I met up with a sports league owner last evening and we spoke of all things sport. He said that the two sports that have the oldest history — chess and kabaddi — will always remain popular with or without innovation. And that prompted me to ask, if innovation in sport is a must-have for growing engagement? Is that why hockey, India’s national sport, saw a dramatic decline over decades?
Innovation in sport is often misunderstood as tinkering with rules or shortening formats. In reality, the most successful innovations reshape how a sport is consumed, monetised, and culturally embedded, not merely how it is played. If we examine global sport through this prism, a fascinating hierarchy emerges — of leaders, laggards, and paradoxes.
No sport has innovated more comprehensively than basketball, particularly through the NBA. Its genius lies not in altering the core game (which remains largely intact), but in building an ecosystem around it. Basketball embraced athlete-centric storytelling and personality-led marketing, global digital distribution long before rivals, data-driven fan engagement and fantasy integration as well as entertainment layering — music, fashion, social activism. Crucially, innovation here was holistic, not disruptive. Fans never felt the soul of the game was compromised. Instead, the experience evolved.
From that perspective, cricket’s innovation has been format-heavy and philosophy-light. The danger is not that cricket hasn’t innovated — but that it has over-innovated in one direction. T20 has become the default commercial lens through which the entire sport is viewed, often at the expense of narrative continuity, player development pathways, and format differentiation.
Test cricket, for instance, is not a failed product — it is a mis-positioned premium category. Cricket’s challenge now is not invention, but curation: defining what each format stands for, whom it serves, and how it should be marketed. Cricket has innovated enough to grow. It has not yet innovated enough to balance.
Field hockey’s struggles cannot be explained by lack of heritage, athleticism, or global footprint. Its problem is simpler and harsher: innovation has been episodic, not systemic. Rule tweaks, surface changes, and league experiments arrived without a consistent global broadcast strategy, strong athlete-as-brand narratives or year-round fan engagement. Innovation in hockey has been reactive rather than visionary. Without a compelling media product, even a fast and skilful sport struggles to hold attention in a crowded entertainment economy.
Football presents the most intriguing contradiction. It has barely changed its core rules in over a century. No time-outs. No quarters. No radical format shifts. Perhaps only the introduction of VAR? Yet it remains the world’s most popular sport. Why? Because football innovated outside the lines. The sport built deep club-community identity, promotion-relegation systems that manufacture consequence, scarcity-driven tournaments and intergenerational fandom passed like inheritance. Football doesn’t chase novelty. It trades in belonging.
The mistake many sports make is copying innovation without understanding why it worked elsewhere. Shortening a game does not guarantee relevance. Adding leagues does not ensure fandom. Technology does not create emotion. The most successful sports answer three questions clearly:
- Who is our core fan?
- What emotion do we uniquely own?
- Where should we never compromise?
Basketball protects expression. Football protects identity. Cricket must now decide what it protects beyond revenue. Hockey must decide what story it wants to tell at all.
Innovation is not about change. It is about clarity.
Follow Revsportz for latest sports news
