*Saksham Agrawal, Arya Harishankar, Shauryaveer Chaudhry & Bhavya Parameswaran Lakshmi

In this podcast hosted by LSPR Editors Saksham and Shauryaveer with Observers Bhavya and Arya, India’s leading sports lawyer, Mr. Nandan Kamath, shares his insights on the evolving intersection of sports, law, and policy. Drawing on his experience with the GoSports Foundation, LawNK, and the Sports and Society Accelerator, Mr. Kamath discusses how policy frameworks can drive athlete development, ensure fairness in sports governance, and address structural challenges like dispute resolution, age fraud, and gender classification. He also explores the legal dimensions of brand endorsements, the IPL auction system, and the rise of E-sports. Through this wide-ranging conversation, Mr. Kamath highlights the need for interdisciplinary skills, technological literacy, and a deep understanding of the sporting ecosystem for future sports lawyers. This dialogue offers a compelling look at how law, policy, and innovation together can build a stronger, more equitable sporting environment in India

LISTEN TO THE PODCAST

Saksham: Hello and welcome to this podcast with LSPR. Today we have with us Mr. Nandan Kamath. Mr. Nandan Kamath is widely regarded as India’s leading sports lawyer and is a trailblazer in the field of sports law and policy. As a managing trustee of the GoSports Foundation, he has played a pivotal role in empowering Indian athletes and offering them holistic support systems as a route to success. A Rhodes Scholar and alumnus of NLSIU Bangalore, the University of Oxford, and Harvard Law School, Mr. Kamath has built an illustrious career at the intersection of sports law and policy. His work encompasses contract negotiation, intellectual property issues in sports, athlete management, and building frameworks for sports governance and integrity. His contributions have helped establish a robust foundation for sports law in India. Through this podcast, Mr. Kamath brings a wealth of insights drawn from decades of advocacy, mentorship, and policy innovation aimed at fostering India’s sporting ecosystem.

Bhavya: Hi, sir. My first question to you is: there are many talented sportspersons in India, and a lot of them often go unrecognised due to various financial barriers that they face, which limit their sports participation and progression incentives. So based on your experience with the GoSports Foundation’s role in athlete development, how exactly do you think legal and policy framework can ensure a sustained funding for these athletes, especially those who are very underprivileged? Also, should India implement structured policies like a mandatory CSR contribution or government-backed sports scholarships to bridge this gap?

Nandan Kamath: Thanks for that question, Bhavya. In terms of talent and talent meeting opportunities, I do feel like policy has a very strong role. Sportspeople obviously need to be supported by a legal and regulatory structure to make sure there’s a level playing field and fairness. But even the most seemingly obvious level playing field isn’t really that level for unequal starting points. That’s where I feel policy really has to understand the notion that talent can land anywhere in the country. It doesn’t look for a particular socioeconomic status or even region. We have incredible amounts of talent in this country and we’re only opening our eyes to it in the last decade or so. Although it’s always been there, there hasn’t been adequate policy framework and resource allocation to find and then invest in the talent that deserves it.
Policy is to use the various instruments of the state to achieve a certain goal and objective. It’s not just about what the government does, but involves looking at a much wider scope of activity. The government in some sense can play multiple different roles. Very often, we expect the government to be not only the planner, but also the implementer of all policy, but strong policy will look at multiple different players. It could be the government; in the world of sport, it is national sports federations and the various different sports organisations across the country. But policy frameworks should also encapsulate the role of the market in building a sports business sector, as well as civil society organisations, and social ventures, really bringing together the four different stakeholders – government, federations, businesses, and the social sector. I think by doing this, policy framework can move forward to not only build theoretical level playing fields, but genuine level playing fields, which are able to find the right talent and make sure that there’s equitable allocation of resources for people to progress in sport.

You talk about CSR policy; I think there are multiple different tools to get corporates involved, it could be CSR, it could be taxation. For example, right now to even get sports coaching, there’s an 18% GST, although anything to do with sports and health ideally shouldn’t be taxed at those levels. Multiple levers can play a role in making sport more accessible, like building more manufacturing hubs and making equipment more accessible, or coaching being more accessible geographically. I don’t think forcing companies to give their CSR to sport is a long-run sustainable approach. It could work in the short term. At the end of the day, we need a system that is properly incentivized for each actor to play their own role. I do think legal frameworks have a limited role, but policy frameworks certainly have a much larger role in planning, allocation, and strategizing, taking on a whole-of-nation approach by planning nationally, but implementing locally and allowing innovation and customization to happen at local levels.

