IPL Valuation Hits 18.5 Bn Dollar, Up 12.9 Per Cent, Fueled By Media Rights, Sponsors, And Fan Engagement
The global investment bank, listed on the NYSE, stated that the brand value of the IPL increased by 13.8 per cent in 2025, reaching USD 3.9 billion (equivalent to ₹32,721 crore), reflecting a 16.1 per cent year-over-year increase in INR terms.
The firm's analysis added that the IPL's growth highlights the league's expanding commercial appeal, global reach, and deepening fan engagement—particularly in the digital domain.
RCB dethrones MI & CSK!
Royal Challengers Bengaluru has taken the crown as the most valuable IPL team, now valued at US $269 million, overtaking Mumbai Indians and Chennai Super Kings—per the latest Houlihan Lokey report. The IPL's overall value has surged to $18.5… pic.twitter.com/zITvbNZQyg — Baatein Stock Ki (@BaateinStockKi) July 9, 2025
For context, brand value represents the monetary worth of an intangible asset, typically encompassing elements such as the trade name, trademark, and associated goodwill. It is important to note that brand value is a subset of a company's or entity's overall business value, which includes tangible assets, operational revenues, and other intangibles.
Since its inception in 2008, the IPL has evolved into a multibillion-dollar enterprise, consistently ranking among the most valuable sports leagues globally. Its influence extends far beyond the field, shaping broadcasting standards, fan engagement strategies, and franchise-based models that are now being emulated worldwide.
The firm added that the 2025 IPL season exemplified the league's resilience and operational agility. Despite a temporary suspension due to geopolitical tensions in early May, the tournament resumed swiftly—backed by robust contingency planning and stakeholder coordination, the analysis noted.
The IPL continues to set benchmarks in the sports business. Franchise valuations have soared, media rights deals have reached record highs, and brand partnerships have diversified across sectors.
Top franchises earn ₹6,500 million to ₹7,000 million in annual revenues, with up to 80 per cent of visibility secured before the start of the tournament. On the cost side, the presence of a salary cap (₹1,200 million per team) functions as an embedded margin protector, preventing wage inflation—a major concern for global sports teams—and ensuring competitive parity among teams.
Moreover, franchisees operate with minimal fixed-asset exposure, benefitting from ready access to stadium infrastructure already developed by the BCCI. This translates into a capital-light model with structurally high returns on employed capital.
When benchmarked against global peers like EPL and NBA teams, which wrestle with high player transfer fees, variable wages, and significant stadium operating costs (including servicing stadium debt), IPL franchisees operate under an asset-light, revenue-guaranteed model. This structure not only cushions downside risk but also amplifies operating leverage on the upside.
'For institutional investors, this makes the IPL not just a sports league, but a high-growth compounder in the entertainment space—catering to a fast-growing fan base with rising disposable income and a strong appetite for premium digital experiences,' the study stated.
