs.
●Provisions to strengthen marketing capabilities & build India’s brand presence, reducing import
dependency.
The government has also recognised the sector’s potential and has initiated policies to serve as
necessary momentum.
Central Government-Led Push
1. Institutional Realignment
●Sports goods manufacturing has officially moved to the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports
(previously under the Ministry of Commerce).
●There is also a large focus on the creation/upgradation of sports infrastructure.
2. Khelo Bharat NITI 2025
●The new National Sports Policy recognises ‘Sports Equipment Manufacturing’ as essential
for economic growth and strengthening India’s sports ecosystem.
Cluster-Led Scheme Enablers
●The Ministry of MSME’s MSE-CDP scheme provides grants for developing Common Facility
Centres and other shared facilities such as testing labs, and R&D centres.
State Government-Led Push
1. Gujarat Sports Policy (2022-27)
●Highlights sports goods manufacturing as a key priority, with an intent to set up a dedicated
manufacturing cluster.
●Specifies a list of state incentives offered for sports & apparel manufacturers as part of
policy.
●Vibrant Gujarat proposed cluster for sports goods & apparel, citing port proximity (Mundra/
Kandla).
2. Andhra Pradesh Sports Policy (2024-29)
●Promotes creating Sports Economic Zones, to boost local sports equipment and apparel
production.
●Aims to establish a global sports commerce hub and a world-class ‘Sports City’ in Amravati,
with private sector involvement. 15 16
Chapter 5: Unlocking India’s Olympic Opportunity
India is all set to host the Commonwealth Games 2030 and has bid to host 2036 Olympics, which
is supported by strong precedents. This move could provide a significant demand-side tailwind for
domestic sports equipment manufacturing, as historical evidence shows that host nations capture
substantial economic and industrial benefits. Previous Olympic hosts have leveraged large-scale
procurement to strengthen local manufacturing and SME participation.
Paris Olympics, 2024
• Awarded approximately €5 bn ($5.4 bn) in contracts, 90% of service providers are French, and
78% are SMEs, involving over 500 local/social-economy enterprises (employment generated:
181,000).
• The games have generated between €6.7 - 11.1 bn in net economic benefits in the Paris region,
with an intermediate scenario projecting € 8.9 bn in net economic impact.
London Olympics, 2012
• Required a total procurement of £6.9 bn ($11 bn), of which 98% contracts were awarded to
UK based companies. Majority of them were awarded to SMEs. These contracts included both
development of infrastructure and sporting goods.
With the right long-term strategy, India’s 2036 Olympics bid could catalyse capacity creation, supplier
upgrading, and global competitiveness in the sports equipment sector.
Olympics games currently have 51 sports across 6+ categories, many of which we can manufacture
globally competitive products in. [Figure 11]
Figure 11: Represents sports included in the Olympic games to be held in 2028 in LA, USA
If planned strategically, Indian sports equipment manufacturers can capture incremental export
opportunity every 1-2 years through 2036, build domestic supply capacity, and leverage Ahmedabad
2030 to showcase strong Indian-made brands. [Figure 12] 17

Figure 12: Major sports events to be held between 2025 and 2036 18 19 20
Chapter 6: Opportunity
Taking a broader ecosystem view, India can potentially target approximately $24bn in sports-related
exports by 2036, spanning equipment, apparel, footwear, accessories, and allied services. This opportunity
is underpinned by India’s manufacturing base, expanding global sports participation, and India’s growing
integration with global supply chains. Sports-related exports also benefit from strong global demand,
product diversification across price segments, and high employment elasticity, making the sector well
aligned with India’s objectives of export-led growth, job creation, and MSME expansion. [Figure 13]

Figure 13: Target export opportunity for India’s sports goods (year-on-year)
Within sports goods manufacturing, sports equipment represents a particularly high-impact
opportunity for India. By strategically focusing on this segment, India can potentially target exports
of approximately $8.1 bn by 2036, while creating nearly 54 lakh additional (direct and indirect) jobs.
[Figure 14]

Figure 14: Targeted export opportunity for India’s sports equipment (year-on-year) 21 22
Chapter 7: Challenges
India’s limited share in the global sports equipment market, at approximately 0.5%, is not the result of
a single constraint, but of a combination of interlinked demand and supply side challenges.
Supply side challenges include high cost of raw materials, high landed cost of capital goods, limited
and expensive land, high costs of inland logistics among others.
On the demand side, limited forward linkages hinder Indian manufacturers’ global accessibility and
potential demand. These include lack of a brand India sentiment in the sports manufacturing sector, no
key partnerships with anchor brands that bring with them global value chains and technology and lack
of representation in international forums.
Supply Side Challenges
High factor-market costs and infrastructure gaps significantly increase the cost of manufacturing in
India.
Raw Material
●Limited accessibility to key inputs such as PU/TPU, imports attract significant duties.
●Costlier domestically available materials, such as steel, compared to other countries.
Capital Goods
●Limited domestic production of key capital goods (machinery/moulds) drives higher import
cost.
●Many government export incentive schemes exclude sports goods, while existing eligibility
criteria often sideline large exporters.
Infrastructure
●Existing players require expansion which is constrained by land scarcity and high land costs in
existing manufacturing clusters.
●High logistics costs from inland clusters such as Punjab and Meerut to ports and airports reduce
export competitiveness.
●Shortage of skilled labour
●Weak R&D ecosystem for inputs & tech development.
Technology Transfer
●High dependence on foreign consultants for tech transfer; has high costs.
●Delays in visa clearance slows down the process of technology transfer.
Certifications
●Exorbitant costs of equipment certifications for supply to international tournaments effectively
shut Indian MSMEs out.
●Lack of globally recognised domestic testing labs adds to the already high-cost burden.
These challenges lead to a cost disability for India as compared to its peers. A summarized version is
available in Figure 15. Numbers indicate the delta v/s competitor countries which leads to total disabilities
highlighted in red. A scale disability has also been introduced to capture loss due to lack of scale. 23

Figure 15: India’s cost structure vs key competitors
To understand this disability better, we can evaluate the overall industry through four sub-groups.
[Figure 16]

Figure 16: Sub-groups in the sports equipment segment based on manufacturing processes
We have deep-dived into each of these groups to understand in depth the key challenges.
Group 1: Lamination, Bonding & Sewing
Includes Inflatable balls, Boxing equipment, Cricket, Baseball, Rugby balls, & Protective gear (leg pads,
shin guards, etc.) 24
a) Inflatable Balls
Overview
Inflatable balls include sports equipment like footballs, basketballs, volleyballs, netballs, handballs
designed for competitive play with specific sizes and bounce properties.
In terms of exports, India has a mere 1% share in global exports, while China & Pakistan hold >60% of
the market. Pakistan has 14% share, which signifies a strong China+1 opportunity that India has not yet
capitalized. [Figure 17]
Figure 17: Percentage share of countries in global exports of Inflatable balls
Key global brands & domestic manufacturers include the following:
International ManufacturersDomestic Manufacturers 25
Manufacturing Process: Footballs
Typically, footballs are manufactured using 3 main methods. Each varies on labour and capital intensity.
They are as follows:
MethodProcessInvestment Avg. Daily
Output
Hand-stitching (training/
match balls)
1. PU/PVC Panels are cut
2. Hand stitched by skilled
workers
3. Bladder is inserted, final
seam closed, ball inflated
<1 lakh 4 balls per
person
Machine-stitching (entry
level balls)
1. PU/PVC Panels are cut
2. Stitched by machines
3. Bladder is inserted, final
seam done by hand
stitching, ball inflated
2-2.5 lakh for
machinery
50 balls
(machine
stitching)
20 balls
(final hand
stitching)/per
person
Thermo-bonding (official
match balls)
1. PU/PVC Panels are glued
2. Fused under heat/ pressure
in molds
3. Bladder is inserted, sealed,
and ball inflated
75 lakh-1cr
per 500 balls
produced,
machines mostly
imported from
China
8 balls per
person
Other types include moulded balls (method used across basketballs, footballs etc., this needs an
average investment of 1.5-2 cr.
Hand stitching is commonly preferred for training and match balls due to its stronger and more durable
seams. High-end tournament balls use thermo-bonding technology as this method significantly reduces
water absorption and helps the ball retain its weight, shape, and performance across varying weather
conditions. However, as seen above, this process is highly capital-intensive and depends on specialised
thermo-bonding machines and moulds that are largely imported from China.
Industry Specifics
FactorMachine Stitched Thermo-Bonded Hand Stitched
Mfg. Processes
Distribution
70-75% 5-10%20-25%
Labour intensityModerateLowHigh
Capital IntensityModerateHighLow
Machine-stitching is the most common method of manufacturing, requiring an equal mix of labour &
capital intensity. However, this is usually used to manufacture low-end, promotional balls.
Raw Materials: Inflatable balls across categories use a common set of raw materials, including PU/TPU
leather covers, rubber bladders, EVA foam, and polyester. Among these, PU/TPU leather and EVA
foam are largely imported from China, while most other raw materials are sourced domestically. 26
Key Buyers and India’s Positioning
Current export demand in the football segment is largely driven by global brands such as Adidas,
Nike, Puma, and Mitre through contract manufacturing arrangements. While Indian manufacturers do
participate in such contracts, Pakistan holds a structurally dominant position, particularly in football
manufacturing, supported by duty-free access to key raw materials and decades-long partnerships
with anchor brands. A significant share of global hand-stitched football production for major brands is
concentrated in Pakistan’s Sialkot cluster, which has emerged as the preferred sourcing base for high-
specification match balls.
Engagement with anchor brands enables manufacturers to adopt best-in-class production processes,
quality standards, and advanced materials and tooling. These relationships also generate strong
signalling effects, as smaller international brands tend to source from the same supplier ecosystems
trusted by global majors. India’s relatively weak anchor brand presence has therefore limited the
diffusion of technical know-how across the industry and constrained demand from smaller global
buyers.
This cumulative advantage has allowed Pakistan to scale credibility and market share, including serving
as the official football supplier for three FIFA World Cups, a milestone that India has yet to achieve.
Adjacent industries
The industry shares similarities with apparel & footwear manufacturing.
• Apparel: The primary mode of manufacturing is stitching, similar to football production. The
machinery and equipment used are largely common across both industries.
• Footwear: The industry uses similar raw materials such as PU and foam. There is overlap in
input requirements and processing techniques.
Cost Structure Analysis
For this segment, the manufacturing costs were benchmarked against China & Pakistan. Indian
manufacturers face a 14-16% disability vs. competitors in footballs made of PU/TPU. [Figure 18]

Figure 18: Cost structure comparison for football production
This is mainly due to high duties which makes raw materials i.e. PU/TPU 30% more expensive in India
compared to China. Higher logistics costs due to distance from port add to this burden. 27
Certification Costs
In addition to a significant cost disability, manufacturers also face high upfront certification costs
which are as follows: [Figure 19]
Figure 19: Certification costs for inflatable balls
These costs make it challenging for Indian manufacturers to gain certifications, acting as a barrier to
gaining international visibility (at competitions, tournaments).
Conclusion
Inflatable balls represent one of the largest global sports goods segments, with exports valued at USD
1.7 billion in 2024. Despite having more than ten established manufacturers, India accounts for only
about 1% of global exports, while Pakistan’s 14% share highlights a significant China+1 opportunity for
India.
Reducing customs duties and anti-dumping measures on critical raw materials not available domestically,
such as PU/TPU would improve cost competitiveness and support scale-up. Greater scale can, in turn,
strengthen the domestic supply chain and encourage local development of machinery and capabilities.
Anchor brands are central to this transition, as they drive demand and facilitate technology and know-
how transfer. Competitive input pricing can lower per-unit costs and make India a more attractive
sourcing base for global brands such as Nike and Adidas. In the long term, we can also look to strengthen
our own brands and not just work as contract manufacturers.
b) Boxing Equipment
Overview
Boxing equipment includes competition and training gloves, punching bags, hand-wraps, mouth guards
etc. engineered primarily to absorb impact and protect athletes, while also enabling high-performance.
In terms of trade in this segment, exports have grown at 8% since 2014 while imports have stagnated.
However, boxing equipment makes up less than 2% of India’s exports & its scale is significantly lesser
than that of its competitors (China & Pakistan). [Figure 20] 28
Figure 20: India’s export and import value for boxing equipment (in 2024)
Key global brands & domestic manufacturers include the following:
Global brandsDomestic Manufacturers 29
Manufacturing Process: Boxing gloves
Typically, boxing gloves are manufactured using two methods:
Method Step 1: Foam
Processing
Step 2: Outer Skin
Cutting
Step 3: Shaping &
Sewing
InvestmentAvg. Daily
Output
Mechanised Uses automated
cutting and
lamination
systems (similar
to footwear sole
processing) for
higher volumes
Leather or
synthetic material
is cut into pre-
measured pieces
using die-cutting
machines /laser
cutters- multilayer
cutting for PU,
single-cut for
leather
Material is
embossed with
logos & stitched.
Foam is then
inserted into the
glove; shape & fit
is checked by a
worker
The glove is then
sealed with a final
stitch, Velcro etc.
15-35 lakh1000 pairs
per day
Manual Involves hand-
cutting and
hand-gluing
the foam layers
using knives,
cutters etc.
Cutting knives,
scissors, or rotary
cutters are used to
cut the leather or
synthetic material
Similar process as
above. However,
smaller factories
use makeshift
machines/
manually insert
the foam into the
glove
2-3 lakh 100 pairs
per day
Although there is limited scope for mechanisation in this segment due to highly labour-intensive
processes like sewing & shape/fit checks, large factories mechanise cutting & lamination wherever
possible. This is because tech upgradation & mechanisation is necessary to be competitive globally &
meet international deadlines for large volumes. It also facilitates market differentiation of the product.
Industry Specifics
FactorMechanisedManual
Labour Intensity ModerateHigh
Capital IntensityModerateLow
The raw materials & glove types can be elaborated upon as follows:
• Entry level gloves: PU/PVC skin, PU/EPE foam
• Mid-range gloves: PU Microfibre skin, PU/EVA/Latex foam
• High-end gloves: Genuine leather skin, latex/EVA/EPE foam
In terms of sourcing, some manufacturers source PU leather domestically while others source it from
vendors who import it in bulk from China. Most other raw material inputs are sourced locally.
Key Buyers and India’s Positioning
Demand for boxing equipment is largely driven by global brands such as Adidas and Sting, who rely
on contract manufacturers for production. Currently, Pakistan commands a higher share of such OEM
manufacturing compared to India. Pakistan has achieved this mainly due to cheaper raw material costs,
which enable it to lower per-unit prices and garner scale. 30
Adjacent Industries
The industry shares similarities with apparel & footwear.
• Apparel: The primary mode of manufacturing is stitching. The machinery and equipment used
are largely common across both industries.
• Footwear: The industry uses similar raw materials such as PU and foam. There is overlap in
input requirements and processing techniques.
Cost Structure Analysis
For this segment, the manufacturing costs were benchmarked against China & Pakistan. For PU (low-
end) gloves, Indian manufacturers face a 17-20% disability. [Figure 21]

Figure 21: Cost structure analysis for Boxing gloves
This is mainly due to domestic unavailability of PU & high duties/anti-dumping duties on its imports.
For genuine leather (high-end) gloves, the overall cost disability stands at 25-30% compared to
Pakistan as leather is approximately 25% more expensive in India due to limited supply & lack of an
organised animal husbandry system.
Certification Costs
In addition to a significant cost disability, manufacturers also face high upfront certification costs
which are as follows: [Figure 22]