Saksham: So you mentioned that policy frameworks should have more of an impact than legal frameworks, right? You work with the GoSports Foundation, and your work there is more towards the policy side, so could you tell us more about what you do with the GoSports Foundation?

Nandan Kamath: So, I work in multiple different organisations. One is the GoSports Foundation, and that is entirely programmatic work, like setting up scholarship programmes for athletes who are aspiring to get to the Olympics and Paralympics, raising charitable contributions, often CSR, sometimes other donations, and using that towards athlete training, progression, purchase of equipment, and to get access to experts. I also run my law practice, LawNK, where we do contract negotiation and drafting, and help athletes, teams, leagues, federations, and a wide variety of stakeholders. That, I would say, is more in the business of sport and legal support to the business of sport. We also do a fair bit of governance work there, establishing rules and governance frameworks particularly for federations and the government. And the third organisation I work with is called the Sports and Society Accelerator, which works in policy, advocacy, research, and just helping the state unlock the full potential of sport with the objective not necessarily only of achieving excellence and success, but really trying to embed sport into the national culture of our country and increasing the rates of sports participation and physical activity in the broader population.

Arya: When it comes to the factors that influence how athletes perform, there are a lot of structural issues that go behind this. And one of these is definitely dispute resolution. In Chapter 18 of Boundary Lab, you discuss how procedural unfairness and violations of natural justice can prevent a substantive examination of what the actual issue at hand is. This challenge of ensuring neutrality extends beyond sports governance to other domains, including judicial appointments in India. Now, given that CAS arbitrators are appointed by ICAS members who might have relationships with sport governing bodies themselves, is the neutrality of arbitrators compromised? Do you still believe that India needs a similar independent regulatory framework for sports adjudication or are disputes best left to regular courts?

Nandan Kamath: It’s a big question, and my book Boundary Lab, published last year, explores exactly this. It shows how the rules and governance of sport reflect broader societal issues. We can examine these issues in sport in a more neutral way. But the real question is: is there any true neutrality? Are we chasing something unattainable—someone truly neutral? Every one of us has different interests—social, commercial, political, and personal.
When we talk about neutrality in adjudication, we’re asking for decision-makers who don’t bring external matters into a dispute, but stick to the facts and apply the law. The reality is that we all view facts and laws through different lenses. The realist movement also highlights how decision-makers are influenced by their own incentives. In sport, the ecosystem is small, with just a few thousand people running global sport. You want disputes resolved by experts, but experts also have their own interests. Many of the lawyers in sports federations have ties to certain organizations, and some even serve as arbitrators. This mirrors the government’s role in the courts, where the state is a major player, and in sport, federations are the strongest stakeholders.
ICAS (International Council of Arbitration for Sport) was created to distance arbitrators from their interests. It requires members to take an oath of independence. But does signing an oath truly ensure independence? It does make you consider it when selecting arbitrators. CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport) previously had a direct appointment system, but after backlash from high-profile decisions that favoured federations over athletes, a new system was introduced.
The big question is: can we strip away all personal and professional interests when making decisions, or should we accept that people always have different social, economic, and political interests? Instead of striving for absolute neutrality, maybe we should structure systems that account for these biases while still aiming for fairness. In the pursuit of perfection, we might lose valuable expertise and knowledge of how sports systems work. It’s about balancing fairness with practical experience.
These considerations also apply to judicial appointments. Sport governance provides a laboratory for experimenting with these issues, and the results could offer insights into broader judicial systems. In India, there’s a hot debate about the independence of sports tribunals. The draft sports bill proposes creating independent tribunals to resolve sports disputes, as hundreds of cases involving national and state sports federations are currently in courts. The sports movement feels courts are not the best place for these disputes, but the judiciary has stepped in because of the lack of accountability between sports bodies and the government.
The judiciary has played a reluctant yet crucial role in sports governance, often leading to long delays and uncertainty for federations. At some point, the focus needs to shift back to the athletes and the competition. For too long, administrators and the judiciary have dominated. Whether creating independent sports tribunals will solve this issue is unclear, but the current system is far from ideal. If administrators spent more time on the development of the sport and supporting athletes, it could make a significant difference.
As for the sports bill and the National Sports Tribunal it proposes, it’s still an open question whether it will bring meaningful reform or simply shift the problem from the courts to a new tribunal, which could also become overwhelmed with cases. We haven’t seen much success with other tribunals, so it remains to be seen whether this new approach will work in sports.

