Kazan hosts the BRICS Games, and in a time of global boycotts this event stands out as a bright spot for Russian sport. The outstanding athletes, including Angelina Melnikova, Nikita Nagorny, and Artur Dalaloyan, return to competition to thrill fans around the world.
Yet there is a nuance, and a few to be precise.
These Games run on the same dates as the European Football Championship, making the world’s attention split across major events. For many Western audiences, Russian sport has taken on a legendary aura that feels almost mythical in some contexts. Exceptions do exist, such as certain NHL players, tennis figures, and a handful of neutral Olympic athletes, but BRICS Games present a different kind of story.
Even within Russia, matches featuring players like Muller, Kane, Depay, and Mbappe draw far more attention than those in Kazan. On Sunday, June 16, Spartak Moscow fans anticipated Srdjan Babic’s appearance for the Serbian national team against England, and many were disappointed when he started from the bench. By comparison, the BRICS Games did not produce a comparable surge of anticipation.
To gauge interest in the competition, one can check the Match TV program. Euro 2024 games are broadcast live with high urgency, while BRICS events offer a lighter schedule — roughly one and a half broadcasts a day on the main channel plus a similar amount on associated channels. This contrast highlights how broadcast strategy can shape audience engagement.
Several elite athletes have argued that public interest in sports grows with coverage. It can feel like a vicious circle: the general audience may not be eager to watch certain disciplines, while insufficient coverage dampens the appetite to learn more about them. Yet the core issue runs deeper than broadcast slots alone.
The pressing question is not just about visibility but about who competes. A sizable portion of Russians was not eligible to participate in the Olympics, and the BRICS Games were not widely considered an alternative to the four-year Olympic cycle. Internationally, there was little impetus to rank the BRICS Games on par with the Olympic Games, given the IOC’s complexities in recent years.
In Kazan, the event showcased 27 sports with participation from about 90 countries and around 4,751 athletes, according to the BRICS Games official site. The scale is formidable, though questions linger about the exact origin of some delegations. Meanwhile, some moments stood out for their solitary intensity — like a synchronized swimmer excelling with no immediate competitor beside him on the podium, a striking image of self-competition.
That phenomenon evokes memories of earlier sports moments when the field did not present a clear challengers’ roster. The curiosity about whether the event could be more than a showcase, and whether it truly values competitive drama, lingered in the air. Maltsev, the swimmer in focus, shifted attention to the program rather than the score, emphasizing performance quality, audience reaction, and the emotion conveyed by a routine as the real measure of success. His perspective pointed to a broader truth: the experience of watching live sport often centers on the storytelling and the energy in the arena as much as on medals.
In artistic gymnastics, a broader discussion emerged through commentary on foreign athletes’ approaches—views echoed by Svetlana Zhurova, a former Olympic champion and State Duma deputy. The observation that foreign gymnasts sometimes appear humorous in their attempts sparked debate, yet the public still demonstrated strong interest and a large audience turnout. The BRICS Games in Kazan clearly drew crowds and pleased local fans who enjoyed seeing their icons compete, while broadcasts continued to attract a dedicated following. Yet the broader question remained: does the competition itself generate lasting excitement, or does it primarily amuse the public as a spectacle?
Gymnast Daniel Marinov received congratulations from the Kazan mayor after winning the gold in the individual all-around. The moment was celebrated widely, though Marinov noted a sense of surprise at the level of challenge, saying it felt as if the field consisted largely of domestic rivals rather than a broad international mix. This sentiment underscored a recurring theme: while foreign participants did take medals, the strongest performers often came from within Russia, prompting reflections on the depth of global competition at the event.
As of mid-June, teams from 29 countries had won medals in Kazan, yet Russian athletes led the medal table with a substantial margin, a fact that fueled discussions about competitive balance and the event’s overall prestige. In historical terms, Russia has frequently topped medal tables in various multi-sport gatherings, but the BRICS Games raised questions about the event’s ability to sustain long-term global interest, especially when pitted against the Olympics and other widely followed championships. The 1980 Moscow Games, held in a different geopolitical climate, left a lasting imprint on sports culture, though they occurred under a boycott that affected participation by many nations. The BRICS Games of today occupy a different space, with their own unique audience, challenges, and opportunities for growth.
Supporters can celebrate the achievements while acknowledging that the BRICS Games, for all their scale and ambition, face legitimate questions about competitive intensity and enduring value. The event remains a notable chapter in contemporary sports, but it will need ongoing development, broader international participation, and compelling narratives to secure a more influential place on the global sports calendar in the years ahead.
In the end, the BRICS Games offer a stage where athletes can perform at a high level and fans can experience the drama of competition. The ultimate measure of success will be whether the event evolves into a platform that consistently motivates a wide audience, sustains excitement across disciplines, and earns a respected spot alongside the Olympics and other major championships.