Figure 22: Certification costs for boxing 31
However, for boxing, these costs are indicative as IBA is no longer the governing body. It has been
replaced by World Boxing.
Conclusion
Boxing is a smaller global market compared to larger segments such as football and basketball;
however, India’s growth potential relative to Pakistan remains significant as the primary constraint is
the industry’s lack of scale. Enabling scale is the single most important growth lever for the domestic
boxing equipment industry. Reducing duties on critical raw materials not available domestically (such
as PU) and streamlining and securing the supply of leather from tanneries to manufacturers would help
improve cost competitiveness and unlock the aforementioned scale.
Bringing in key anchor brands to drive demand is imperative to this sector. However, over the medium
to long term, parallel efforts should focus on enabling Indian brands to build scale, credibility, and
market access, allowing them to generate sustained demand pull independently.
Group 2: Metal Fabrication, CNC Machining & Forging
Includes Athletic Equipment (discus, hurdles, javelin, shotput), Table Tennis equipment (table frames,
wheels), Golf Clubs, Weightlifting (bars, plates), Protective gear (helmets), Cycling (bicycle frames).
a) Athletic Equipment
Overview
Athletic equipment includes implements such as shot puts, javelins, discus along with protective and
training accessories. These are designed to meet strict weight, dimension and material standards for
safe training and regulated competitive use.
In this segment, exports and imports have grown at a comparable pace since 2014; however, in value
terms, India remains a net importer. This is largely because the segment also includes fitness equipment
such as treadmills and other large machines, where India currently has limited domestic manufacturing
capability. As a result, imports dominate the value of trade, highlighting a significant opportunity for
capacity creation and import substitution in fitness equipment manufacturing. [Figure 23]
Figure 23: India’s export and import value for gym & athletic equipment (in 2024) 32
Key global brands and manufacturers in this segment include the following:
Global brandsDomestic Manufacturers
Manufacturing Process
Typically, manufacturing processes in athletics involve two-three key processes i.e. CNC machining,
welding & assembly. This can be elaborated upon as follows:
The manufacturing process is moderately capital intensive and relies on imported CNC machines to
reduce manual error and deliver standardized, high-precision metal cutting. These are often imported
from China due to unavailability in India, thereby increasing the cost of capital goods.
Additionally, Japanese & European machinery may also be used. However, these are 2x more expensive
than Chinese counterparts but are needed to surpass China in terms of productivity & efficiency. 33
Industry Specifics
FactorDescription
Production Rate
• Discus: 1-2 discus pp/ per shift (8 hours)
• Hurdles: 3-4 hurdles/pp per day
• CNC machines can forge 200 rims per shift (8 hours)
Labour Intensity Moderate
Capital Intensity Moderate
Raw Material: Athletics equipment uses a common set of raw materials across products, including
steel, brass, and aluminium for components such as discus cores and rims, hurdles frames, javelin
shafts, and shot-put balls. Composites like carbon fiber and fiberglass are used in discus side plates
and javelin shafts, while plastics are typically used for hurdles’ top bars and rubber for javelin grips.
Sourcing: Most of these raw materials are sourced domestically, with select inputs such as aluminium
for javelin shafts, being imported.
Key Buyers and India’s Positioning
For international competitions, a significant share of athletics equipment is sourced from India. Indian
manufacturers also act as OEM suppliers to the limited number of global brands that exist in this
segment (these are mainly based in USA, Poland, and Sweden). However, key global brands also
continue to source equipment through Chinese contract manufacturers.
Adjacent Industries
The industry has similarities with the following:
• Automotive, Consumer Durables & Bicycles: Share metal forming, alloy casting etc.
• Metal Fabrication & Tooling: Provide CNC machining, welding, and surface finishing.
Cost Structure Analysis
For this segment, Indian manufacturers’ costs for producing hard athletics equipment (shotput,
hurdles etc.) were benchmarked against costs in China, a key competitor for OEM manufacturing.
Indian manufacturers face a 12-13% overall disability v/s China. [Figure 24]

Figure 24: Cost structure analysis for Athletics equipment 34
This is driven primarily by higher domestic prices of metals and plastic in India.
Certification Costs
In addition to the above-mentioned cost disability, manufacturers also face high upfront certification
costs which are as follows: [Figure 25]
Figure 25: Certification costs for different certifications by IAAF
Although 8 key brands possess the requisite certifications, for a largely MSME led industry, these high
upfront costs act as a barrier to gaining international visibility (such as at competitions, tournaments).
Conclusion
Athletics one of India’s stronger suits in manufacturing: several Indian brands supply for international
tournaments and act as key OEM manufacturers. However, a stronger scale-up can be enabled by
easing QCO restrictions on Indian metals – this would help bridge the input costs gap v/s China by
bringing down the prices of metals. Additionally, technology upgradation & certification support would
help Indian brands improve productivity (v/s China) & garner better international visibility.
India currently does not possess capabilities in fitness equipment manufacturing – this presents a
strong opportunity for market growth and reduced reliance on imports (most treadmills and capital-
intensive gym equipment are imported from China). Attracting anchor brands in this segment can help
catalyse demand while facilitating technology and know-how transfer across the ecosystem. Over the
medium to long term, parallel efforts should focus on enabling Indian brands to build scale, credibility,
and market access, allowing them to generate sustained demand pull independently.
b) Table-Tennis Equipment
Overview
Table tennis equipment includes table tennis tables, rackets (blades and rubbers), balls, and training
accessories that are designed to meet strict specifications for bounce, speed, spin, and durability to
ensure fair play and regulated competitive use.
In terms of exports, the value stands at $0.3bn, indicating a relatively small size. China dominates the
market with almost 50% share, followed by Germany with a 13% share. However, India’s share is less
than <1%. This presents a strong scope for growth, albeit in a small segment. [Figure 26] 35
Figure 26: Global exports of Table-tennis equipment
Key global brands & domestic manufacturers include the following:
Global BrandsDomestic Manufacturers
Manufacturing Process: Table Tennis Tables
Table tennis equipment manufacturing is capital intensive due to extensive machining and welding
requirements, while painting of tabletops and final assembly of the frame, top, and wheels remain
highly manual.
In some cases, tabletops are imported from China. Table tennis balls are generally not manufactured in
India as local packaging costs are higher than importing finished products from China. 36
Industry Structure
FactorDescription
Production Rate2-3 tables/pp per day can be assembled
Labour IntensityLow
Capital IntensityHigh
Raw Materials: Table tennis equipment uses a range of raw materials across product categories
including plywood, MDF/HDF, steel, paints, hardware accessories, and cotton or polyester nets for
tables; hardwood or softwood, rubber compounds, PU foam, and adhesives for rackets. For balls, ABS
plastic, colour pigments and surface treatment agents are used.
Sourcing: Most of these raw materials are sourced locally.
Key Buyers and India’s Positioning
India is a sourcing base for table tennis equipment used in international competitions. However, exports
are highly concentrated, with more than 80% accounted for by a single Indian manufacturer despite
the presence of 15+ domestic players. China remains the primary global competitor, holding a larger
manufacturing share driven by higher levels of mechanization and access to cheaper raw materials.
Adjacent Industries
The industry has similarities with the following:
• Automotive, Aerospace & Bicycle: Share metal forming, alloy casting etc.
• Metal Fabrication & Tooling: Provide CNC machining, welding, and surface finishing.
Cost Structure Analysis
For this segment, the costs were benchmarked against China. Indian manufacturers face a 30-35%
overall disabilityas compared to Chinese manufacturers. [Figure 27]
Figure 27: Cost structure for Table Tennis
This is driven primarily by higher domestic steel prices and lower levels of mechanisation (due to the
high cost of technology upgradation). Lower levels of mechanisation lead to reduced manufacturing
efficiency compared to China. 37
Certification Costs
In addition to a significant cost disability, manufacturers also face high upfront certification costs
which are as follows: [Figure 28]
Figure 28: Certification costs for TT
These costs prevent manufacturers from gaining the certifications necessary to supply for international
competitions, thereby hindering visibility.
Conclusion
Table tennis is a relatively small segment in global exports ($0.3bn). However, given that India holds
<1% share (despite having 15+ manufacturers), it does present considerable scope for growth. Currently,
India lacks mechanization that can enable it to scale.
To unlock this segment, the focus must be on enabling tech upgradation & reducing the domestic price
of metals (like steel) by easing QCO restrictions. This could help bridge the 30-35% manufacturing
cost gap v/s China and facilitate capture of greater market share.
c) Bicycles
Overview
The bicycles segment includes several types of bicycles including road bicycles, mountain bicycles,
children’s bicycles, hybrid bicycles and BMX bicycles. Each of these is designed for specific uses. They
vary in frame design, tire size, gearing systems and riding posture, which influences their performance
and suitability for different riding conditions.
In terms of exports, China & Taiwan together hold >40% of the market. Taiwan is known for producing
high-quality bicycles and components that cater to premium demand in USA & Europe. On the other
hand, China produces bicycles on a much larger scale, focusing primarily on mass production, lower
manufacturing costs and entry- to mid-range bicycles.
Despite strong manufacturing capabilities in Ludhiana, India’s share is a mere 1%. This can be scaled
with the right interventions (as outlined further in this section). [Figure 29] 38
Figure 29: Global Exports and Imports of Bicycles
Key global brands & domestic manufacturers include the following:
Global BrandsDomestic Manufacturers
Industry Specifics
Ludhiana has emerged as the backbone of India’s bicycle manufacturing industry, making Punjab
responsible for nearly 75–80% of the country’s domestic bicycle output. The region produces over 15
million bicycles each year, with an annual production value exceeding USD 1.5 billion. This extensive
manufacturing ecosystem provides employment to more than one million people and is supported by
over 4,000 micro, small, and medium enterprises operating in and around Ludhiana.
A large portion of this ecosystem consists of 3,500-4,000 largely unorganised small and medium
enterprises engaged in bicycle component manufacturing. While component production is highly
fragmented, bicycle assembly and final production are more concentrated, with four large companies
collectively accounting for approximately 85% of the domestic market.
Domestic Manufacturing Split and Key Export-Oriented Challenges
Despite its large manufacturing base, the bicycle industry’s export contribution remains limited,
accounting for only 5-7% of total production. Additionally, the industry largely operates at a basic
technological level, with a strong focus on steel bicycle production and limited capabilities in advanced
components, automation, product design, and process innovation. 39
Premium bicycles including mountain and racing bicycles are challenging to manufacture domestically
due to the limited availability and high cost of requisite aluminium alloys such as 6061 and 7005. These
are also difficult to procure in small quantities. Additionally, the industry faces inadequate exposure to
global best practices and internationally accredited quality standards. As a result, only a small number
of firms have been able to establish direct, one-to-one partnerships with foreign manufacturers or
brands.
Cost Structure Analysis
For this segment, India was benchmarked against China/Taiwan. As seen below, Indian manufacturers
face a 25-30% overall disability in the manufacturing of sports bicycles. [Figure 30]

Figure 30: Cost structure analysis of bicycles
This is driven primarily by the high prices of steel in India and the unavailability/expensive procurement
of certain aluminium alloys needed for manufacturing.
Additionally, mechanisation in this segment would help improve efficiency and reduce the labour
disadvantage.
Certification Costs
In addition to a significant cost disability, manufacturers also face high upfront certification costs
which are as follows: [Figure 31] 40

Figure 31: Certification costs for bicycles
Currently, Indian manufacturers have limited presence in the sports bicycles i.e. export-oriented
segment. Building capabilities in the same should be prioritised. Thereafter, the focus could be on
garnering certifications and international visibility.
Conclusion
India has a strong domestic bicycle manufacturing base concentrated in Ludhiana, but its presence
in the global export market remains limited. This is primarily due to lack of access to requisite raw
materials (steel/aluminium alloys) at competitive prices. Moreover, the industry lacks high level of
mechanisation and tech-know possessed by peers including China and Taiwan. This has led to very
minimal competitive sports bikes production.
To unlock this segment, investment must be made to invest assembly automation. Additionally, easing
QCO restrictions would allow for access to raw materials at competitive prices. Indian manufacturers
must also be made aware of global best practices & industry standards. Bringing in anchor brands (like
Giant) could facilitate this, develop supply chains and drive demand.
Group 3: Composites, Polymers & Rubber Compounding
Includes: Rackets (Badminton, Tennis, Squash etc.), Hockey sticks, Golf balls, clubs, Archery (composite
limbs), Rowing, Softball bats, Protective gear (helmets), Turfs and synthetic flooring.
a) Rackets, Hockey, and Golf
Overview
This group includes badminton/tennis rackets, hockey sticks and golf balls, representing a large and
fast-growing segment of the global sports equipment trade.
In terms of exports, global trade data highlights the limited role played by India in this segment. In
badminton and other rackets, global exports stood at approximately $0.8 bn in 2024, with China
accounting for nearly 59% of exports, followed by Japan (around 6%). India’s share remains negligible
at around 0.1%. [Figure 32] 41
Figure 32: Global exports Rackets and Golf
Similarly, global exports of golf balls were valued at approximately $0.9 bn in 2024. While the United
States accounted for about 23% of exports, followed by Taiwan (around 19%) and China (about 16%),
India’s share in global golf ball exports was negligible, at close to 0%. [Figure 32]. Thus, despite a small
exports market, India’s negligible presence presents a strong opportunity to build capabilities and
capture a higher market share.
Key global brands and domestic manufactures include the following:
Global BrandsDomestic Manufactures
Tennis Rackets
Badminton Rackets
Alfa: Hockey Sticks
Plus91 (Tee Ventures):
Golf Balls
Hockey Sticks Golf Balls
Exergy (Arvind composites)
Badminton Rackets
Manufacturing Process: Hockey Sticks
Hockey sticks are manufactured using three broad methods, depending on the level of technology,
materials used and the intended end market. These range from traditional wooden sticks used largely for
grassroots training to composite and full-carbon sticks designed for professional and match-grade play.
MethodProcessInvestment Avg. Daily
Output
Wooden Hockey
Sticks
(Traditional /
Training)
1. Mulberry/Sheesham wood planks cut
2. Stick shape carved & pressed
3. Toe bending using steam/heat
4. Sanding, painting, grip added
5–10 lakhs 30–50 sticks
per worker 42
MethodProcessInvestment Avg. Daily
Output
Composite Hockey
Sticks
(fiberglass / carbon
blends)
1. Fiberglass/carbon sheets cut
2. Wrapped around core (foam/wood)
3. Moulded under heat & pressure
4. Trimming, sanding, painting, grip added
50–75 lakhs 100–120 sticks
Full Carbon / Elite
Composite Sticks
(professional match
sticks)
1. High carbon prepreg layup
2. Precision moulding with resin control
3. Heat curing & stiffness calibration
4. Advanced finishing & QA
1–1.5 Cr+ 100–120 sticks
Overall, hockey stick manufacturing is moderately capital intensive, with significantly higher investment
required for producing match-grade and professional sticks.
Industry Specifics
The table below outlines the key differences between wooden and composite hockey stick
manufacturing, including process distribution, labour and capital intensity, and raw material sourcing.
FactorWooden Hockey Sticks Composite Sticks
Manufacturing Processes Distribution10%90%
Labour IntensityMedium (70%)Medium (50%)
Capital IntensityMedium (30%)Medium (50%)
Raw Material & Sourcing: Availability is a key differentiator between wooden and composite hockey
sticks. While inputs for wooden sticks such as wood, wood adhesives, and PU paint are largely sourced
domestically at competitive prices, composite sticks rely almost entirely on imported materials,
particularly carbon fibre sheets, and PU.
Key Buyers and India’s Positioning
Manufacturing in India is both brand-led and contract-led, with a primary focus on mid-range sticks.
High-end product design, advanced materials, and branding activities continue to remain offshore.
As a result, Indian manufacturers are largely positioned in lower- to mid-value segments of the global
hockey equipment market.
Unlike Pakistan, India has not emerged as a preferred global hockey manufacturing hub and lacks deep
supplier relationships with leading international brands. Pakistan can import key raw materials such as
carbon fibre at duty-free rates, whereas India does not enjoy similar advantages. Easing raw material
sourcing and strengthening supplier relationships with dominant countries such as Japan and China
could unlock manufacturing for multiple sports equipment categories including hockey, racket sports,
and golf clubs.
Adjacent Industries
The industry shares similarities with the following:
• Composite pipes and tubes (industrial / infrastructure): The process involves carbon
fibre winding or wrapping over mandrels, resin impregnation, heat curing, trimming, and 43
finishing. Equipment such as filament winding machines, curing ovens, and sanding units
closely mirrors that used for composite hockey stick shafts.
• Automotive composite components (lightweight parts): Non-structural parts such as
spoilers, interior panels, battery casings, and fairings are produced using carbon or fibreglass
layups, compression moulding or RTM, along with controlled curing processes.
Cost Structure Analysis
The table below compares the cost structure of composite hockey stick manufacturing in India and
Pakistan. It indicates a total cost disadvantage of around 25%-26% for Indian manufacturers. [Figure 33]
Figure 33: Cost structure analysis of Hockey
Raw materials for composite hockey sticks cost ~25% more in India than in Pakistan This is primarily
because raw materials such as carbon fibre have little to no domestic availability, and 100 per cent of
these inputs are imported, increasing costs due to duties.
Certification Costs
In addition to the significant cost disability, manufactures also face high upfront certification costs,
which are as follows: [Figure 34]