Going further, the study observed that Bengaluru (RCB) triumphed over Punjab Kings (PBKS) in a final that shattered viewership records. The title clash drew over 600 million views on JioCinema, reaffirming the IPL's status as not only India's premier sporting event but also one of the world's most-watched broadcast spectacles.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
17 minutes ago
- Mint
Short-seller Viceroy accuses Vedanta promoters of hidden stake via welfare trust
The entity under scrutiny is PTC Cables Pvt. Ltd (PTCC), which holds a 1.91% stake in Vedanta Ltd, a company with a market capitalization of ₹ 1.75 trillion, according to BSE data. PTCC is owned by Bhadram Janhit Shalika Trust (BJST), which Viceroy alleges is controlled by the Agarwal family, founders of the Vedanta Group. According to Viceroy, PTCC received ₹ 1,500 crore in dividend income from Vedanta over the past five years, and the capital was "upcycled" to promoter-linked entities. 'PTCC exists for one purpose: to quietly recycle Vedanta's cash into promoter-controlled vehicles while maintaining the illusion of independence," the Viceroy report said. Vedanta denied the allegations. 'These assertions are baseless," a spokesperson for the company said, adding that the company was compliant with the disclosure norms as stipulated by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) and the Companies Act, 2013. 'Neither BJST nor PTCC are part of the promoter group as defined under applicable regulations, and their shareholding has been transparently disclosed in public filings," the spokesperson added. A day after Viceroy released its report, JP Morgan had issued a note, telling investors not to get distracted by the allegations on corporate governance and financial management, and that the global brokerage had an Overweight rating on both Vedanta Resources Ltd and Vedanta Ltd. Viceroy's claims are based on publicly available records. In a 2009 income-tax case, BJST's correspondence address was listed as Anil Agarwal's personal residence in Mumbai. In another case, the trust's address was that of Todarwal & Todarwal, a firm linked to Arun Todarwal, who currently serves as a director on the board of Sterlite Power Grid Ventures, a Vedanta subsidiary. Todarwal has also previously served as a director on the boards of Hindustan Zinc Ltd, Sterlite Technologies, MALCO, and BALCO. The report acknowledged that no conclusive documentation of current control was available, noting that Indian trusts are subject to less stringent disclosure obligations compared to companies. Viceroy also cited unnamed former Vedanta employees who claimed that the Agarwal family's control over PTCC was an "open secret" within the company. In addition to alleging hidden promoter ownership, the report flagged governance concerns at PTCC. The company was incorporated in 1993 with the Agarwal family as shareholders and was transferred to BJST in 2017. Its current directors are Todarwal and Kannan Ramamirthan. Ramamirthan is an independent director of Hindustan Zinc, Vedanta's most profitable subsidiary. He has also previously served on the boards of other Vedanta group firms, including Talwandi Sabo Power Plant, BALCO, Sterlite Energy, and Sterlite Interlinks. Vedanta has not disclosed in its filings that PTCC—classified as a public shareholder—has directors with long-standing associations with the group. The company did not respond to a specific query on this issue. Calls and emails to Todarwal for a comment did not elicit a response. Mint could not reach Ramamirthan for a comment. Concerns about the independence of BJST and PTCC are not new. In a 2020 note, proxy advisory firm Stakeholder Empowerment Services (SES) had said that BJST was previously known as the SIL Employee Welfare Trust and was linked to Sterlite Industries Ltd, which was later merged into Vedanta. The trust was subsequently renamed as BJST. 'It is not clear as to who presently controls the BJST," SES had written. However, if the firm was under the control of Vedanta, then PTCC should be classified as a promoter shareholder, it said. Viceroy's first report on the Vedanta Group was published on 10 July, a day before Vedanta Ltd's annual general meeting (AGM). The initial report triggered a drop in the company's stock, though shares later recovered. At the AGM, shareholders reposed their faith in the company. Since the report's release, Vedanta shares have gained 2% to close at ₹ 449.75 on Tuesday. Also Read | Vedanta shareholders back firm after Viceroy report Viceroy has disclosed a short position in the bonds of Vedanta Resources, the unlisted holding company of the group, but said it has no exposure to Vedanta Ltd or any other listed Vedanta entities in India.