Shauryaveer: Sir, given these concerns about fairness and autonomy in sports governance, especially in arbitration, a similar concern arises in the commercial sphere. How can athletes in India protect their rights and ensure fair compensation when entering brand endorsement deals and sponsorship contracts, particularly in terms of negotiating terms related to exclusivity, performance incentives, and long term use of their image?

Nandan Kamath: That’s a great question because it comes up often. Athletes are in a very ambiguous position. They’re not employees or even formal contractors in most cases. They’re more like freelancers, moving from one engagement to another. Athletes often begin their commercial journeys early, sometimes before they’re of legal contracting age.
The ecosystem doesn’t always support athletes’ training holistically, so sponsorships and endorsements often fill funding gaps. The temptation is to focus on immediate financial gain, but the real risk lies in trading current commercial value for future freedoms. When we work with young athletes and their parents, we advise them on balancing short-term support with long-term rights.
There are several factors to consider—contract length, exclusivity clauses, commercial freedom, and operational freedom. Athletes need to be cautious not to give up too much in pursuit of short-term benefits. Good lawyers, particularly those familiar with the business of sport, can guide young athletes through these complexities. As athletes reach a certain level, negotiations become easier because they gain significant leverage, often with competition from multiple sponsors. But the challenge comes when there are few sponsors and many athletes competing for attention. In such cases, athletes may need to seize opportunities quickly, such as right before the Olympics or another major event. The temptation is to focus on the money—how much am I getting? But we often see athletes signing contracts without fully reviewing them. In those cases, we help terminate or renegotiate unfavourable contracts to secure better terms. This issue highlights the importance of legal literacy for athletes. General awareness of contract terms is often low. We work with various organizations, including the BCCI, to train young athletes—especially those on the Under 19 team—on the legal aspects of contracts.

Shauryaveer: So you mentioned you work with BCCI Under 19 teams. In an environment like the IPL where contract periods are usually three years, top players who should have high prices according to their market value in the auction are sometimes played at a base price according to the value at which they were first bought in the original auction because their teams just retained them. How can the rights of players be represented in such a scenario?

Nandan Kamath: The IPL system doesn’t give much room for players or agents to participate, unlike U.S. leagues like the NFL or European football, where agents play significant roles, particularly during transfers or when a free agent negotiates a contract. The IPL has a closed, structured auction and retention system. One thing it does well is offer bonuses once a player progresses beyond the sport. For example, an uncapped player who makes their debut for India automatically moves into a different category.
While the auction system isn’t perfect, it’s a reasonable attempt to test the market value. Retention allows players to assess their value and trade some certainty—staying with a particular team for a set value—for the uncertainty of the auction, where the price could drop or they could end up with a team they don’t want to play for.
What gets lost in this system is that players have very little autonomy, other than during retentions, to choose which team they play for or which combinations they’ll be a part of. This is worth considering because these are individuals building careers. Forcing players to play for teams they may not be happy with doesn’t always seem right.
There’s also the question of whether the IPL should move to a draft system like U.S. leagues. The draft system helps maintain competitive balance by giving the last-place team the first pick, the second-last team the second pick, and so on. It’s an opportunity to balance teams.
Another issue with the IPL is that fans lose track of which players are with which teams. Fans are now more likely to follow individual players than teams because of the lack of consistency. This inconsistency also affects the commercial value of the league, impacting broadcast rights and sponsorships. Sponsors like long-term partnerships, like the ones seen with the Olympics, where some sponsors have been involved for 100 years. When there’s consistency in teams and players, sponsor value increases. Right now, only a few players have stayed with the same team since the start of the IPL. Many have played for several teams, meaning sponsors often have to completely change their strategy every few years and follow a player to a new team.