Figure 34: Certification costs for different certifications by BWF and FIH 44
These costs limit participation in global tournaments, thereby constraining export opportunities and
OEM manufacturing demand.
Conclusion
Rackets, hockey equipment, and golf products form growing segment of the global sports equipment
market. Despite this, India’s presence across these categories remains negligible (<1% share).
The above analysis highlights that India’s limited global presence is due to multiple factors but is primarily
driven by high raw material costs. The lack of a domestic ecosystem for carbon fibre manufacturing
leads to high dependence on imports, with freight costs, duties etc. significantly increasing input costs.
Beyond this, the lack of requisite tech know-how and high costs of machinery needed to manufacture
rackets, golf balls etc. prevents manufacturers from entering & scaling in this segment.
To unlock exports, the focus must be on developing a robust raw material ecosystem for carbon fibre
and rationalising duties on its imports. Further, bringing in anchor brands could help drive demand and
provide tech-know to Indian manufacturers in segments like racket sports, golf etc. However, in the
long term, we can also look to strengthen our own brands and not just work as contract manufacturers.
Case Study 2: Carbon Fibre
Carbon fibre is a lightweight, ultra-high-strength material composed of carbon filaments, widely used
in applications where high strength, stiffness, and low weight are critical. In the sports sector, carbon
fibre is extensively applied in the manufacture of high-performance equipment such as badminton,
tennis, and squash rackets, hockey sticks, softball bats, and golf clubs, enabling superior performance
and durability. Beyond sports equipment, it is widely used in aerospace, automotive components,
wind energy, medical devices, and high-end industrial applications where performance and weight
reduction are critical.
Manufacturing Process and Challenges:
Carbon fibre manufacturing can be understood in three main stages, each with a clear bottleneck. First,
the PAN precursor fibre must be produced with highly consistent chemistry and filament uniformity
as small variations in chemical stability and purity can render the fibre unstable. Second, the precursor
is converted through stabilisation and high-temperature carbonisation. These steps require high-cost
specialised infrastructure (such as high-temperature furnaces, autoclaves for pressure curing and
advanced fibre placement (AFP) systems). These must be supported by energy-intensive utilities that
must operate uninterrupted as well as a skilled workforce in composite layup, curing, and quality
assurance to consistently meet performance specifications. 45
Currently, this limits carbon fibre manufacturing to specialised firms in nations like Japan, USA, China
and Europe. India does not produce any carbon fiber and relies completely on imports from these
countries
Way Forward
Building domestic carbon fibre production can unlock India’s entry into high-value sports equipment
categories such as rackets, golf clubs, and hockey sticks, where its current market share is negligible,
and where competitiveness is closely tied to access to advanced materials. Given the high R&D
intensity and capital costs involved in carbon fibre manufacturing, targeted government support
becomes critical—through focused R&D funding, shared infrastructure and cluster-led development,
and rationalisation of import duties on key inputs to enable downstream manufacturers to scale, build
demand, and create a viable domestic market for high-performance composite products.
b) Protective Gear
Overview
Protective gear includes sports safety equipment such as helmets, face masks, leg pads/guards etc.
India has established a meaningful presence in cricket helmets, accounting for an estimated 30-35%
of the market and with 1-3 key global brands. However, its export footprint across other segments
of protective gear remains limited. Protective gear in this context includes sports equipment such as
helmets, leg guards, shin guards, and face masks.
Key global brands & domestic manufacturers include the following:
Global BrandsDomestic Manufactures
Cricket protective gear
Hockey protective
gear
Cricket helmets
Combat sports protective
gear
Football Shin guards
Manufacturing Process: Cricket Helmets
The manufacturing of cricket helmets involves three broad stages - outer shell processing, fabric and
foam processing, and final assembly. 46
Step 1: Outer Shell
Processing
Step 2: Fabric & Foam
Processing
Step 3: Final
Assembly
Investment
(₹)
Avg.
Daily
Output
The hard shell
is made using
injection moulding/
thermoforming (plastic)
or fiber
After forming, the shell
is cooled/cured
The shell is trimmed
and smoothed, vents/
openings are cut- this is
largely labour intensive
Fabric cover is fitted
over the shell (like a tight
skin)
The impact liner (usually
EPS/EPP foam) is
molded separately. The
liner is then bonded to
the inner side of the shell
Comfort forms & sweat
pads are added to
improve fit & stability.
These fitting processes
are labour – intensive
Steel/titanium cage is
formed and finished;
mounted to the shell
Straps, visors etc.
are added. Post final
assembly & quality
checks, the helmet is
packed
2-2.5 Cr 2-3 units
pp/per
day
Cricket helmet manufacturing is labour-intensive due to trimming, smoothening, and fitting processes.
Hockey helmet manufacturing follows a similar process, but is more capital-intensive, with investment
requirements typically ranging from ₹3-4 crore.
Industry Structure
FactorCricket HelmetsHockey Helmets
Labour IntensityHigh (75%)Medium (50%)
Capital IntensityLow (25%)Medium (50%)
Machinery procurementMost machinery is procured
domestically
Higher capital intensity; some
machinery may be imported
Raw materials & sourcing: Around 80% of raw materials for helmets are sourced domestically. However,
critical raw materials such as EVA foam, titanium, and carbon fibre are imported from countries such
as Germany and Vietnam.
Material composition also varies by product. Cricket helmets typically use an ABS or polycarbonate
shell, or a fibreglass/carbon composite shell, combined with an EPS foam liner, along with steel or
titanium grills and nylon straps. Hockey helmets, in contrast, use high-impact plastic or fibreglass/
composite shells with EPS/EPP multi-foam liners, and include steel cages or polycarbonate visors with
heavier-duty straps and hardware.
Key Buyers and India’s Positioning
Demand for protective gear is largely driven by global brands that rely on contract manufacturers
for production. Indian manufacturers, particularly non-OEM players lose market share not due to
manufacturing inefficiencies but because of lengthy and cumbersome testing processes that raise
costs and extend delivery timelines.
In addition, high import duties on critical inputs such as titanium further weaken competitiveness.
Unlike England, India does not benefit from duty-free access to key raw materials such as carbon fibre
from China or Taiwan, which places domestic manufacturers at a disadvantage in global sourcing
decisions. 47
Adjacent Industries
The industry shares similarities with the following:
• Industrial PPE (hard hats/face shields): Uses impact-resistant plastics, thermoforming or
injection molding, strap and harness assembly, edge trimming, and compliance testing.
• Automotive foam & NVH components (seats/headrests/insulation): Involves molding EPS/
EPP/PU foams, bonding and lamination, and cover stitching, similar to helmet impact liners and
comfort padding.
Cost Structure Analysis
For this sector, manufacturing costs for helmets in India were benchmarked against the UK. The
comparison indicates an overall cost advantage of approximately 23% for India. [Figure 35]

Figure 35: Cost structure analysis for protective gear
The analysis shows that India faces a minor cost disadvantage in raw materials, as inputs such as
titanium and carbon are available duty-free in the UK, while imports in India attract duties. Despite this,
Indian manufacturers have a cost advantage in labour and financing.
However, the absence of domestic, third-party certified helmet testing laboratories significantly
constrains innovation and scale. Products must be sent to Europe for CE testing, adding 3–6 months
to timelines and increasing freight and courier costs by approximately ₹15 lakh. Unlike facilities such as
Loughborough University’s lab, India lacks integrated ecosystems and partnerships for R&D, innovation,
and standards development. These gaps prevent Indian manufacturers from innovating and securing
approvals within competitive timelines.
Certification Costs
Accessing international markets for helmets requires compliance with CE and BSI certification
standards, which involves long lead times and high courier and freight costs. These requirements
impose a significant cost and time burden on MSMEs, particularly as testing and approvals are largely
conducted through overseas laboratories. [Figure 36] 48

Figure 36: Certification costs for protective gear
These certification-related costs and delays make it difficult for MSMEs to scale and compete in global
markets.
Conclusion
India has demonstrated competitive strength in select segments of protective gear, particularly in cricket
helmets with a meaningful 30-35% global market share. Production processes are well understood,
and labour availability supports cost competitiveness (v/s United Kingdom). These factors provide a
strong base for further growth in the segment.
However, greater scale in protective gear could be unlocked by addressing gaps in domestic testing
and certification infrastructure. Currently, India lacks internationally qualified testing labs, which causes
manufacturers to incur high costs and timelines for approvals. Moreover, the lack of a robust R&D
ecosystem makes innovation timelines longer, decreasing competitiveness. Additionally, easing access
to critical imported raw materials (carbon fibre, titanium) through duty rationalization and domestic
ecosystem building would ease the minimal cost disability
c) Turfs & Synthetic Floorings
Overview
The turfs and synthetic flooring segment include products such as synthetic tracks, PU sports flooring
and acrylic sports flooring. India has 3+ domestic manufacturers with international-standard capabilities;
however, limited scale continues to constrain exports and weaken competitiveness against established
global players. 49
Key global brands and domestic manufacturers include the following:
Global BrandsDomestic Manufacturers

Industry Structure
FactorSynthetic Turfs & Floorings
Labour Employment50-100 per factory; high employment potential
Machinery Procurement
Most machinery is procured domestically;
Chinese machinery is needed to increase capacities
The industry structure for synthetic turfs and flooring reflects high employment potential, largely
domestic machinery sourcing, and a relatively high degree of local raw material availability.
Around 70 per cent of raw materials used in synthetic turfs and flooring are procured domestically.
Key inputs include polymers and resins such as PU, EPDM, SBR, and PE, along with fillers like silica,
calcium carbonate, and rubber granules. Production also relies on specialised chemicals and additives,
including curatives, stabilisers, pigments, and softeners or plasticisers.
Key Buyers & India’s Positioning
Demand for synthetic turfs and sports flooring in India is largely driven by central/state governments
and public institutions, with limited participation from the private sector. Government tenders often
include restrictive origin norms that mandate products from the USA, Australia, or Europe. This excludes
Indian manufacturers and reflects a bias towards international products even when comparable
domestic alternatives exist.
Tenders released by the Government of India show that 30+ of those released since 2022 have
restrictions on Indian origin products (further details of tenders available in the appendix A7) Also, less
than 4% of India’s Class 2 athletic tracks are domestically manufactured, compared to near-complete
local manufacturing in countries such as Japan and Korea.
These restrictions limit domestic participation and reinforce dependence on imports. Further, low
and uncertain demand also increases entry risk, discouraging new investment and resulting in a small
number of active players in the segment. This lack of scale and competitiveness makes exports unviable
and limits India’s ability to compete in synthetic turfs and flooring.
Industry Similarities
Manufacturing of synthetic turfs and sports flooring shares similarities with paint manufacturing, as
both use comparable mixing, dispersion, and formulation equipment to process polymers, fillers,
pigments, and additives. 50
Certification Costs
Access to export and domestic markets for turfs and synthetic flooring requires multiple international
certifications, which involve significant upfront costs. [Figure 37].
Industry Similarities
Manufacturing of synthetic turfs and sports flooring shares similarities with paint manufacturing, as
both use comparable mixing, dispersion, and formulation equipment to process polymers, fillers,
pigments, and additives.
Certification costs
Access to export and domestic markets for turfs and synthetic flooring requires multiple international
certifications, which involve significant upfront costs. [Figure 38]

Figure 37: Certification costs for turfs
These certification costs and requirements raise entry barriers and limit the ability of Indian
manufacturers to scale and compete globally.
Conclusion
India has developed credible technical capabilities in turfs and synthetic sports flooring, with 3+ domestic
manufacturers meeting international standards across products such as synthetic tracks, PU sports
flooring, and acrylic surfaces. A large share of raw materials and machinery is sourced domestically,
and the segment offers meaningful employment potential, indicating a sound manufacturing base.
Greater scale, however, could be achieved through more predictable and supportive domestic
demand, particularly by addressing restrictive government tender norms and reducing bias towards
imported products. Lower certification-related costs, improved access to international approvals, and
demand aggregation could help Indian manufacturers achieve economies of scale, strengthen export
competitiveness, and increase domestic adoption of locally manufactured systems.
Group 4: Woodwork & Traditional Craft Manufacturing
Includes: Cricket, Wooden Baseball bats, Table Tennis equipment (table-tops, racket blades).
Overview
Woodwork and traditional craft manufacturing includes cricket bats, wooden baseball bats, table
tennis table-tops etc, where material quality and artisanal skill are critical to performance.
Overall, India is a global market leader in cricket bats but holds a negligible share in similar wood-
based products such as baseball bats. 51
Key brands in cricket include the following:
Indian BrandsOther
Sanspareils
Greenlands