Economic Times
20 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Rogue bots? AI firms must pay up
When Elon Musk's xAI was forced to apologise this week after its Grok chatbot spewed antisemitic content and white nationalist talking points, the response felt depressingly familiar: suspend the service, issue an apology and promise to do better. Rinse and isn't the first time we've seen this playbook. Microsoft's Tay chatbot disaster in 2016 followed a similar pattern. The fact that we're here again, nearly a decade later, suggests the AI industry has learnt remarkably little from its mistakes. But the world is no longer willing to accept 'sorry' as sufficient. This is because AI has become a force multiplier for content generation and dissemination, and the time-to-impact has shrunk. Thus, liability and punitive actions are being discussed. The Grok incident revealed a troubling aspect of how AI companies approach accountability. According to xAI, the problematic behaviour emerged after they tweaked their system to allow more 'politically incorrect' responses - a decision that seems reckless. When the inevitable happened, they blamed deprecated code that should have been removed. If you're building systems capable of reaching millions of users, shouldn't you know what code is running in production?The real problem isn't technical - it's philosophical. Too many AI companies treat bias and harmful content as unfortunate side effects to be addressed after deployment, rather than fundamental risks to be prevented beforehand. This reactive approach worked when the stakes were lower, but AI systems now operate at unprecedented scale and influence. When a chatbot generates hate speech, it's not embarrassing - it's dangerous, legitimising and amplifying extremist ideologies to vast legal landscape is shifting rapidly, and AI companies ignoring these changes do so at their peril. The EU's AI Act, which came into force in February, represents a shift from reactive regulation to proactive governance. Companies can no longer apologise their way out of AI failures - they must demonstrate they've implemented robust safeguards before AB 316, introduced last January, takes an even more direct approach by prohibiting the 'the AI did it' defence in civil cases. This legislation recognises what should be obvious: companies that develop and deploy AI systems bear responsibility for their outputs, regardless of whether those outputs were 'intended'.India's approach may prove more punitive than the EU's regulatory framework and more immediate than the US litigation-based system, focusing on swift enforcement of existing criminal laws rather than waiting for new AI-specific legislation. India doesn't yet have AI-specific legislation, but if Grok's antisemitic incident had occurred with Indian users, then steps like immediate blocking of the AI service, a criminal case against xAI under IPC 153A, and a demand for content removal from the X platform would have been Grok incident may mark a turning point. Regulators worldwide are demanding proactive measures rather than reactive damage control, and courts are increasingly willing to hold companies directly liable for their systems' shift is long overdue. AI systems aren't just software - they're powerful tools that shape public discourse, influence decision-making and can cause real-world harm. The companies that build these systems must be held to higher standards than traditional software developers, with corresponding legal and ethical question facing the AI industry isn't whether to embrace this new reality - it's whether to do so voluntarily or have it imposed by regulators and courts. Companies that continue to rely on the old playbook of post-incident apologies will find themselves increasingly isolated in a world demanding AI industry's true maturity will show not in flashy demos or sky-high valuations, but in its commitment to safety over speed, rigour over shortcuts, and real accountability over empty apologies. In this game, 'sorry' won't cut it - only responsibility writer is a commentator ondigital policy issues (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of Elevate your knowledge and leadership skills at a cost cheaper than your daily tea. Rumblings at the top of Ola Electric The hybrid vs. EV rivalry: Why Maruti and Mahindra pull in different directions. What's best? How Safexpress bootstrapped its way to build India's largest PTL Express business Zee promoters have a new challenge to navigate. And it's not about funding or Sebi probe. Newton vs. industry: Inside new norms that want your car to be more fuel-efficient Stock Radar: UltraTech Cements hit a fresh record high in July; what should investors do – book profits or buy the dip? F&O Radar | Deploy Bear Put Spread in Nifty to gain from index correction Weekly Top Picks: These stocks scored 10 on 10 on Stock Reports Plus
NDTV
27 minutes ago
- NDTV
"Showing His Greatness...": Sanjay Manjrekar Hails Jasprit Bumrah's Performance At Lord's