Saksham: You spoke about a lack of choice that we see in the IPL because players are being auctioned. When you mention American Leagues like the NBA, right now there was a huge superstar trade where one player moved to the Los Angeles Lakers. Even in such trades, the players don’t really have a choice of where they’re going, so how does this work out legally? This is something that has always fascinated me.

Nandan Kamath: It all comes down to the rules of each league. There’s historical context to this, especially with the reserve clauses in U.S. leagues, where teams had the ability to transfer players without their consent, and the impact of that on restraint of trade. It’s a long history. I don’t think anyone has examined the legality of forcing a player to play for a specific team yet. Right now, everyone is content with the commercial value being unlocked. But as sports and their commercial ecosystems mature, issues like this will start to emerge. The challenge will be how to balance the autonomy of players with the commercial models of different leagues.
Right now, we still have multiple superstars, but if the ecosystem shifts to just two or three superstars in a broader context, the balance could change. For example, in European football, players have more autonomy, especially when it comes to transfers. It’s very difficult to transfer a football player without their consent. In other leagues, the system may lean more in favour of the teams. It’s really a mix of the commercial maturity of the league, the power of a few players versus keeping multiple players of equal prominence, and the size of the market. Cricket, for example, comes from a market with just 10 or 11 countries providing players. In contrast, football has a much wider ecosystem with multiple leagues competing for the same international talent.

Bhavya: While we’re discussing the vulnerabilities that an athlete actually faces, there is another complexity in the setup of the context of sports classifications. So currently there’s an ongoing debate between using gender identity versus the physiological factors as the basis for competition categories. So given the legal and the ethical perspectives that you have discussed in your book, in the chapter on gender, is there a possibility of actually finding a solution that is actually fair, and what are the challenges in designing such a system?

Nandan Kamath: There’s a long history to this. In the first modern Olympics, no women participated. By the second Olympics, a few women competed in some disciplines. Women’s sports have often been added into men’s sports rather than being developed alongside them. This inclusion has been more about accommodating than an initial choice for gender equality.
In some sports, men and women play the same sport. For example, equestrian events and some sailing disciplines have both male and female athletes. However, we haven’t fully explored this idea, and there may be other sports where gender doesn’t affect the outcome. For instance, in 10-meter air rifle shooting, studies show that women often achieve higher scores than men. Similarly, in open water swimming, women’s physiology can sometimes give them an edge, leading to better times than men.
We’re also living in a time where people are transitioning between genders, and others are born with conditions that don’t fit neatly into the binary of male or female. The challenge for sport is that almost all disciplines, especially at the Olympic level, are divided by gender. This sharp binary classification is rare in other areas of life. With a binary system, you need a clear distinction, but the question becomes: where should that edge lie, and can athletes move from one category to another? For example, someone born male but transitioning to female might retain some male physical traits after transitioning, like broader shoulders or a stronger upper body. These could offer advantages in some sports, raising questions about fairness in the female category.
Another issue is athletes with Differences in Sexual Development (DSD), such as Caster Semenya, who may have both male and female biological traits or atypical chromosomal structures. Sport has struggled to address these complexities. Initially, the IOC tried a testosterone-based model to classify athletes, but they found that it didn’t work universally. Every sport is different, and the advantages that male athletes have in many sports is very different from other sports. One of the chapters my book covers is on Chess – you might ask do female players need separate competition (the way Chess is structured is that there is open competition and there is female competition; most events are not Male and Female other than the Male Olympiad and the Female Olympiad, many events are Open while also having a separate Female Grand Master classification and Female competition). So, the question becomes – why would a sport like chess need to be gender-classified, if the discussion is of bodily strength and the differences in physiological development? But the interesting studies that come up indicate that it’s actually not just about physiology, it’s also about the sociology – the types of messaging that come through, how young boys and young girls are brought up to think about themselves and each other. Studies have shown that when women player compete against women, they play better than when they think they’re playing against men. This is called the Stereotype Threat – very often female chess players buy into the stereotypes that are around them, and their performance drops in many ways. The gender binary is not just physiological, it is way more significant than that; there are no easy answers to this, simply because fairness is a matter of where you sit on this topic. If I have a young daughter playing a sport, I would be vehemently against males transitioning into their category. If I have a son transitioning from male to female and wanting to continue playing in the sport, and feel included in the gender they have chosen, I would vehemently argue in favour of inclusion. I wouldn’t think there is a right answer here – it is a battle between different concepts of fairness (depending on your positionality and situation). In the long run, sports perhaps may be differentiated by those originally born male, and everyone else. So perhaps we have to re-classify how we think about sport – so that everyone born originally male fits into one category, and everyone else fits into the other (whether they have transitioned or are originally female). I think there is going to be some movement around this. I would also like to see more sports or at least events within some of the sports degendered – where the science is examined more deeply and there are social initiatives to balance out the Stereotype Threat (to make sure that where there are no physiological advantages, the social differences do not impede the level playing field). It’s a very complex topic and there are no right answers. I think we’re going to have to be led by both Science and Sociology & Anthropology on finding better answers. The reality is that sports is where this issue is the most alive – simply because it has to be alive given the binary – and it’s a brilliant opportunity for anyone who’s studying gender, is very eager to understand the various complexities of the science, but also the differences in performance (particularly sporting performance), and what that means to the larger debate around gender and sex, and the difference between the two, and how at a broader social level we’re going to deal with the many ambiguities generated from a concept of fairness, from a concept of inclusion, but also a much wider notion of how we integrate different ways of living into a common society (just like we have to integrate them into a common sporting system).