Sareen Sports

BD Mahajan &
sons

Key global brands in baseball include the following:
Global Brands

Manufacturing Process: Cricket Bats
The manufacturing process for cricket bats includes two main steps, as explained in the following table:
Step 1: Willow Selection &
Pressing
Step 2: Handle Fitting &
Shaping
Investment
(₹)
Avg. Daily
Output
High-quality English or Kashmir
willow is selected. Logs are cut
into clefts and air-dried for several
months
These clefts are rough shaped &
pressed using rolling machines to
give it a curved shape & improve
structure
Pressing compresses the willow
fibers, improving durability and
impact absorption
The top of the blade is spliced into
a deep ‘V’ shape; a handle (made
of cane) is pushed into the gap
This is followed by the final
shaping, sanding &weight-
balancing of the bat.
After adding requisite logos,
quality checks are performed
before the bat is packed
5-10 lakh 1-3 bats pp/
per day
Cricket bat manufacturing is highly labour-intensive, with limited scope for mechanisation, as
critical stages such as willow selection, customisation, and bat shaping rely heavily on manual skill
and craftsmanship. Capital equipment usage is relatively less intensive and largely limited to basic
machinery such as saws, splicing jigs, sand-papering tools, and pressing machines, reinforcing the
sector’s dependence on skilled artisanal labour rather than automated production systems.
Industry Structure
Factor
Labour IntensityHigh (75-80%)
Capital IntensityLow (20-25%) 52
The table highlights that cricket bat manufacturing is characterised by very high labour intensity and
low capital intensity, underscoring its dependence on skilled manual work rather than mechanised
production.
Labour intensity remains persistently high, as machines are unable to replicate the precision required
in cleft selection, shaping, balance correction, and customisation. At the same time, shortages of skilled
artisans continue to constrain production capacity and limit the sector’s ability to scale sustainably.
Raw materials and sourcing: Most critical raw materials including English Willow and Singapore cane
(used in handles) are imported. Domestic sourcing- particularly of Kashmir willow is restricted by
regulatory and movement limitations, preventing its effective use in manufacturing clusters outside
the region.
Over the long term, dwindling availability of quality willow poses a structural risk to the industry
Key Buyers & India’s Positioning
India is home to 2-3 global brands that together account for around 40-50% of the global cricket
bat market, while additional brands and OEM manufacturing based in India contribute a further 30-
35%. As a result, India dominates the global market with a combined share of approximately 75-80%,
supported by a strong and mature domestic base.
This scale enables cost distribution efficiencies and attracts demand from both established international
brands and smaller global players. However, despite this leadership position, the scope for further
market share expansion remains limited, as cricket is played competitively in only around 10-11 countries
such as Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, etc.
Adjacent Industries
Craft-led wood industries- such as premium furniture and musical instruments- exhibit strong similarities
with cricket bat manufacturing, as they rely on wood as the primary input, depend heavily on skilled
manual labour, emphasise hand-finishing, and operate with relatively low levels of automation.
Cost Structure Analysis
For this segment, manufacturing costs of cricket bats were benchmarked against Pakistan, which
holds around 20-25% of the global market share. The comparison indicates an overall cost advantage
of approximately 0-5% for India. [Figure 38]

Figure 38: Cost structure analysis for Cricket Bats 53
The analysis indicates that India faces a modest logistics-related cost disadvantage, as Pakistan
benefits from a well-integrated dry port and airport ecosystem in Sialkot, highlighting clear scope
for India to strengthen its logistics infrastructure. At the same time, despite India’s deep expertise
and global leadership in wooden cricket bat manufacturing, this capability has not translated into a
meaningful presence in other wood-based sports equipment such as baseball bats, representing an
under-exploited diversification opportunity.
Certification Costs
Access to global baseball bat markets is governed by WBSC certification, which entails significant
upfront testing and administrative costs. [Figure 39]

Figure 39: Certification costs for WSBC
The high certification cost of around ₹7 lakh per product cycle acts as a major entry barrier, particularly
for MSMEs, and explains the absence of certified Indian manufacturers despite strong wood-working
capabilities.
Conclusion
India’s woodwork segment demonstrates a clear global strength in cricket bat manufacturing,
underpinned by deep craft skills, scale, and strong brand presence. However, this capability has not
translated into adjacent wood-based products such as baseball bats and table tennis equipment, where
certification barriers, limited market access, and lack of scale constrain participation.
With targeted interventions around certifications, logistics, and market access, India could leverage
its existing craftsmanship and manufacturing base to diversify into similar wood-intensive sports
equipment and expand its global footprint beyond cricket. 54
General Challenges
a) Capital Goods
A significant percent of key machinery used to produce sports equipment (including thermo-bonding
moulds, CNC machines etc. used across fabrication and metal intensive manufacturing) is imported
from countries like China, Japan & Europe.
This is primarily due to the unavailability of quality, up-to-date machinery in India. The industry lacks
scale, thereby lowering the incentive for domestic tech development and R&D. In several segments,
tech-upgradation is imperative due to the capital intensity of the segment (table tennis, athletics) –
efficiency cannot be improved without the same. In India, domestic machinery and tech-know how to
manufacture equipment such as rackets, golf equipment is severely lacking. This makes it extremely
necessary to ease the costs of tech acquisition & upgradation. [Figure 40]

