It wasn't more marketable though apparently. You'd think it would have been. This article explains it to some extent, there's probably better ones out there but I'm too lazy to look harder than I have.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/grantfeller/2016/05/04/what-leicester-citys-unlikely-triumph-can-teach-all-sports-brands-need-competition/
The key passages:
In terms of business Leicester’s victory has, so it’s argued, breathed life back into the predictable and boring business of Premiership football. It is 21 years since any team other than Arsenal, Chelsea, Manchester City or Manchester United won the top-flight title. The narrative to each season was being written before a ball had been even kicked. When Davids have no chance against Goliaths, it gets boring.
Well, now David has won and already doubts are being raised as to whether it is a positive thing. One senior economist I spoke to believes the outsider’s triumph is good for the game but bad for business and could well lead to a decline in football revenue, especially on television. “The reality,” he told me, “is that Sky viewing figures are slumping – everyone likes Leicester but no one watches them in live Premier League games. And BT (which shows live games between Europe’s top clubs) is very worried about the Champions League next year because although Leicester has qualified as a top seed it doesn’t have as broad an international following as well-known British clubs such as Manchester United.”
...
Some commentators consider Leicester’s triumph to be the kind of shot in the arm motor racing’s revenues need – plucky David conquering all-powerful Goliath. The next six months will show whether that’s true or whether, as astute economists predict, brands desperate to bask in the glory of an unlikely victory suddenly realise that the paying public wants what it always had. A Goliath-controlled status quo.