Arya: In the social context, we’ve had a lot of debates about gender and sports. Another up and coming field that we’ve also been debating a lot about is technology. With the rise of E-sports and the gamification of traditional sports, we’ve had new regulatory challenges that have come up, from player contracts in virtual leagues to digital rights and privacy. How do you envision India’s legal framework evolving to address these emerging technologies? Particularly, what are the new and unique governance challenges and how might we protect athletes rights in increasingly digitised world?

Nandan Kamath: There are a lot of questions here, and one of the big issues is the legal framework around E-sports and professional gaming. Until recently, E-sports was categorized alongside general gaming, but it has now officially been recognized as a sport by the Sports Ministry, instead of the Electronics Ministry. While this is a positive step, there’s still no strong governance framework for E-sports or the digitalization of other sports. Many athletes today are not only participating in physical sports but also in digital formats. As a result, the safety of athletes now extends beyond the playing field to digital safety, which is a major concern. Issues like trolling and harassment are significant, and privacy and safe sport must also be addressed in the digital space.
E-sports, however, has unique challenges that require more attention. Its governance is more complicated because it involves private publishers, who own the intellectual property (IP) for many of the games played. These publishers organize large tournaments, which differs from most traditional sports, where platforms like venues or playgrounds are typically public domain. This private involvement introduces new governance and integrity issues. For instance, E-sports has faced significant problems with cheating, including players using hacks or gaining preferential access to games. It’s challenging to ensure fair play when the publisher controls the game, as they embed 90% of the rules directly in the game code. This raises questions about fairness, especially if there’s differential access to the game. For example, would a Russian team receive a different version of the game than an Indian team? We need to be more alert to these possibilities of intervention and closely examine how game platforms affect the integrity of competition. Additionally, new forms of doping are emerging in E-sports. Unlike physical sports where strength and endurance are key, success in E-sports depends on attention, focus, and reaction times. New performance-enhancing substances are now part of the WADA code. It’s crucial to monitor how players are trying to boost their performance in ways that are inappropriate. The rise of digital and electronic aspects in sport brings up a whole range of issues, making it an exciting area for young lawyers, particularly those interested in the intersection of technology, law, and sport.

Saksham: Thank you, Sir. I have two questions related to this. First, as you mentioned, the rules are mainly set by the code in the game itself. So what exactly is the role of the governing body in this case?

Nandan Kamath: The governing body’s role would primarily involve regulating competition, resolving disputes, and ensuring integrity. They would need to check if everyone is operating within the same competitive structure and ensure fairness. Additionally, they help establish the commercial framework for leagues, ensuring that the business side is separate from the game publisher’s interests. Essentially, they create a layer of neutrality and governance over what is essentially a game controlled by the code.