Figure 40: Plant and Machinery cost comparison for sports goods manufacturers
CIF Costs: Freight, insurance, and duties significantly increase the landed cost of imported machinery
in India. CIF costs add approximately 7.5% to the landed price due to shipping and insurance expenses.
Duties & SWS: While manufacturers are eligible for an exemption of 7.5% Basic Customs Duty (BCD)
under the EPCG scheme, the 10% Social Welfare Surcharge (SWS) is not exempt, and must be borne
by manufacturers.
As a result, the surcharges and freight costs raise the landed price of machinery in India by at least
8.25% compared to China.
In addition, capital goods attract 18% GST, which is ideally creditable; however, since output goods are
taxed at only 5%, manufacturers often have insufficient tax liability to fully utilise or claim refunds of
the IGST paid. Where this GST credit cannot be availed, the effective landed cost disadvantage relative
to China increases sharply up to ~26%, materially discouraging capital investment and mechanisation. 55
b) Land
India’s sports manufacturing clusters face significant structural constraints that limit scale and
efficiency. Land prices in established clusters are prohibitively high, ranging from INR 900-1,100 per
sq. ft. in Meerut to INR 1,700-2,000 per sq. ft. in Jalandhar’s Leather Complex. Additionally, no new
sports industrial complexes have been developed in these clusters for over 30 years. As a result,
manufacturers are unable to create integrated factory spaces and are forced to operate out of
fragmented, multi-floor rental units within existing buildings. The lack of adequate space further leads
to logistical inefficiencies, as suppliers outside the sports complex are compelled to dispatch smaller,
piecemeal shipments using trolleys that require subsequent consolidation. This increases handling
costs and reduces overall productivity.
Due to these constraints, Indian manufacturers typically operate on plots of just 1-2 acres, compared to
20-25 acres in Pakistan and China, enabling the latter to maintain integrated layouts and streamlined
operations. Developing new, larger factories with streamlined manufacturing processes is critical
to improving efficiency and meeting international delivery timelines and supply requirements. Land
availability and the creation of integrated manufacturing clusters is hence a major unlock across
product segments.
c) Logistics
India’s manufacturing clusters face a significant logistics disadvantage due to the lack of streamlined
inland infrastructure. The absence of nearby ports or effective dry ports around key hubs such as
Meerut and Jalandhar results in inland transport costs that are 2-2.5 times higher than those in China.
Distance from ports and indirect routing also extends delivery and procurement timelines, making
Indian shipments 10-12 days slower than global competitors. These issues are further exacerbated by
weak air and rail connectivity, including limited cargo capacity at Amritsar and slow, unreliable rail
freight from ports such as Mumbai, particularly during the monsoon season.
In contrast, competitors benefit from the existence of streamlined logistics. Sialkot, Pakistan benefits
from a dry port with 24/7 customs clearance, lower local haulage costs. Sialkot Dry Port is also a
TIR hub, providing direct access Central Asia, Russia etc. without exchange of trucks, cross loading
at borders etc. The presence of an international airport further improves logistics, whilst also easing
buyer visits. China’s Europe-bound rail network reduces transit times by 50% compared to sea freight.
The absence of comparable infrastructure in India erodes cost and time competitiveness.
d) Tech Limitations
India’s sports manufacturing ecosystem is constrained by limited domestic technological innovation,
resulting in a high dependence on imported machinery. This significantly increases tech-upgradation
costs (as elaborated upon above).
The absence of common facility centres (CFCs) further exacerbates these challenges, forcing individual
firms (especially MSMEs) to invest independently in machinery, testing, and R&D infrastructure. As a
result, technology adoption remains fragmented and scale efficiencies are limited. In addition, technical
expertise is often accessed through expensive external consultants, placing a disproportionate cost
burden on smaller firms seeking to upgrade capabilities. Many MSMEs wish to upgrade technology
and acquire know-how for manufacturing various products but are unable to do so due to the high
investment necessary.
In contrast, in peer nations like China, rapid tooling cycles and scale enable continuous innovation;
mould development happens within weeks rather than years (as is the case in India). This significantly
erodes India’s competitiveness. Similarly, Sialkot’s government-supported shared machinery and
prototyping hubs allow even small manufacturers to meet global quality and export standards. 56
Demand-Side Challenges
Indian sports equipment manufacturers face an array of market access constraints that limit their
ability to scale globally and capture demand. The primary bottleneck stems from a lack of a credible
global branding ‘Made in India’ narrative for sports equipment. This is compounded by trade policy
headwinds and underdeveloped forward linkages with global anchor brands that drive demand and
facilitate visibility.
Beyond market structure, the lack of significant federation representation in global sporting bodies
(FIFA, FIBA) limits India’s ability to create co-branding opportunities and marketing channels for
domestic manufacturers, while underdeveloped institutional sports infrastructure and weak university-
industry partnerships further constrain ecosystem maturity.
Easing these demand-side challenges, requires concerted branding effort across various stakeholders
like athletes, ministries, national sports federations, manufacturers etc. This would ideally be centred
around the core ministry i.e. Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports: 57
Some of the challenges can be elaborated upon as follows:
(a) Branding
(i) Brand-India Story
The primary branding challenge for Indian sports goods lies in the absence of a unified and
sustained “Brand India” narrative. While multiple stakeholders operate across the sports
ecosystem, efforts to collectively promote Indian-manufactured sports goods remain
fragmented and uncoordinated, limiting global visibility and recall.
Athletes, who are the most visible and credible brand ambassadors, have been underutilised
for sustained promotion of Made-in-India sports equipment. This stands in sharp contrast
to international examples such as Anta, which built global brand visibility through a 16-year
partnership with the Chinese Olympic Committee, enabling over 120 Olympic champions to
consistently showcase the brand on the world stage.
Linkages between manufacturers and universities, sports academies, and high-performance
centres also remain underdeveloped, reducing opportunities for product validation, co-
development, and institutional endorsement. In parallel, corporate participation through CSR
has not been strategically aligned with sports equipment manufacturing, leaving a significant
opportunity to support both athlete development and domestic manufacturing untapped.
Sports equipment is not explicitly prioritised within CSR guidelines or public sector undertaking
themes, further limiting structured support.
In addition, National Sports Federations and government agencies have played a limited role
in enabling Indian manufacturers to gain visibility and representation within global sporting
organisations and platforms.
This lack of coordination across stakeholders has resulted in a gap where India possesses
manufacturing capability and quality products, but lacks the integrated branding, endorsements,
and institutional backing required to strengthen the “Made in India” perception and capture a
larger share of global sports goods markets.
(ii) Anchor Brands
India’s sports equipment manufacturing ecosystem lacks transformative anchor brand
partnerships across product categories. In global markets, anchor relationships have played a
crucial catalysing role in creating predictable demand, stringent quality systems, and enabling
supplier investments in automation and scale.
For example, Pakistan’s football manufacturing hub in Sialkot illustrates the transformative
impact of long-term anchor brand partnerships. The region has collaborated closely with Adidas
since 1982, building deep manufacturing expertise and trust over several decades. Sialkot’s
role as the exclusive supplier of FIFA World Cup footballs for three consecutive tournaments
in 2014, 2018, and 2022 has firmly established its global reputation for quality and reliability.
This sustained association with a leading global brand has concentrated an estimated 60-70%
of global football demand in Sialkot, enabling significant economies of scale and driving the
development of robust local supply chains. Over time, this scale has also facilitated technology
transfer, skill upgrading, and the accumulation of specialised manufacturing know-how across
the cluster.
India too has established a strong, albeit category-specific, position in the global rugby ball
market, driven largely by manufacturing capabilities concentrated in Jalandhar. Leading
international brands such as Gilbert source primarily from this region - Jalandhar alone accounts
for approximately 60% of Decathlon’s global rugby ball production. Indian manufacturers 58
collectively hold a higher share than all the other countries combined, a notable achievement
given the broader dominance of Pakistan and China across most other inflatable and hard-ball
sports equipment categories. However, this remains confined to rugby balls and has not yet
translated into a comparable presence across other sports equipment segments.
(b) Role of National Sports Federations (NSFs)
National Sports Federations (NSFs) in India play a central role in governing and developing their
respective sports, with primary responsibilities spanning regulation, promotion, competition
management, athlete and coach development, equipment procurement, and grassroots
programs aligned with international and Olympic norms. Their current focus is largely oriented
toward training, event organisation, and athlete management, with mandated allocations for
youth and grassroots development. However, NSFs have invested relatively limited effort in
building a strong domestic sports manufacturing ecosystem or engaging systematically with
industry stakeholders as part of their broader developmental mandate.
As a result, gaps persist in domestic ecosystem creation and industry coordination. Many NSFs
lack structured mechanisms to engage with or guide domestic manufacturers on equipment
specifications, standards, or emerging requirements, limiting alignment between sporting needs
and manufacturing capabilities. Several NSFs spent only 50-65% of their allocated budgets in
FY 2024-25, indicating untapped capacity to support holistic ecosystem development. The
recently mandated Make-in-India committees within NSFs present an opportunity to address
these gaps, provided they are supported by sustained industry-federation engagement and
stronger accountability frameworks.
(c) Market Access
Market access for Indian sports goods manufacturers is constrained by a combination of trade
agreements and investment-related policy dynamics. Under the ASEAN–India FTA, finished
sports goods imported from countries such as Vietnam enter India at zero duty, creating a cost-
advantaged sourcing route for global brands with operations in India. This has enabled imports
to undercut domestic manufacturers, who already face relatively higher raw material and input
costs, intensifying competitive pressure in key product categories such as inflatable balls.
At the same time, sports goods have not featured prominently in India’s trade negotiation
priorities, limiting the country’s ability to secure favourable tariff outcomes, address non-tariff
barriers, or proactively shape market access conditions that support export competitiveness
for domestic manufacturers. 59 60
Chapter 8: Where to Play: Strategic Prioritisation of Sports
Categories for Export Competitiveness
Achieving the ambitious export target of $8.1 billion by 2036 will require a focused and coordinated
strategy rather than a fragmented, category-agnostic approach as evident through the challenges as
well. To this end, we have identified priority sports equipment categories using a structured “Where
to Play” matrix that assesses global export opportunity, measured through current global export size,
against India’s existing manufacturing capability, including current production capacity and overall
ecosystem maturity.
Based on the analysis, we can categorise the sports goods universe into four strategic quadrants to
guide investment prioritisation and policy support.
Figure 41: 4 quadrants guiding investment and policy support
Quadrant 1 - Scale and Increase share (High capability, High export potential): This quadrant
represents India’s immediate ‘engine of growth’ for exports. It covers Ball sports (Inflatable and Hard
Balls). India already possesses a relatively strong manufacturing base in clusters like Jalandhar and
Meerut for these goods.
Quadrant 2 - Selective plays (High capability, Low export potential): This quadrant includes niche
sports that have relatively established manufacturing presence in India. For example, Table Tennis,
Boxing, and Cricket.
Quadrant 3 - Long-term bets (Low capability, Low export potential): This includes categories like
Water sports, Shooting, Golf, and other smaller sports categories. These require fundamental shifts
in local demand and infrastructure before they become viable for export-led manufacturing at scale.
Quadrant 4 - Build to Win (Emerging capability, High export potential): This quadrant represents
sports categories where global demand is massive, but India’s footprint is limited. It covers categories
like Cycling, Sports flooring, Hockey, Protective gear, Racket sports, and Swimming. 61
The Three-Horizon Prioritisation Roadmap
A phased 10-year roadmap can be charted out to prioritise specific sports segments, aligning policy
support with category readiness:
• Horizon 1 (Unlock $3.4 bn, 42% of total export potential): Focuses on ‘low hanging fruits’
by scaling existing strengths in sports categories from Quadrants 1 and 2. This would
require debottlenecking current clusters, improve infrastructure gaps, and eliminate cost
disabilities.
• Horizon 2: (Unlock ~$2.4 bn, 29% of total export potential): Focuses on ‘building a
capability at scale’, focusing on sports in Quadrant 4. This horizon is expected to be defined
by entry into high-tech segments like Racket sports, Sports flooring, and Cycling. Success
here would require ensuring domestic availability of specialized raw inputs that are currently
imported (Carbon fibre, EVA, etc.) along with other structural fixes in place. Further to scale
capabilities, existing clusters would need to be established, inviting large global anchors to
attract quality, scale, and investment into domestic production.
• Horizon 3: (Unlock ~$2.4 bn, 29% of total export potential): Focuses on niche dominance
in the long run. By 2036, India aims to establish a presence in specialized sports (Water
sports, Shooting, Golf, etc.), and to complete a comprehensive global sports equipment
manufacturing portfolio under the ‘Made in India’ brand. 62 63 64
Chapter 9: Key Recommendations
Achieving India’s ambitious 2036 export goal requires a fundamental shift in India’s sports manufacturing
ecosystem. This section highlights a seven-pronged strategy to address the structural, supply-side
and demand-side challenges persisting in the sector, the competitiveness gap and the need for fiscal
support to bridge it, and a five-year proposed scheme for the same. These solves are:
Supply Side Solves – Immediate Action Items
Structural reforms are crucial to ensure cost competitiveness for Indian sports goods manufacturers.
Key Recommendations – Structural Solves
(i) Raw Material costs: Current duty structures often increase costs for value-adding exporters.
India imports most high-end raw materials for sports equipment. Policy measures should
focus on rationalisation of duties on specialised inputs like carbon fibre, PU/TPU sheets,
EVA foam, etc. Furthermore, for raw materials sourced domestically, e.g. steel, polyester,
plastics etc., QCO restrictions should be eliminated and domestic prices should be ensured
to be at par with global prices. In addition, import processes should be eased for exporters,
with fast-tracked duty refunds for export-oriented manufacturers. Long-term solves should
include focusing on building a robust domestic raw material ecosystem to reduce global
import dependence.
• Land & Logistics:
»The mature nature of legacy clusters like Jalandhar and Meerut adds land-related
challenges. Policy should require to make land easily available without prohibitive
upfront capital expenditure for MSMEs.
»There is also a need to strengthen ‘last-mile’ connectivity from cluster to major
ports like Mundra/JNPT etc. This can be achieved by constructing better multi-
modal hubs (e.g. Greater Noida, Ludhiana, new cluster zones) to act as dry ports for
expedited shipping, along with improved roadways.
(ii) Taxation and Customs: Currently, we import all machinery required for high-end sports
equipment manufacturing. Policy reforms should ensure eliminating all duties and levies on
export-linked machinery, components and specialised tools required to mass-produce high
quality sports equipment. Further, implementing a ‘Single Window’ for customs clearance
of export-linked inputs as well as export samples sent abroad can help avoid delays in 65
sending/receiving samples that currently stunt the design-to-market product cycles. Lastly,
harmonising GST rates on sports goods, sport equipment and inputs can help improve
overall export competitiveness and reduce blockage in working capital for manufacturers.
(iii) Certification & Quality infrastructure: The lack of quality globally certified institutions in
India adds a hidden cost to Indian exports given the ‘double testing’ burden as they send their
products abroad for certification. Key competing nations all have internationally accredited
testing labs in their countries which reduces lead time, cost and enables quick innovation.
Policy reforms should focus on engaging with global international sports federations/bodies
like FIFA, FIBA, BWF, etc. in establishing globally accredited testing labs in India.
(iv) Technology and knowledge transfer: Visa process and visa clearance for foreign technical
experts (including from China) required for manufacturing set up, specialised moulding
and tech upgradation, should be expedited to improve technology transfer process. Also,
enabling local JVs could help move from high-cost consultants to facilitate permanent
knowledge transfer to the Indian workforce.
(v) Public tenders: Domestic demand for several sports’ equipment categories, especially
turfs and synthetic flooring, is still driven largely by central/state governments. In this
context, restrictive tender conditions mandating specific foreign origins or brands (e.g.
USA, Australia, Europe) can unintentionally exclude capable Indian manufacturers from
participating, locking in import dependence even when domestic options exist. Government
should encourage sourcing in line with required quality and cost standards without any
discrimination on the basis of country of origin. They must also create reforms to improve
domestic innovation pilots for Indian suppliers to demonstrate performance through field
trials, encouraging them to improve quality to meet global standards over time.
Need for Fiscal Support
(i) Quantifying the competitiveness gap As highlighted in the challenges section, India
currently faces a ~15% cost disability compared to global manufacturing rivals like China.
For an industry where global procurement decisions are made on margins of 2-3%, this
gap is a huge barrier to entry for all buyers. To reach a target of $8.1 bn by 2036, we
should aim to capture 3% of the market by 2031 resulting in ~$2 bn of exports. Since the
disability is 15%, to be globally competitive and achieve this ambition, we will need to fulfil
this disability.Over the five-year period (2027-2031), the cumulative financial impact of this
disability for sports equipment categories is estimated at ~₹7,300 crore. [Refer to Appendix
A8. for detailed calculation] The gap is comprised of:
• Structural disabilities (~77% share of gap): These include high raw material (RM)
import duties and machinery costs.
• Additional gap (23% of gap): Even if structural challenges are solved for, a residual
cost of ₹1,700 crore remains to be bridged due to lack of scale. Additional factors
like lack of testing infrastructure, international certification fees, market access, lack of