Former Indian cricketer Sanjay Manjrekar hailed Jasprit Bumrah's performance across both the innings during the third Test against England at Lord's, saying that "showing his greatness in different ways" has become a part of the bowler's legacy. An unfortunate dismissal of Mohammed Siraj at the hands of Shoaib Bashir, with the ball rolling back into the stumps after a landing on the pitch, marked the end of India's stubborn resistance at Lord's, with Ravindra Jadeja left stranded following a heartbreaking 22-run loss. India trail 1-2 in the series. India lost the match despite dominating England for large parts of the game, with one of the standout performers being Bumrah. He took seven wickets, including a five-wicket haul in the first innings. Bumrah changed the game in India's favour in the first innings, reducing England to 271/7 from 251/4, getting wickets of skipper Ben Stokes, centurion Joe Root and all-rounder Chris Woakes quickly. During the second innings, Bumrah struggled to get through England's top-order despite his pace, bounce and accuracy. Nonetheless he kept going and after all-rounder Washington Sundar ran through the middle-order. Bumrah got wickets of lower-order batters Brydon Carse and Woakes. Speaking on 'Follow the Blues', JioStar expert Manjrekar analysed Bumrah's performance. "In the first innings, Bumrah showed just how great a bowler he is. This was the kind of pitch where he could not really display his full range, so he bowled patiently and waited for opportunities. And when the moment came -- in the latter half of the innings -- he was ready. He picked up five wickets in the first innings on a surface that did not offer much assistance." "Then, when Washington Sundar took four key wickets (in second innings) and India needed to wrap up England quickly, Bumrah stepped in again and delivered. That yorker to dismiss Brydon Carse is still fresh in the mind. Showing his greatness in different ways -- that has become Bumrah's legacy," he added. Manjrekar said that India lost the match because of some "little errors", with one of them being the Rishabh Pant's unfortunate run-out for 74, ending the 141-run partnership with KL Rahul on day three that could have no doubt gone further and given India a valuable first innings lead if it was not for a "fielding masterclass" by Stokes, who initiated the run-out. "When I look at the turning points and the small mistakes made, I feel India lost this Test match because of those little errors. There were no major blunders -- even Rishabh Pant's run-out was just one of those minor mistakes. But this is where the brilliance of Ben Stokes comes in. He mentioned in his interview that Pant stuttered slightly, and he sensed an opportunity for a run-out. And Stokes, right in the middle of a bowling spell, pulled off a fielding masterclass. That's the mark of a champion cricketer. Pant, perhaps, was trying to give KL Rahul a chance to get back on strike and complete his century. But like I have said, the team did not make any massive errors -- it was the accumulation of small ones that made the difference in the end," he added. England won the toss and opted to bat first. England was reduced to 44/2, but a 109-run stand between Ollie Pope (44 in 104 balls, with four boundaries) and Joe Root (104 in 199 balls, with 10 fours) and a counter-attacking 84 run stand for the eighth wicket stand between Brydon Carse (56 in 83 balls, with six fours and a six) and Jamie Smith (51 in 56 balls, with six fours) took England to 387. Jasprit Bumrah (5/74) was the highlight for India with the ball. In the second innings, India lost Yashasvi Jaiswal early, but a 61-run stand between Karun Nair (26 in 46 balls, with five fours) and KL Rahul and a 141-run stand between KL (100 in 177 balls, with 13 fours) and Rishabh Pant (74 in 112 balls, with eight fours and two sixes) took India close to England's score.A brilliant half-century from Ravindra Jadeja (72 in 131 balls, with eight fours and a six) and lower-order contributions from Nitish Kumar Reddy (30) and Washington Sundar (23) took India to 387, with nothing separating the sides. Chris Woakes (3/84) was the top bowler for England in this innings. In England's second innings, India continuously kept England under pressure, except for a 67-run fifth wicket stand between Root (40 in 96 balls, with a four) and Stokes (33 in 96 balls, with three fours). Sundar (4/22) delivered a game-changer spell, running through the middle-order and bundling out England for 192. India was set 193 to win. During the run-chase, Team India was reduced to 82/7. However, Jadeja (61* in 181 balls, with four boundaries and a six) was not in a mood to give up. He put up resilient partnerships with the lower-order batters that put England under tension, but Mohammed Siraj's unlucky dismissal, where the ball spun back to the stumps following its landing on the pitch hurt a million of hearts as India was bundled out for 170. India trails 1-2 in the series. Stokes won the 'Player of the Match' for his handy knocks of 44 and 33 and total of five wickets in the match, including a three-wicket haul taken in the second innings taken in tandem with Jofra Archer, who also got three wickets.