Saksham: So they act more as a regulator than anything else?

Nandan Kamath: Yes, that’s correct. In general, sports governing bodies are regulators and overseers, not operators of the game itself. In traditional sports, the governing body doesn’t influence the design of a basketball court or cricket stadium; they just ensure the structures meet certain standards, like the dimensions of the ground or pitch. While local decisions might affect the specifics, the general rules are set by the governing body. In the case of E-sports, though, the game already exists, and governing bodies are coming in to build regulatory frameworks around it. Essentially, in traditional sports, the governing body sets rules based on natural factors, like the length of a pitch, whereas in E-sports, the rules are based on code and a constructed virtual world.

Saksham: I understand. When you mentioned cheating and doping earlier, it reminded me of something I read this morning—the new age fraud bill. Knowing that you’ve played through various levels of cricket in India, I’m sure you must have come across some cases of this. If you’ve read the bill, do you think it adequately addresses this issue?

Nandan Kamath: This is one of the most complicated and pervasive issues in our country, and is more widespread than most people imagine. I’ve played state-level cricket at various levels—from U-13 to U-19—and I’ve seen it firsthand. There were players who should not have been playing, as they were well over the age required. And many people we consider legends of the sport have altered their ages to become eligible. People often see this just as an issue affecting the competition at that particular event. But the unseen consequence is the players who never get a chance to compete because someone else has taken their spot. It creates a low-trust ecosystem. It’s not just the athletes involved; coaches and parents are also participating in this. This sets a bad ethical foundation early on. If a 12 or 13-year-old understands they need to cheat to even begin their journey, imagine what ethics they will carry with them throughout their careers.
The real issue here is with the lack of a structured birth registration system, which is well outside the realm of sport. In India, not every birth is even registered, and even when they are, the system is flawed. Birth registration can be done up to 7 years after birth with an affidavit, which opens the door for manipulation. You can easily find notaries who will backdate documents and sign off on them. When the system has gaps like this, it allows for people to exploit them. And this isn’t just a sports issue; it affects other sectors too. There have been reports of senior officials in the armed forces or even judges allegedly changing their ages to retain seniority or extend their tenures. It’s not just confined to sports.
Sport, however, is where this issue is most visible because competitions are age-restricted. While rules can be set, we need to address this issue on multiple levels. Deterrence is important, but it won’t work if we don’t have a robust system in place. The current system relies heavily on whistleblowers, which isn’t sufficient. For instance, the draft bill proposes that whistleblowers must pay ₹5,000 to file a complaint. That puts the burden on individuals rather than building an effective system. We need to start registering players from their first touchpoint with a sport, whether it’s a cricket academy or a football academy. There should be an ID that sticks with them over time. But even at young ages, people change their birthdates, so this isn’t an easy problem to solve. Age fraud is at the root of a lot of other issues, like our country’s high anti-doping violation rate. When trust is broken within the system, people are more inclined to gain unfair advantages. It feeds the belief that the system is unfair and makes age fraud seem like an essential way to progress in the sport.
This problem isn’t widely acknowledged publicly, but there should be a public outcry. Sports are a public domain, and when people defraud sports, they deprive deserving individuals of opportunities. Integrity is the core of sport. Without addressing issues like age fraud, any funding or support schemes will only have limited impact. We need a stronger stance on integrity if we want to restore fairness in sport.

Saksham: I fully agree with you. I myself played state level football till the Under 19 level, so I have seen this myself. Like you said, if a child starts at a club, there must be an ID system. Age fraud starts from the institutions themselves because they want to further the players that they think are good. I’ve seen this myself first hand, so I fully agree with you on this. I’ll just move on to our last question. Sir, if I if I remember correctly, this is the 25 year anniversary of your graduation from National Law School. So your journey from a sports enthusiast and from a budding sportsperson to becoming one of India’s pioneering sports lawyers is particularly inspiring for lot of students such as myself who may have wanted to become sportspersons and now are in the field of law. As sports law continues to emerge as a distinct practice area in India, what specific competencies, both legal and beyond that, would you suggest that aspiring sports lawyers should develop? And also what critical gaps in the current academic and professional landscape should they likely be prepared to navigate?