accessibility of specialised RM inputs, also play a role.
Structural Fixes and Targeted Fiscal Incentives
While there are a list of 23 raw materials permitted to be imported duty free under the DFIS scheme
(see appendix A6), consultations with manufacturers reveal that the list of eligible materials under this
scheme is narrow and static. Input requirements for sports equipment manufacturers extend beyond
the 23 raw materials, leaving a substantial share of input costs outside of duty-free perimeter. Further,
a majority of manufacturers are MSMEs and not 100% EOUs. For such players, duties are paid upfront,
followed up slow refund mechanisms and administrative burden.
The Government should address structural inefficiencies by rationalising import duties on specialised
inputs (carbon fibre, EVA, TPU, etc.), removing QCOs on key input material (steel, aluminium) and
removing import duties for specialised machinery not made in India. 66
If structural reforms are not undertaken, the Government will have to compensate for structural
weaknesses purely through fiscal subsidies to achieve the desired target. This would require an
incentive of ~₹7,300 crore. This would not only be fiscally unsustainable and continue to render an
uncompetitive environment but would not address the underlying inefficiencies of the ecosystem and
develop scale in the industry.
However, if the structural challenges are addressed, a corpus of only ~₹1,700 crore is required to be
supported through a targeted scheme to provide the “extra mile” assistance needed for Indian sports
equipment manufacturers to become globally export competitive.
A detailed deep-dive of impact of reforms on sub-groups is available in Appendix (see A10).
Figure 42: Incentive outlook
(i) Proposed Scheme: Sports Goods Manufacturing Incentive (SGMI) Scheme (total ₹2,000
crore)
We propose introducing a scheme to bridge the gap after fixing the structural issues via
the SGMI scheme (2027-31) of ₹1,700 crore. In addition to this, there is an imperative to
incentivise broader market access and support for global branding initiatives on the demand
side. Therefore, it is proposed that the scheme comprise of three key pillars focused on
uplifting both new and existing sports goods manufacturers.
• Pillar One – Fiscal support for scale-related benefits (bulk buying raw material, tech
upgradation, innovation) (₹1,700 crore): Offer fiscal support to MSMEs in better
accesses qualified raw inputs through bulk-buy facilitation. In addition, capital subsidies
offered for eligible specialized machinery and capital goods can help offset high initial
cost of establishment and facilitate production of sports goods for export. There should
be lower thresholds for eligibility for MSMEs on the same.
• Pillar Two - Certification support (₹200 crore): High certification costs and lack of
globally accredited testing labs in India is cited as a key challenge for most sports’
equipment manufacturers. It is therefore, proposed, that the government co-fund
certifications for meeting global standards and sports-specific approvals, quality marks,
etc. which is a key requirement in equipment procurement at global sporting events.
This is a short-term measure until we develop an internationally accredited testing
infrastructure in the country across sports. 67
• Pillar Three - Global branding and market access support (₹100 crore): Reimburse or
cover costs for manufacturers to participate in priority international trade fairs, curated
buyer-seller meets, and global brand-building exercises. This can help strengthen ‘Brand
India’ brand and build credibility, trust and recognition among international sports
federations
Building on the reforms and scheme interventions outlined above, we can illustrate the impact through
a straightforward scenario analysis.
Figure 43: Scenario Analysis- BAU v/s with proposed incentives
• Under a business-as-usual (BAU) path, in which targeted assistance and structural fixes
are not put in place, India’s sports equipment exports would continue to stay relatively
stagnant until 2036, with its global export share plateauing between 0.4-0.5%, even though
the global market would be expanding.
• In contrast, India can change to significantly higher growth trajectory and achieve its $8.1
bn export target by 2036, provided proposed package of structural reforms as well as
incentives to close the residual competitiveness gap are actioned and used effectively. This
would translate to an estimated ~11% of global export share from the current 0.5% base.
[base year: 2024]
Supply Side – Long Term Solves
The transition to an $8.1 bn export economy for sports equipment needs more than just monetary
parity. It requires creation of integrated cluster-led manufacturing to achieve economies of scale,
specialised labour pooling, and building deeper Global Value Chains (GVCs).
Adopt a Cluster-led Growth Model
Unlocking capacity in legacy hubs and developing new, export-oriented manufacturing ecosystems
that are port-proximate and integrated with adjacent industries are necessary to achieve the larger
export goal from the current base. These clusters can also include common facility centres (CFCs) to
offer plug and play infrastructure (high cost machinery, access to specialised material) to MSMEs thus
reducing their capital burden. 68
Key Advantages of the Cluster Model
• Decreased turnaround time: Lead times are shortened by 15-20 days due to logistics
infrastructure availability, closeness to raw material suppliers, etc.
• Skill concentration: By creating a “localised labour market”, clusters enable the self-
sufficiency of specialised skills like hand stitching, precision moulding, and composite
layering.
• Usage of plug-and-play facilities: MSMEs can lower the barrier to technological entry by
using expensive equipment such as carbon-fibre kilns, 3D printers and CNC machines, on a
pay-per-use basis. Also, shared infrastructure including shared testing labs and R&D hubs,
reduce burden of certification and innovation for individual firms, speeding up iterations
essential for federation-linked standards and buyer approvals.
• Economies of scale: Sports equipment manufacturers can benefit from the shared upstream
inputs, stitching/finishing skills, and other extended benefits achieving production at scale,
enabling greater operational efficiency.
• Cost competitiveness at ecosystem level: Clusters help reduce friction costs that MSMEs
might not be able to address on their own. This is enabled by shared logistics nodes, common
utilities, and a ‘single-window’ customs clearance procedure.
Strengthen Legacy Clusters
Strengthening existing manufacturing clusters in Meerut and Jalandhar is critical to scaling India’s
sports goods ecosystem, as these clusters represent the country’s deepest concentration of skills,
supplier networks, and MSME manufacturing capacity for sports equipment. Decades of accumulated
artisanal expertise in equipment manufacturing provide a strong foundation for upgrading towards
modern, technology-enabled production. Targeted cluster-level interventions can unlock economies
of scale, improve quality and compliance with international standards, and accelerate integration into
global value chains.
However, there are a few limitations of existing clusters. These are:
• Land and expansion restrictions: Current clusters are set up in smaller Indian cities where it
is challenging to expand industrial areas because of a lack of supply of land. Infrastructure is
still under-developed in comparison to the demands of export-scale manufacturing, despite
improvement in core industrial infrastructure.
• High logistics burden: As a result of being far from key international seaports and airports,
increased lead times and delays lead to a rise in logistics costs as a significant portion of
delivered costs.
Hence, it is essential to also build clusters outside of the legacy clusters that address these challenges.
Add New Clusters
To identify where the new clusters can be introduced, the study evaluates Indian states based on a
rigorous scorecard assessment across five pillars: Land & cluster readiness, Logistics infrastructure,
Policy support, Sports ecosystem & event-driven tailwinds, and Skilled labour availability (from adjacent
industries). 69
Figure 44: State readiness index
Top Three States
• Gujarat emerges as a strong candidate for the development of a new sports goods
manufacturing cluster, supported by a robust logistics backbone with access to multiple
major ports, including Mundra, Pipavav, Dahej, and Hazira. The state offers cluster-ready land
availability and a high degree of policy favourability, with the Gujarat Sports Policy 2022–27
explicitly identifying sports goods manufacturing as a priority area and signalling intent to
develop a dedicated cluster. These supply-side advantages are reinforced by ecosystem
tailwinds such as large-scale sporting initiatives like Khel Mahakumbh, ongoing investments
in stadium and sports infrastructure, and the presence of strong allied industries, including
foundry, plastics, and engineering, which can support component manufacturing and input
adjacencies.
• Andhra Pradesh ranks among the leading prospects for the development of an export-
oriented sports goods manufacturing cluster, driven by strong corridor connectivity and a
plug-and-play manufacturing model aligned with global value chains. The Andhra Pradesh
Sports Policy 2024–29 explicitly proposes the creation of Sports Economic Zones to support
domestic manufacturing of sports equipment and apparel. The state’s logistics backbone is
a key strength, with access to five ports and seven airports, alongside integration with the
Visakhapatnam–Chennai Industrial Corridor (VCIC), enabling efficient inbound raw material
movement and outbound exports. These structural advantages are complemented by
ecosystem tailwinds, including proposals for an Olympic-standard Sports City in Amaravati
and a stated ambition to host the National Games by 2030, as well as the presence of
transferable skills and supplier networks from auto-component, leather, and textile MSMEs.
• Tamil Nadu presents a strong case for scalable sports goods manufacturing zones,
underpinned by a diversified industrial base and expanding port infrastructure. While the state
currently lacks a dedicated sports goods manufacturing policy, it benefits from extensive
industrial estate infrastructure developed through SIDCO and SIPCOT, providing readily
available land and utilities for cluster development. Connectivity through three major ports,
Chennai, Kamarajar, and Tuticorin (with additional capacity expansion underway) supports
export-oriented manufacturing. The state’s deep expertise in automotive, electronics, and
textiles further strengthens its attractiveness by enabling supplier development, technology
transfer, and access to a large, skilled workforce. 70
These three states as the first cohort for cluster deployment, while structuring competitive selection
of specific sites within each state based on land parcel readiness, port distance, utility adequacy, and
ability to host shared testing/ CFC infrastructure.
Details of other states are available in the appendix. (Please refer to A5 in the Appendix)
Fiscal Requirement Breakdown for a Cluster-led Establishment
To upgrade the existing clusters and to establish new ones, fiscal support is needed. The following
calculation assumed a phased rollout over 5 years, where central support can be partially leveraged
with state contributions, improving the feasibility while aligning execution ownership with state
industrial development agencies.
Upgrading Existing Clusters (₹1,000 Crore Outlay)
For such legacy clusters, infrastructure remains outdated. Common facilities and quality certification
centres are non-existent, or inadequate. Further, logistics connectivity, as shown earlier in the report,
has not kept pace with export requirements.
For this, a ₹1,000 crore fiscal support should be proposed to upgrade legacy clusters as a parallel
‘quick win’. Specifically, funds should target infrastructure upgrades (e.g. modern shared facilities,
testing and certification centres, design tools), and better road and port connectivity, warehousing
facilities, and customs facilitation. Existing bases, if supported with the above funding, can help scale
for Horizon 1 categories, while new clusters are being developed, and generate early export wins.
The cost structure for one new cluster is estimated at ₹1,000 crore split across four components.
Establishing Four New Clusters
The cost structure for one new cluster is estimated at ₹1,000 crore split across four components:
ComponentDetailsCost (₹ crore)
Land cost (500 acres)Land aggregation for a cluster-scale manufacturing zone 500
Core infrastructure Manufacturing zone utilities + plug-and-play facilities 100
Support infrastructureCertification & testing facilities, R&D/innovation centres,
worker housing, canteen, logistics support
250
Commercial
development
Basic commercial ecosystem (e.g., offices, small hotel) 150
Total per new Cluster1,000
Note: The cost structure is aligned to schemes for other integrated parks and their components,
adjusted for sports-specific needs (e.g. testing, infra, R&D, etc.).
The aggregate requirement for four new clusters: ₹1,000 crore X 4 = ₹4,000 crore.
The design deliberately allocates significant funding to support infrastructure (₹250 crore/ cluster)
because cluster competitiveness in sports goods is heavily constrained by compliance readiness in
certification, testing as well as R&D/prototyping, along with workforce/logistics reliability.
In summary:
• ₹1,000 crore is proposed for upgrading existing legacy clusters
• ₹4,000 crore is proposed for establishing four new integrated clusters for sports equipment
(₹1,000 crore per cluster)
• Total fiscal support requirement amounts to ₹5,000 crore over 5 years, with potential to include
state co-funding 71
Testing Infrastructure Development
Stakeholder consultations have shown that a lack of testing infrastructure in the country is a key
challenge for the following reasons:
• Currently, manufacturers send their products abroad for pre-testing and testing. Each product
SKU and design require different tests and certifications. This significantly drives up the lead
time to launch and adds up costs.
• This further decreases the lack of innovation velocity and overall competitiveness, compared to
other peers like China that have domestic globally accredited lab ecosystems.
Co-funding local establishment of globally accredited testing and certification labs in or near sports
manufacturing clusters should be treated as a core competitiveness intervention, since testing directly
shapes time-to-market, cost-to-comply, and product iteration speed.
Such labs must be embedded within cluster ecosystems (as part of CFCs or cluster SPVs), to enable
MSMEs that cannot afford private lab relationships, to reduce lead times for sampling, validation and
re-testing. This model should be designed as a shared, pay-per-use facility with government funding
for capex and bundled certification packages.
In parallel, India must also pursue formal partnerships with global sporting bodies (e.g. ICC, FIFA, FIBA,
and other relevant federations) to position the country as a credible testing and certification partner,
not merely a low-cost manufacturing base. These partnerships can help meet two key objectives – one,
ensuring India-based labs are recognised and trusted in global procurement deals, and two, to enable
India to build and stay updated with evolving equipment standards, improving design capability and
innovation outcomes. This could be operationalised through MoUs, and technical working groups
evaluating, creating a tight performance framework, and tracking metrics like certification turnaround
time, number of accredited test methods, number of firms onboarded, etc.
If done well, embedded testing infrastructure can help serve as a system-level enabler, decreasing
compliance burden, increasing buyer trust, and accelerating product cycles, as well as the overall
global credibility of ‘Brand India’ sports equipment.
Building a Domestic Raw Material Ecosystem
Developing a strong domestic raw material ecosystem is essential for strengthening India’s sports
goods manufacturing sector and reducing dependence on imports. Several key inputs used across
sports equipment categories, such as advanced polymers, technical textiles, performance rubbers,
composites, carbon fibre, specialised foams, and high-grade alloys, are currently partially or fully
import-dependent. This increases costs, lengthens lead times, and exposes manufacturers to global
supply disruptions.
Special focus should be given to building domestic capabilities in carbon fibre and high-performance
polymers such as PU and TPU, which are increasingly used in modern sports equipment for their
strength, durability, and performance characteristics. Targeted support for technology transfer, joint
ventures, and scaling up domestic production can help make these materials more accessible and
affordable for Indian manufacturers.
A focused raw material strategy can improve competitiveness by lowering input costs, ensuring
consistent quality, and enabling faster product development. Stronger linkages between raw material
producers and sports goods manufacturers, including co-location near manufacturing clusters, vendor
development programmes, and access to shared testing and certification facilities, will be important
to accelerate the use of domestically produced inputs.
Building a domestic raw material ecosystem for sports goods will also create wider benefits for other
industries, including automotive, aerospace, defence, electronics, medical devices, and consumer 72
durables, where these materials are widely used. Over time, this will help improve supply chain
resilience, reduce import dependence, and strengthen India’s position across multiple manufacturing
value chains.
Global benchmarks:
• Japan’s Teijin Ltd. set up carbon fiber hub in Vietnam in 2019, which serves APAC’s rising
carbon fiber demand including for sports equipment
• China has dominated global market share in sports equipment mfg. by vertically integrating
testing (localised CNAS labs), raw materials (Guangdong/Zheijang polymer clusters), and
manufacturing
Demand-Side Solves
As mentioned in Chapter 7, India’s sports equipment manufacturing industry faces binding demand-
side challenges as well that has limited its ability to expand export scale. The core challenge remains
weak forward linkages including limited integration with global anchor brands and weak global
visibility with international sports bodies and procurement channels. These are compounded by trade
policy asymmetries (e.g. Indian government tenders solely procuring sports flooring from global
brands instead of allowing local players to participate) that disadvantage domestic sourcing in select
categories.
(i) Unified ‘Brand India’ program (₹500 crore outlay)
There must be a unified, multi-stakeholder ‘Brand India’ branding and market access strategy,
anchored by MYAS as the nodal ministry, so exports are driven by market credibility and
not just by fiscal support
Comprehensive brand india strategy
A dedicated unified ‘Brand India’ program like Make-in-India, addresses the gap of lack in coordinated
brand-building efforts by consolidating marketing, credibility-building and market access initiatives
under a single framework. The objective should be establishing India as a recognised, trusted source
for quality sports equipment by improving visibility, quality standards, and brand recall of Indian-made
products through consistent storytelling and athlete endorsements.
The program should enable funding for Indian brands at marquee international fairs and federation
expos, as well as host global buyer roadshows in India’s clusters, with Indian brands adopting a “Brand
India” identity. 73
Role of Involved Stakeholders
(i) National Sports Federations (NSFs): NSFs should move beyond their traditional role as
domestic administrators and become active builders of global credibility for Indian sports
equipment. Key responsibilities that NSFs should meet:
• Create formal industry working groups for regular discussion on key pain points with
industry players as well as athletes on issues like equipment needs, trial protocols, and
certification pathways
• Nominate NSF representatives into International Federation technical committees
where global standards are actually decided. This gives India a voice in rulemaking and
opens doors to federation networks
• Promote use of ‘Made in India’ sport equipment provided they meet international
technical and federation standards. This will help bring more brand visibility and boost
to sports equipment manufacturing domestically
(ii) Athletes: Government should work with top athletes to act as ambassadors for ‘Brand
India’, who will use Indian made equipment in international competitions, not just endorse
