*Saksham Agrawal, Jairaj Singh Basur & Shauryaveer Chaudhry

In this episode of the LSPR Podcast, hosted by Editors Saksham, Jairaj, and Shauryaveer, the discussion focuses on the newly enacted National Sports Governance Act, 2025. Joined by Prof. Tarun, Dr. Niyati, and Prof. Anamika of GNLU, the conversation situates the Act within India’s broader sports governance landscape, tracing its roots in the Lodha Committee reforms. Key themes explored include transparency, accountability, and institutional autonomy, as well as the integration of anti-doping and anti-harassment measures and alignment with international sports law frameworks. The speakers emphasize how the Act can enhance athlete welfare and strengthen governance structures, while also cautioning against possible frictions in its practical implementation.

LISTEN TO THE PODCAST

Saksham: Professor Tarun, Professor Anamika and Dr. Pandey are all part of the GNLU Centre for Entertainment and Sports Law. They are renowned scholars leading in the field and they have thankfully joined us today for a podcast on the recently introduced National Sports Governance Act. 

Now if I would begin with the first question: Sir, based on your work with the GNLU Centre for Sports and Entertainment Law and your general experience in researching sports law and governance, what are some things that you consider as certain deficiencies of this Act? What are specifically some crucial aspects of sports governance that the Act has left unaddressed?

Prof. Tarun: Saksham, Shauryaveer and Jairaj, thank you first of all for the opportunity. I think when my colleagues Dr. Pandey and Anamika ma’am and I were discussing, the Act seems to be extremely visionary and very important Act that we should be building on, but there are some gaps. I think the vision has to meet a little bit with the reality as well. And there are a few things that we chalked out. Two of them I think are very important which I feel should be discussed.

One is government intervention and control. If you look at the Act, generally international bodies look into these things from a very independent perspective. But the Act, at least…maybe it is talking about international standards, it is looking into some international best practices as well; but there is a lot of government intervention. You look at the National Sports Board they want to create, the Sports Election Panel that they want to create, the National Sports Tribunal that they want to create; there is a lot of government intervention in creating these bodies…that is one.

Number two, something which I really appreciated that the government has done is the Athletes Commission, which is what the International Olympic Committee also has…I think Emma Terho, who is a former Finnish Olympian, she heads it, she is the chair of that at the IOC…I think that is a brilliant step that has been taken. But there again, there are no rules, responsibility or structure that has been put out in the Act itself. I will be really looking forward to what the government is going to do, at least from the Athletes Commission perspective. I think there are some other points which are very necessary where I want to bring in Dr. Niyati and Anamika ma’am to shed light on those things.

Dr. Niyati: Thank you. Thank you, Saksham and thank you, Tarun sir. What I feel is—I shall take up from where sir left—number one, the Act is very visionary. Now when we say that the Act is visionary, which means that it has tried to bring in those aspects which we always wanted from any law that will come to regulate sports in our country. And when we say sports governance, it has actually hit the nail where we wanted reforms in sports governance. However, what we feel is that it’s not the points that have been missed; it’s more about the points as to how they will be dealt with.

For example, when we speak of Safe Sports, what I understand from the language in the Act is that Safe Sports primarily would mean protection of women and children. Now, how and in exactly what terms would this entail only women and children in protection…When we speak of Safe Sports, would it be only women and children? And if yes, how will that happen? We already have Prevention of Sexual Harassment at Workplace Act – that is already applicable to sports, wherever the sports is happening. So when you say Safe Sports, what is the understanding of Safe Sports is something which is very important; and therefore we shall have to wait for the implementation of the rules to see how exactly Safe Sports is being maintained and athletes are being protected and who will fall within the category of Safe Sports. So how that will be defined in future is something that we are looking forward to.

And the other aspect is similarly, the Code of Ethics that we speak of. So when you say that there would be a code of ethics, whether the code of ethics would be under the Act or every federation would come up with this code of ethics or the National Board will lay down the Code of Ethics—because in any of these scenarios it would be very difficult. Because if the National Board lays down, it would be third party intervention, as Sir pointed out. If every board frames it, whether it would be in consonance with the international framework that we follow, and even when it happens, are we even ready to implement something which follows international best practices?