Nandan Kamath: This is a question I think of often because I actually didn’t study sports law. I studied sports as a sportsperson, so my experience as a sportsperson, along with my strong interest in law, drove me to study sports law. I was very fortunate to be at National Law School, and I also got the chance to study abroad and strengthen my legal base.
For anyone wanting to be a sports lawyer, I think the first requirement is to bring the best possible legal skills and attributes to the field of play. The second is to immerse yourself in the ecosystem of sport and not limit yourself by the label of being a lawyer. I’d say immersion, understanding the various stakeholders and their perspectives—whether it’s an athlete, a parent, a coach, a federation, or a sponsor—is important. Understanding their challenges and the lay of the land is key. If you say, “I’m only a lawyer and I’m not going to look at the commerce of sport, I’m not going to look at the governance of sport, I’ll just stay in my lane and deal with disputes or contracts,” I think you’ll live a limited life. You’ll certainly add value, but I believe there are outsized values to be created and more impact to be had if you’re willing to look around you and understand the politics of sport, the business of sport, and how the globalization of sport is impacting the world, especially India’s role in it. The changing tides of how India will be perceived by the world, and how sport is looking at India for growth and progress, are important to consider.
Keeping a wider perspective is essential, as is building alternate skills. I keep saying that the sports lawyer of tomorrow is not the same as the sports lawyer of today. One of your questions was about e-sports; I don’t think the average lawyer today understands coding or AI. If you want to be a forward-thinking specialist, you’ll need to understand the fields driving these industries, particularly AI, VR, and how coding works, because much of our gaming will become sport, and much of our sport will become gaming. The digitalization of sports will require not just your legal expertise, but also the knowledge of a technologist—understanding how code impacts the direction of sport.
So, I’d say understanding technology, not just coding but also hardware and other aspects, is very important for young people to stay ahead of the game. Sport will lead the way in technologization. Understanding the medical aspects of sport, doping, and the ways unfair advantages can manifest is also crucial. For example, there are limitations in our legal system when it comes to becoming a patent agent, as most people don’t study science. But someone in patent law needs to understand the science. Similarly, as a sports lawyer, understanding the intricacies of the ecosystem and going one step further to grasp minor details as it develops will put you ahead of many others who treat it as a side practice or one of five or six things they do.
I think we’re entering an era of sharper specialization. To find your own niche, you may need to experiment a bit, but there will be many sharp areas where you can make your mark. So, stay authentic, become a top-class lawyer, but also immerse yourself in understanding how the sports ecosystem works, what the different stakeholders are thinking, what their interests are, and, most importantly, how to balance those interests in a much larger ecosystem. If one thing moves, how does another thing get affected? Thinking wider, but acting locally, while thinking globally, perhaps encapsulates that.

Saksham: Thank you so much, Sir. As we conclude our conversation with Mr. Kamath today, it is clear, as he mentioned, that the intersection of sports, law, and policy will continue to evolve significantly. All the challenges we discussed today highlight the importance of thoughtful legal frameworks in building India’s sporting ecosystem. As we progress toward becoming a sporting powerhouse and work towards our objective of hosting the Olympics in the future, the legal and policy innovations championed by visionaries like Mr. Kamath will be essential in creating an environment where athletes can thrive and government structures maintain integrity. Thank you, Sir, for sharing invaluable insights with us today and for your dedication to transforming India’s sporting landscape. It was an honour to have you with us, and as someone who has dreamt of becoming a professional footballer for most of his life and is now in law school, this conversation has not only been entertaining but also inspiring. Thank you very much for being here today. Arya, would you like to say something?

Arya: Thank you so much, Sir. I think the questions that we asked you in the podcast today have been ones that all of us – me, Bhavya, and Shauryaveer, and Saksham, have been thinking about for a really long time. To be able to get insights on these things through reading your book, which I really enjoyed, as well as from you and actually listening to you, tell us your thoughts on these topics was a really enriching experience for all of us. Thank you so much.

Nandan Kamath: Thank you all so much, and good luck on your journeys as well.