it in advertisements. This can be paired with genuine storytelling about their experience
with the products. Further, athletes should play a key role offering real feedback and only
endorsing gear that meets federation standards. Their performance becomes evidence that
Indian equipment works at the highest levels.
(iii) Manufacturers: Industry manufacturers should focus on delivering consistent quality at
scale, by investing in processes, technology and quality compliance. They should work
directly with athletes and federations to improve product designs, align with international
trends and quality and innovation
(iv) Corporates and Brands: Corporate support can amplify visibility of Indian equipment through
sponsorships at global events or by financially supporting smaller manufacturers to cover
certification costs that they cannot afford. By investing in federation relationships, they
can also help open doors for Indian suppliers, bringing in distribution networks, marketing
expertise to speed up adoption.
(v) Government (Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports): The role of government should shift
from direct execution to that of an organiser and facilitator of the ecosystem. This includes
providing catalytic funding for a shared Brand India platform, supporting the creation
of common testing and certification infrastructure, co-funding compliance and quality 74
certifications, and acting as the anchor institution to coordinate private sector participation
and align stakeholders across the value chain.
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Funding Sports Ecosystems
CSR spending on sports continues to be severely underweighted. Based on publicly available information,
sports receive ~1.8% of total CSR allocated budget, far behind education and healthcare. However,
when corporates do invest in sports, the focus is usually indexed towards athlete sponsorships and
training academies. CSR is also geographically-concentrated in India, with five states (Maharashtra,
Karnataka, Odisha, Tamil Nadu, and Delhi) receiving 61% of all sports-related CSR funding.
As part of reforms, firstly, corporates and regulators need to define clear standardised metrics that
go beyond medal counts and include manufacturing related metrics. Metrics can also cover athlete
pipeline outcomes, participation rates at grassroots level, equipment adoption in academies and
events, certification throughput for manufacturers, etc. Without such metrics, sports CSR toward
sports equipment manufacturing sector remains hard to prioritise or scale since impact cannot be
demonstrated to boards or shareholders.
Secondly, instead of offering fragmented small grants across multiple sports, corporates should
champion a ‘One Corporate, One Sport’ partnership model to sustain expertise and credibility over
time. One way would be to map corporates to specific sports where their industrial footprint or brand
positioning aligns (e.g. steel companies to hockey or archery, footwear brands to athletics) to create
long-term commitments or integration.
A list (non-exhaustive) of potential corporate brands engaged in CSR for sports that could be
considered to implement the above model -
Figure 45: Engagement in Sports CSR (select corporate brands)
Thirdly, corporates should be encouraged to use Indian made equipment in their CSR funded events,
academies, and training centres. Private corporate funding can also enable state and federation
partnerships, bringing forward India’s global visibility through international forums.
Lastly, the National Sports Development Fund (NSDF) continues to offer a coordination mechanism
as well. As a government-mandated fund supporting sports infra and athlete development, it can align
CSR spending, ministry programs and other philanthropic capital to prioritise sports development and
manufacturing credibility as complementary goals instead of separate agendas. 75
Case Study: Odisha’s State and Corporate Partnership Model for Success
Odisha’s emergence as a global hockey hub demonstrates what is possible with state and corporate
dual commitment model around a single sport. It operates through clear role demarcation:
• State is responsible for infrastructure and hosting capability: Odisha has consistently hosted
major International Hockey Federation (FIH) events since 2017, including World League Final
and multiple World Cups. (2018, 2023). It has also built a 20,000-seat stadium in Rourkela and
developed ~25 astro turf fields to international standards and specifications. The government
has also committed ₹120 crore in long-term sponsorship for the Indian hockey team, starting
from 2018, and now extended it through 2036 under Vision Odisha 2036 framework, positioning
the state as a permanent global hockey destination.
• Corporate partnerships handle operations and performance infrastructure: Hero Group’s
sponsorship of FIH has amplified India’s corporate voice in international decision-making bodies.
Tata has led high performance centres (HPCs), notably the Odisha Naval Tata Hockey HPC in
Kalinga, running residential programs across district and regional levels, charting a pathway
from grassroots to elite excellence. The program formalised a talent pipeline in collaboration
with Bovelander Hockey Academy (leveraging technical support from Floris Jan Bovelander
of Netherlands). Corporates also underwrote capabilities rarely present at state level, including
GPS analytics for performance tracking, rehabilitation facilities and sports science support.
As per the former Commissioner and Secretary for Sports and Tourism in the Odisha Government,
2019, “Most facilities are funded by corporates. When we approached corporates or renowned sports
personalities, we were clear that we would only be facilitators. We do not want to get into administration
because facilities are known for being run inefficiently by governments due to lack of flexibility to
respond to needs. We provide the land and help corporates tie up with a world class athlete or institution.
This model is working fine for us.” 76
Beyond Tata and Hero, other corporates have also contributed to sports ecosystems in Odisha. For
example, Dalmia Cement has supported badminton initiatives, Rungta Mines has funded Abhinav
Bindra’s Target Performance Centre for shooting, Aditya Birla Group has backed talent scouting
programs, while Reliance Foundation and Tatas have remained involved across sports.
The opportunity present is to connect these corporate investments to manufacturing credibility
enabling global market access as well as building local demand for Indian manufacturers.
• Anchor brands: India must secure 2-3 anchor OEMs or brand partnerships per sport to accelerate
global buyer confidence, bring in technical discipline around quality assurance and compliance
readiness, and create steady and predictable demand that give suppliers confidence to invest
in better machinery, automation, and skill development. Government should help de-risk early
commitments through co-location incentives highlighted previously (e.g. early bird incentives,
tax holidays, etc.) while securing anchor deals around time-bound export commitments, tech
transfer plans and integrations with CFCs for testing and workforce training.
The long-term value can extend beyond individual contracts. For example, if India can showcase
capability in one category like FIFA-quality balls or BWF-certified shuttlecocks, credibility
might extend to other segments, shifting the country’s manufacturing and quality reputation.
Case studies on Vietnam and Bangladesh in footwear and garments respectively, show similar
rapid scaling of the ecosystem after securing key anchor partnerships.
A list of potential anchor brands is given below: 77
Figure 46: Select list of potential anchor brands
• Trade facilitation: Strengthening demand for Indian sports goods will also require more effective
use of trade policy, particularly through existing and future Free Trade Agreements (FTAs).
Explicitly including sports goods and sports equipment within FTA coverage, with preferential
tariff treatment and simplified rules of origin, can significantly improve market access for Indian
manufacturers in key export destinations. Better-aligned FTAs can help reduce tariff and non-
tariff barriers, improve price competitiveness, and enable Indian firms to integrate more deeply
into global value chains. Over time, a targeted trade strategy for sports goods can act as a
strong demand enabler by expanding export opportunities and providing manufacturers with
greater certainty to invest in scale, quality, and branding.
Deep-Dive: EU-FTA
Two recently concluded FTAs: EU-FTA and the UK-FTA have the potential to expand India’s share in
labour intensive categories like sports equipment.
EU FTA includes sports goods within its scope of negotiations and once implemented, is expected to
provide duty-free market access for Indian sports goods exports. This would substantially enhance
India’s access to the European Union’s sports goods import market, valued at approximately USD 14
billion and accounting for nearly 27 percent of global trade in the segment. Currently, India’s sports
goods exports to the EU stand at around USD 60 million (2024), significantly lower than Pakistan’s
exports of over USD 100 million, which have benefitted from duty-free access under the GSP+ regime
since 2014. Implementation of the EU FTA would place Indian manufacturers on an equal tariff footing,
improving price competitiveness and enabling deeper market penetration and scale-up across a wider
range of sports equipment categories.
Under the UK–India FTA, the UK has eliminated import duties on Indian sports goods, significantly
improving the competitiveness of Indian manufacturers in the British market. The UK accounts for
nearly $2 billion in sports goods imports (approximately 4% of global trade in this segment) and
is already India’s largest export destination for sports equipment, with exports reaching $50 million
in 2024. With the agreement set to take effect in April 2026, exports of products such as footballs,
rugby equipment, and cricket gear are expected to rise. The removal of tariffs will enhance price
competitiveness relative to suppliers from countries such as China and Vietnam, supporting deeper
market penetration and strengthening trade ties with a key partner. 78
• Federation representation: International sports federations (ISFs) control technical standards
and approved equipment list that moves into procurement specifications used by local
organizing committees (LOCs) and large institutional buyers. If Indian buyers are absent from
these lists, they remain invisible in major tender participation, regardless of manufacturing
capability. To solve for this, Indian technical exports should be nominated for representation in
ISF technical committees over time, ensuring Indian manufacturers receive advance visibility
into evolving standards for future procurement cycles.
• Additionally, India-based test events and product demonstrations should be hosted in
partnership with federations like BWF-sanctioned badminton tournaments promoting India-
manufactured sports equipment. Lastly, long-term testing partnerships should be forged
linking Indian labs with federation certification pathways (e.g. ICC/BSI for helmets, ITTF for
table tennis tables, etc.)
• Ecosystem development: Establish formal partnerships with universities, sports academies, and
high-performance centres to function as applied R&D and testing hubs for sports equipment.
These institutions can provide structured athlete feedback, performance data, and real-world
usage insights, enabling manufacturers to refine product design, improve performance, and
accelerate innovation cycles.
Consolidated Fiscal Requirement (2027-31)
Building India’s competitiveness in sports equipment manufacturing requires coordinated investment
action across multiple fronts. No single initiative is sufficient, as each component reinforces the others
to create a functional ecosystem capable of building a globally-trusted export competitive sports
equipment manufacturing destination.
The total government fiscal requirement over the five-year period (2027-31), amounts to approximately
₹7,500 crore, across initiatives outlined in this report.
The components are summarised below as follows:
S. No.Initiatives (2027-31)Amount (₹ crore)
1 Building Cluster infrastructure (4 major, 2 legacy)5,000
2a SGMI scheme (bridging competitiveness gap via certification support,
market access initiatives, fiscal support, and raw material enablement)
1,700
2b Certifications200
2c Market access100
3 Brand India branding programs500
Total7,500
This investment sets the foundation for India’s path to reach $8.1 bn exports by 2036 and capturing
~12% of global market share in sports equipment exports. The benefits extend beyond exports alone. It
helps generate employment, build technical capabilities that benefit adjacent industries and vice versa,
and establishes India as a key quality manufacturing destination in a sector where India’s perception
has historically been a barrier.
Other Recommendations
(i) Expand the definition of sports goods beyond core equipment to include sports footwear,
apparel, and performance accessories, ensuring a holistic approach to sector development.
All sports goods-related policymaking should be anchored under the Ministry of Youth
Affairs and Sports to enable faster decision-making, unified vision-setting, coordinated
stakeholder engagement, and comprehensive industry development across the value chain.
Detailed list of relevant HS codes is available in appendix 3. 79
(ii) Given the highly technical nature of the sports goods industry and the diversity of over 50
sports categories, a dedicated Sports Manufacturing and Export Promotion Cell should be
established within the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports. This specialised unit should be
staffed with professionals possessing expertise in manufacturing, trade policy, materials
science, standards, branding, and international market development. The Cell should
function as the central nodal body for sector development, ensuring structured coordination
between central and state governments, industry associations, National Sports Federations
(NSFs), manufacturers, exporters, athletes, and corporate partners. Its mandate should
include:
• Development, harmonisation, and enforcement of technical and quality standards
aligned with global benchmarks (FIFA, ITTF, World Athletics, etc.)
• Identification of priority export markets and global procurement opportunities, including
anchor brand partnerships and institutional buyers
• Coordination of trade strategy inputs for FTAs and addressing non-tariff barriers
affecting sports goods
• Oversight of common facility centres (CFCs), testing labs, and certification support
infrastructure across clusters
• Facilitation of R&D collaboration with universities, sports academies, and high-
performance centres
• Design and implementation of a unified “Brand India Sports” promotion strategy,
including athlete endorsement frameworks
• Monitoring of cluster performance, investment flows, and export targets against defined
KPIs 80 81 82
Chapter 10: Conclusion
India’s sporting story has long been defined by passion, perseverance, and potential. This report
demonstrates that these same qualities are embedded within India’s sports goods manufacturing
ecosystem. While the sector today accounts for approximately 0.5 percent of global sports equipment
exports, it rests on solid foundations: established clusters, skilled labour, entrepreneurial MSMEs, and a
growing domestic and global appetite for sports and fitness. International experience makes clear that
success in sports manufacturing is not incidental. It is built through deliberate ecosystem development,
where policy, technology, capital, and markets operate in alignment.
The analysis shows that India’s current scale reflects demand- and supply-side constraints rather than a
lack of capability. On the supply side, targeted investments in technology adoption, quality and testing
infrastructure, raw material ecosystems including advanced materials, and cluster modernisation can
significantly enhance competitiveness. On the demand side, stronger anchor brand partnerships,
improved market access through trade policy, coordinated branding efforts, and institutional linkages
with federations and performance centres can unlock global visibility and export scale. Complementing
these, institutional and administrative reforms, including dedicated governance structures within the
Ministry and clearer stakeholder coordination, can ensure sustained and mission-driven implementation.
Together, these supply, demand, and governance interventions form a coherent strategy for
transformation. The Union Budget 2026’s dedicated support for sports goods manufacturing,
combined with improved market access through recent trade agreements such as the EU FTA,
provides a timely platform to accelerate progress. If supported by coordinated action across central
and state governments, industry, financial institutions, and sports bodies, the sector can transition
from a fragmented cluster-based industry into a globally competitive manufacturing ecosystem.
The opportunity extends beyond export growth. The sports goods sector offers a rare combination of
export orientation, employment intensity, MSME participation, and relatively short investment cycles.
Strengthening this industry can generate jobs, deepen regional manufacturing hubs, reduce import
dependence, and position India more firmly within global value chains.
India’s sporting journey is shaped by passion, legacy and ambition. The next chapter is to ensure
that this cultural strength is matched by manufacturing capability. By aligning policy ambition with
industrial strategy, India can move from being a nation that celebrates sport to one that designs,
manufactures, and exports the equipment that powers sporting excellence worldwide. This report lays
out a pragmatic and evidence-based pathway to realise that ambition. 83
Appendix
A1. Our Approach 84
A2. List of HSN codes included as sports equipment in this study:
HSN Code CategoryWorld Exports, 2024 ($ bn)
950691 Fitness & athletics equipment$14.1 bn
871200 Bicycles (non-motorised)$8.8 bn
950699 Sports & outdoor equipment (NES)$7.4 bn
950639 Golf equipment (excl. balls/clubs)$2.7 bn
950629 Water sports equipment$2.0 bn
950631 Golf clubs$2.0 bn
950662 Inflatable balls$1.8 bn
930400 Air guns & non-firearms$1.6 bn
950790 Fishing tackle & nets$1.5 bn
950710 Fishing rods$1.1 bn
950730 Fishing reels$1.0 bn
950611 Skis (winter sports)$1.0 bn
950632 Golf balls$0.9 bn
950659 Badminton & similar rackets$0.85 bn
930330 Sporting shotguns (rifled)$0.84 bn
950670 Ice & roller skates$0.71 bn
930320 Sporting shotguns $0.70 bn
950669 Hard balls (non-inflatable)$0.66 bn
950420 Billiards & accessories$0.47 bn
950612 Ski bindings$0.42 bn
950619 Other ski equipment$0.38 bn
950640 Table-tennis equipment$0.36 bn
950661 Tennis balls$0.33 bn
950720 Fish-hooks$0.32 bn
950651 Tennis rackets$0.22 bn
950810 Circuses & travelling shows$0.11 bn
950621 Sailboards$0.07
950890 Fairground Amusements$0.001
Total$52 bn 85
A3. List of HSN Codes included in the sports universe, must be considered as sports
goods
CategoryHSN CodeParticulars
Sports Equipment
considered for this
study
9506, 871200, 950420,
950720/90/30/10,
950810/90, 930320/30,
930400
Includes inflatable balls, rackets, bats,
bicycles, fishing equipment, shotguns,
casino & billiard equipment etc.
Other sports
(Motorboats)
8903
Yachts for pleasure/sports, rowing boats,
canoes etc.
Sports Apparel
Garments6114Special sporting garments
Tracksuits
611211/12/19,
621132/33/39/42/43/49
Tracksuits for men/women of cotton,
synthetic fibres, textile materials (includes
knitted/crocheted & non-knitted/
crocheted)
Ski-suits611220, 621120
Ski suits (includes knitted/crocheted &
otherwise)
Swimwear611231/39/41/49, 621111/12
Swimwear for men/women of synthetic
fibre/textile materials (incl. knitted/
crocheted & otherwise)
Sports Footwear
Footwear
640212/19, 640312/19,
640411
Ski footwear, sports footwear of rubber,
plastic, leather etc.
Sports Accessories
Gloves 420321 Specially designed gloves for use in sports
Others
Turfs 570321/31
Turfs of man-made textile materials,
nylon, polyamides etc.
Although certain products like sports t-shirts, jerseys etc. are missing (as they are part of broader
categories that contain products whose primary use may be beyond sporting), this is a definitive list
that must be brought under the ambit of sporting goods to facilitate holistic ecosystem development
and present a larger opportunity. 86
A4. Exports for expanded ambit of sporting goods
Category
World Exports 2024
(in $ bn)
India Exports 2024
(in $ bn)
Sports Equipment considered for this study 520.27(0.5%)
Other sports (Motorboats)220 (0%)
Sports Apparel 291.3 (4.5%)
Sports Footwear26.50.4 (1.6%)
Sports Accessories0.60.002 (0.4%)
Other (Turfs)1.30.001 (0.1%)
Total1322 (1.5%)
If all the above categories are covered to expand the ambit of sporting goods, the sports goods ex-
ports globally are $132 bn with India’s share as $2 bn (1.5%)
A5. List of raw materials that are challenges for the industry
HS Code Raw MaterialIndia Domestic ProductionDuty
Inflatable Balls/Boxing
59032090
PU/TPU Coated
Fabrics & Microfibre
• Quality not on par with China,
limited domestic capabilities
• No Indian vendor on intl. ap-
proved supplier lists
20% ($0.46 per
metre ADD)
39211900
EVA Foam (used for
inflatable balls)
• Quality not on par with China,
limited domestic capabilities
20%
59031090Polyester
• Available domestically, but with
high prices, limited suppliers
20%
4107Leather
• Disorganised domestic supply
chain v/s Pakistan
10%
Rackets, Hockey sticks, Protective gear
6815/8108 Carbon fibre/Titanium
• No domestic manufacturing
capabilities
5-10%
Athletic & Training Equipment/Table Tennis
72201190 Stainless Steel
• Available domestically, but prices
in India are higher v/s China
• This due to QCO restrictions, bet-
ter scale in China
15%
7209 Cold rolled Steel15%
76042100 Aluminum7.5%
39039090Plastic7.5% 87
A6. List of raw materials covered under DFIS (Duty Free Import Scheme)
S. No.Goods
i Nylon gut
iiPU or nylon grip sheets for hockey sticks
iiiButyl bladders for inflatable balls
ivWillow clefts, ash wood, or beechwood
v Cork bottoms
viPVC/synthetic rubber bladder for inflatable balls
viiManau cane
viiiTable tennis rubber
ixTable tennis bat handles
x Table tennis blade
xiTPU/PU leather cloth or TPU/PU laminated with cotton (for inflatable balls)
xiiExtra Tec (cricket bat facing tape)
xiiiResin hardener TTP-33S and release paper (for composite hockey sticks)
xivTable tennis glue
xv Evazote foam (for protective equipment e.g., leg guards, thigh guards)
xviPlywood for carom board
xviiPVC leather cloth (for inflatable balls or sports gloves)
xviiiLatex foam (for shin guards or goalkeeper gloves or other sports gloves)
xixPEVA/EVA foil (for shin guards or sports gloves)
xx Stitching thread (for inflatable balls or sports gloves)
xxiPrinting ink (for inflatable balls or sports gloves)
xxiiPine wood
xxiiiFoam/EVA foam
A7. Details of tenders mandating foreign products for turfs & floorings 88
A8. Assessment of capabilities (by state)
Note: The state-wide analysis has been presented across multiple tables solely for formatting and
readability purposes in the report appendix. Together, these tables form one integrated state-level
assessment of capabilities. While the analysis identifies states that may be particularly well suited for
cluster development based on current capabilities, this should not be interpreted as excluding other
states. Any state may be considered, especially where there is a policy objective to promote local
sports manufacturing.
Table 1: Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu
Parameter GujaratAndhra PradeshTamil Nadu
State policy
favourability
Gujarat Sports
Policy 2022-27 -
sports goods mfg.
as key priority
Commitment to set
up dedicated mfg.
cluster
AP Sports Policy 2024-
29 - mentions Sports
Economic Zones for
local sports equipment &
apparel production
TN Sports Policy 2024-
25 – no explicit mention
for sports goods mfg. but
provision to facilities and
differently-abled athletes
Land & cluster
readiness
Vibrant Gujarat
cluster proposed
for sports goods/
apparel
9 CFCs, 211 parks with
ready land (Industrial
Development Policy
2024-29)
Extensive industrial
estates (SIDCO/SIPCOT)
statewide
Logistics
infrastructure
4 major ports
(Mundra, Pipavav,
Dahej, Hazira)
Topped LEADS*
Index 2022
3 industrial corridors
5 ports, 7 airports
Vishakhapatnam-Chennai
Industrial Corridor (VCIC)
3 major ports (Chennai,
Kamarajar, and Tuticorin)
INR 1.2L Crore expansion
underway
Sports
ecosystem &
event-driven
tailwinds
CWG 2030
(Ahmedabad)
Khel Mahakumbh
New NM Stadium
(infrastructure)
Olympic-level Sports
City (Amaravati) planned
National Games 2030
target
INR 545 crore sports infra
spending (last 3-4 years)
₹261 Cr Sports City
(Chennai);
WTA/ITF tennis
tournaments
Skilled labour &
allied industry
base
Allied clusters
(foundry, plastic
mfg., bearing)
Key similar clusters
available (auto,
electronics, textiles)
Auto-component, leather
and textile MSMEs
*LEADS - Logistics Ease Across Different States ranking is a GoI assessment done by
DPIIT that compares states and UTs on logistics performance and business environment
on logistics. 89
Table 2: Maharashtra, Odisha, Haryana, Karnataka
Parameter Maharashtra OdishaHaryana Karnataka
State policy
favourability
Industrial policy
favours mfg.
projects/ cluster
development
Sports Policy
targets infra
and athlete
development
₹2,500+ crore
invested in sports
projects in 2020-
23
Athletes’
promotion focus
Make in Haryana
draft 2025:
31 model
townships/
clusters
Limited sports
mfg. policy
Garment and
technology hub
focus
Land &
cluster
readiness
Multiple MIDC
estates: Mumbai,
Pune, Nagpur
Mega Leather &
Footwear cluster
Port-based
industrial regions
(Dhamra, Gopalpur,
etc.) with textile
parks
143 mini-
industrial parks
under PADMA
scheme
Textiles &
apparel clusters
(Mysuru,
Hubballi, Ballari)
Logistics
infrastructure
JNPT/ Nava
Sheva (Mumbai) -
principal gateway
Paradip Port + 14
non-major ports
notified
Land-locked;
roads to western
ports
New Mangalore
Port (NMP) + 10
non-major ports
Sports
ecosystem &
event-driven
tailwinds
Strong sporting
culture (IPL, ISL,
Pro Kabaddi)
Khelo India
facilities
Hosted major
events (FIH Men
World Cups 2018,
2023; FIFA U17
Women’s 2022)
Birsa Munda
Hockey Stadium
(world’s largest
seated arena)
Sports
Mahakumbh
Mission
Olympics 2036 -
expanding high-
performance
infra
New infra -
India’s 2
nd
largest
cricket stadium
(Anekal)
60-acre
sports city
(Devanahalli)
Skilled labour
& allied
industry base
Textiles, apparel,
leather, footwear
mega clusters
Mfg. ~40% of state
GSVA
Textile & apparel
priority sector
Approved
clusters: textile,
apparel, foundry,
plastics
Ready-made
garments hub
(>5L workers);
strong base in
leather, footwear
Table 3: Punjab and UP (existing clusters)
Parameter PunjabUttar Pradesh
State policy
favourability
Punjab Industrial and Business
Development policy 2022 (IBDP-
2022) aims at 15 industrial parks,
rural clusters, MSME support
Sports Policy 2023 although
doesn’t mention sports equipment
procurement/manufacturing,
it pushes for infra and athlete
pathways and CSR funds to
promote sports
Industrial Policy 2022 offers capital
subsidy/SGST reimbursement and
explicitly corridor-linked facilitation
UP Sports Policy 2023 promotes
sports infra and athlete pathways
Footwear, Leather and Non-leather
Policy 2025 focuses on cluster-based
development and CoEs 90
Parameter PunjabUttar Pradesh
Land & cluster
readiness
Legacy cluster already present,
offers large sports goods hubs,
however, expansion land is
tight due to land unavailability
challenges
Existing sports cluster in Meerut but
large and saturated. Expansion is
tight
However, Industrial Investment &
Employment Promotion Policy 2022
commits land-bank creation, private
industrial parks, and corridor-linked
clusters
Logistics
infrastructure
Lack of seaports, but several ICDs
exist (e.g. CONCOR, Ludhiana-
Sahnewal); covers road and rail links
to Mundra/JNPT ports
Multi-modal logistics hub under
NICDIT is progressing in Greater
Noida to act as a dry-port and
upcoming Jewar airport to offer air
logistics
Sports
ecosystem &
event-driven
tailwinds
Strong hockey, cricket culture
(Mohali, Patiala) and ongoing state
government plans to promote other
sports including water sports
Hosted Khelo India University Games
(2022 edition);
Hosted several IPL matches
Skilled labour &
allied industry
base
Deep MSME skill pool for balls,
protective gear, and strong
adjacencies with textiles, bicycles,
composites, stitching etc.
Leather/Footwear allied clusters
in-state (Agra/Kanpur/Unnao), and
Noida for apparel
Meerut’s depth in inflatable balls,
boxing gear, and cricket equipment
offers transferable skills for other
segments 91
A9. Methodology to estimate cumulative competitiveness gap and bridge fiscal
requirement (2027-31)
We have outlined the following estimates for 2027-31:
• Projected export trajectory (USD million) from base year (2024) to 2036 for sport equipment
and horizon
• Cumulative competitiveness gap (₹ crore) defined as the cost disability vs. peers applied on
projected exports net of any offsets (existing schemes like RoDTEP and DD)
• Residual gap (₹ crore) which is the remaining cumulative gap once structural reforms and
existing schemes are implemented, and which must be bridged through the proposed reforms
and the proposed SGMI scheme
Step 1: Deriving sports equipment export projections (2027-31) and key targets
(2031, 2036)
Fig: India sports equipment and other categories’ export projections (2024-2036)
• Take a base year (2024) export value for each sports segments captured in horizons 1, 2, and 3
based on the capabilities vs. export potential matrix assessment (see ‘Where to Play’ chapter),
and assign growth rates to each individual sport segment captured within these horizons
• This compounded annual growth rate is assigned based on stakeholder consultations, global
growth rate projections from market studies and taking India’s current capabilities
• The projected sports equipment exports in 2031 are estimated at $ 2,000 Mn (₹16,431 crore,
using INR 83 = USD 1 assumed exchange rate, as of August 2024, rounded for calculation
simplicity)
• The same approach was applied to each year from 2027 to 2031 to obtain a time series of
projected exports in ₹ crore
Step 2: Cost disability structure 92
• At sport segment-level, the cost disability vs. Asian peers (e.g. China, Pakistan) was estimated
and validated on the basis of stakeholder consultations and secondary research, wherever
available (see example table below for inflatable balls segment)
• This was obtained for key categories like inflatables, athletics, and boxing, and then aggregated
using simple average, due to lack of clean HS-based weights (at a 6-digit level HS Codes for
specific sports segments are not available)
• This yielded an overall baseline cost disability of ~15% (avg. of 14-16% from the above table)
for India vs. peers
Step 3: Calculating cumulative competitiveness gap (2027-31)
• Within the overall 15% cost disability, existing schemes (Duty Drawback and RoDTEP) were
estimated to offset 4% of this structural disability
• Therefore, the net competitiveness gap to be bridged = 15% - 4% = 11%
• This delta was found annually and aggregated over 2027-31 to give us the cumulative
competitiveness gap, estimated at ~₹ 7,300 crore (see table below for calculation)
Step 4: Calculating the residual gap needing fiscal support
• In Step 2, we were able to find from stakeholder consultations the % contribution of RM and
Machinery-related cost disabilities to the overall disability
When average across key sports categories (as mentioned in step 2), analysis indicates ~77% of this
₹7,300 crore competitiveness is attributable to raw materials and machinery (see table below)
RM = Raw material-related cost disabilities, MC = Machinery-related cost disabilities
Table: % contribution of factor costs on overall cost disability, by sport-segment
• These are components that we expect to largely be addressed throughs structural reforms
(duty rationalisation, relieving machinery import duties and bulk-buy facilitation etc.)
• The remaining 23% of the gap serves as residual gap i.e. ₹1,700 crore, which cannot be
eliminated fully through policy alone, and therefore, needs to be bridged through government
fiscal support 93
A10. Relative impact of reforms by manufacturing sub-group
The impact on sub-groups based on the above recommendations is as follows:
Figure 47: Impact of supply-side reforms on sub-groups
Figure 48: Impact of demand-side reforms on sub-groups 94
Group 1: Fabrication (Lamination, bonding and sewing)
This group is most sensitive to raw material costs and access, since polymers and synthetics form a key
share of the cost stack. Duty and process reforms to reduce RM cost burden can materially improve
export pricing and help MSMEs invest in better tooling and compliance systems. On the demand front,
long-term OEM partnerships create more predictable demand, helping India compete at global stage.
Branding initiatives and visibility at buyer events also have high impact in this group, given existing
legacy of reputed but small manufacturers.
Group 2: Metals (Metal fabrication, CNC Machining and forging)
The competitiveness challenge for group 2 is less about raw material costs (which drive a relatively lower
10-15% disadvantage) and more about access to advanced machinery, technical expertise, and quality
certification systems. Catching up with China requires access to European and Japanese technology,
which means easing restrictions on machinery imports, enabling faster technology transfer pathways,
and supporting capital expenditure for precision equipment. Certification-led expansion is essential, as
buyers in this category demand strict adherence to dimensional tolerances, material specifications, and
safety standards. On the demand side, the impact is more moderate compared to fabrication. Anchor
brand pull and federation support matter, but this group benefits more from leveraging existing OEM
relationships with athletics brands to move up the value chain into higher margin products.
Group 3: Composites (Polymers & Rubber Compounding)
This group faces the steepest competitiveness challenge because it requires access to advanced
materials like carbon fiber, fiberglass, epoxy resins, and specialised polymers, most of which India
currently does not manufacture and imports at high cost. Ensuring no duties on imports of these raw
materials in the short term, and building domestic capacity in the long term, particularly for carbon
fiber and composites nodes, are the highest impact supply-side intervention. This would offset 20
to 25% of the raw material cost disability and enable Indian manufacturers to compete in premium
product segments where performance characteristics are non-negotiable.
Eliminating restrictive turf clauses that hinder domestic production are also high-impact reforms.
Technology transfer support is also important because composites manufacturing requires specialised
process know-how in resin formulation, curing cycles, and structural integrity testing that is often
lacking. On the demand side, building access to global composites brands through joint ventures or
licensing agreements ensures guaranteed demand and technical expertise. Anchor brands pull and
federation support have medium to high impact, as federation-approved equipment lists facilitate
entry into professional markets and procurement at global sporting events. Trade facilitation aids
by facilitating sample approvals and reducing lead times for prototyping cycles, often important
significant in this category like in protective equipment, where product development is iterative and
performance driven. While brand India initiatives are important, composites buyers prioritise technical
capability and certification compliance.
Group 4: Woodwork
Compared to other segments, India already has a stronger demand pull in cricket linked categories,
which reduces the relative importance of demand-side solves. The priority is to make scaling easier
and more efficient. Input related interventions should be focused and targeted, such as easing access
to Kashmir willow wood streams where relevant and enabling diversification into adjacent wooden
sports categories like baseball bats to broaden the export base. 95
A11. List of Industries Consulted
S. No.Company NameLocation (City, State)
1 Alfa HockeyJalandhar, Punjab
2 AR Sports EquipmentAhmedabad, Gujarat
3 Belco SportsJalandhar, Punjab
4 Bhalla International (Vinex)Meerut, Uttar Pradesh
5 Cosco (India) LimitedDelhi, Delhi
6 Desan International (Rido Sports)Noida, Uttar Pradesh
7 K.L. Mahajan and SonsMeerut, Uttar Pradesh
8 Krishna Sports IndustriesJalandhar, Punjab
9 Natspo (National Sports / Cougar)Meerut, Uttar Pradesh
10 Nelco SportMeerut, Uttar Pradesh
11Nivia (Freewill Sports)Jalandhar, Punjab
12 Rattan BrothersJalandhar, Punjab
13 Reds ImpexJalandhar, Punjab
14 Sanspareils Greenlands (SG)Meerut, Uttar Pradesh
15 Savi InternationalJalandhar, Punjab
16 Shrey SportsJalandhar, Punjab
17 Soccer International Pvt LtdJalandhar, Punjab
18 Stag InternationalMeerut, Uttar Pradesh
19 Tee Ventures (Plus91)Ahmedabad, Gujarat
20 Universal Sports IndustriesJalandhar, Punjab 96
References
1. ITC Trade Map
2. Exim Bank Reports
3. Publications from bodies including Federation of the European Sporting Goods Industry, World
Footwear
4. Sports Goods Manufacturers and Exporters Association
5. Other press publications and websites including Times of India, Tofler, local Punjab news coverage
6. Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports
7. International Olympic Committee, Commonwealth Sport, CDES (Centre de Droit et d’Economie
du Sport)
8. Annual Survey of Industries 2022-23
9. Websites like Wage Indicator, Simpliance
10. Indian Trade Portal
11. International Labour Organisation
12. Publications including newspapers like The Dawn, Tribune (Pakistan Editions), Vietnam/India/
China Briefing, local Pakistani coverage
13. PwC Tax Summaries
14. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, UP Power Corporation Limited
15. World Bank
16. CNBC, local Indian and Pakistani publications on interest rates
17. Asian Development Bank
18. KPMG ‘Pedaling India’s Growth – Cycling into the future’ report, UNIDO – Technical report: The
Indian bicycle sector’ reports
19. Invest Punjab
20. UK Government website, UK Global Database
21. British Business Bank
22. International federation websites including International Boxing Association, World Athletics,
Union Cycliste Internationale, Badminton World Federation, International Hockey Federation,
World Baseball Softball Confederation
23. Press releases and articles from Times of India, PIB, Vice
24. State Industrial Policy reports, state government websites and reports, Deccan Chronicle, Times
of India
25. Teijin Corporate press release, NIH reports
26. Olympics website, ASOIF paper, The Hindu, Times of India
27. Case study Odisha – Times of India, HT, Outlook India, Tata Naval Hockey HPC website
28. Pacta report, Corporate Annual Reports, Sports and Society Accelerator
29. Invest India 97
Authors and Contributors
NITI Aayog
1. Shri Sanjeet Singh, Senior Advisor & Head of
Task Force on Strengthening Sports Goods
Manufacturing and Exports in India
2. Dr. Pravin Kumar, Specialist
3. Dr.Pooja Kaushal, Senior Associate
4. Shri Ranbir Singh, Consultant
5. Ms. Upasana Sethi, Consultant
6. Ms. Parul Lilhla, Consultant
7. Dr. Shilpa Ahuja, Consultant
8. Shri Amanjeet Singh Bhandari, Consultant
9. Ms. Muskan Agarwal, Consultant
10. Shri Pulkit Tyagi, Young Professional
11. Shri Rahul Bit, Young Professional
12. Ms. Satvikaa Singh, Young Professional
13. Shri Kushagra Tripathi, Young Professional
14. Shri Shubham Pandey, Young Professional
Foundation for Economic Development
1. Shri Piyush Doshi, Operating Partner
2. Ms. Lakshita Mehrotra Senior Team Lead
3. Shri Shreyas Shivam, Consultant
4. Ms. Avanti Nayal, Programme Associate 98
Acknowledgement
In the course of developing the report “Realising the Export Potential of India’s Sports Equipment
Manufacturing”, we have benefited immensely from the thoughtful engagement and constructive
inputs of a diverse group of experts and stakeholders. These deliberations have been instrumental
in shaping the analytical framework of the study and ensuring that its recommendations are both
evidence-based and implementation-oriented.
We extend our sincere appreciation to the Foundation for Economic Development for their valuable
partnership in this effort. We are especially grateful to Piyush Doshi, Operating Partner, and Lakshita
Mehrotra, Senior Team Lead, for their strategic insights and sectoral guidance. We also acknowledge
the dedicated contributions of Shreyas Shivam, Consultant, and Avanti Nayal, Programme Associate,
whose analytical support and research inputs substantially strengthened the report.
We would further like to thank state governments of Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Odisha,
Jalaj Dani, founder of Dani Foundation, representatives from Sports Goods Manufacturing Associations
(Sportscom), Sports Goods and Toy Export Promotion Council (SGEPC), FICCI and CII, manufacturing
clusters, sports federations, and other stakeholders whose practical perspectives on supply-side
constraints, global competitiveness, and ecosystem development enriched this study.
Finally, we acknowledge the contributions of colleagues within NITI Aayog and relevant ministries for
their continued support and coordination throughout the preparation of this report.
Shri Sanjeet Singh
Program Director & Head of Task Force on
Strengthening Sports Goods Manufacturing
and Exports in India
NITI Aayog Notes 101
Economics and Finance- II Division