Or will we tailor it and customise it, keeping in mind the needs of our society and our sporting culture? So good step, we’ll have to wait for some time as to how it is implemented, how do we actually deal with these terms – because we have seen in the past that the Parliament has come up with amazing laws, but then implementing those principles becomes very overwhelming for us. So whether the groundwork is being prepared or not is something that we shall have to see.

Prof. Anamika: Right. If I may add from my end, first of all Saksham, thank you and thank you to Niyati ma’am and Tarun Sir for putting these crucial points out there. But I see two really important gaps; perhaps, that feel more of a missed opportunity than gaps.

First is inclusivity. Now, if we were to have a bare reading of the Act itself, it nods towards non-discrimination. But it really doesn’t move the needle when it talks about addressing the hard realities of marginalised sections – be it trans groups, be it people with disabilities, or just athletes from underrepresented areas. So, without any clear participatory guideline, without any cogent safeguard in place, inclusivity would perhaps risk being more aspirational and symbolic than being translated into actionable models.

The other equally pressing area which might need more addressing from Parliament would be the integration of technology. Now India today is gearing up for mega sporting events where we have ambitions for hosting the 2036 Olympics, and so it becomes a little surprising that the Act is silent on how we integrate technology in our sporting governance, in our sporting ecosystem. We have Section 30(2)(c) and (d) which make a passing reference to utilisation of technology and it talks about data protection, but there is nothing beyond that which gives us any real guidance.

So while the world is debating AI ethics, it is talking about athlete ownership of data, smart stadiums, AI-driven coaches, simulation-based training centres, the Act really misses on talking about any of these aspects. It misses on aligning towards the Olympic AI agenda – it does not align back to our IT Act, our Personal Data Protection Act – and therefore it remains to be seen what the government is going to come up with; do we get to have a supplementary policy that supports these aspects or not?

Shauryaveer: Thank you for that. My name is Shauryaveer, and I will be going ahead with the next question. India is a land of diverse cultures and traditions with a rich history of indigenous sports that have been played for centuries. Has the Act managed to preserve the balance between globalisation and preserving local sporting traditions? If not, what more could have been done in this regard? Please shed some light on this.

Prof. Tarun: I think this is an area which is very close to us because we truly believe that there needs to be a policy and structure where indigenous sports are given proper recognition. Look at what indigenous sports have accomplished in the past. Let us take cricket as a sport which started from England—it has become a global phenomenon now, and the LA Olympics are going to have cricket. Look at wrestling, which comes out of India, or Kabaddi, which comes out of India, and look at what a global mark they have made.

I think the Act does not really speak about indigenous sport. The Khelo Bharat Neeti does, for sure—they are talking about indigenous sport and bringing the Indian knowledge system to sports. So there is a kind of gap between the two policies. I think there should have been some discussion on indigenous sport and how the promotion is going to happen in the Act itself. However, I think we are hopeful and very positive about the fact that the government will look into it because it has been on their agenda. But the Act per se—I could not find or interpret any article which talks about indigenous sport and promotion of indigenous sport.

Dr. Niyati: As Sir has rightly pointed out, we would know whether indigenous sports having a position in the Act would have even been thought of. If, for example, there would have been some mandate in the act stating that the boards or the sporting federations that deal with indigenous sports will be promoted or will be given some funding.

However, when you look at the Khelo Bharat Neeti, the sports policy that came up just this year, it speaks about those things where it mentions promoting indigenous sports. At the same time, when the National Education Policy is examined, there is a mention of integrating sports in education and making education more sporting and more playful.

Now, when there is already a landmark policy like NEP 2020, when a sports policy is coming in 2025, and at the same time a governance bill is introduced, could a linking or harmonising of these three things have been thought of? Or will it happen in the future? We do not know.

The whole question is: if there would have been some aspect of regional sports mentioned in the Act, it would have given a lot of focus and impetus to these sports, the athletes involved in these sports, and the federations involved in these sports. It looks as if it was forgotten when the Act was being drafted. Therefore, we feel that it is a missed opportunity, but I do not think they have missed the bus. We can still catch up, keeping in mind we already have these things reflected in the policies that are there.

Saksham: Yes, I think I agree with you. I think one more reason for this could have been the fact that we do not have any proper federation or proper regulation for these sports right now. And I think that the Act was directed more towards having a coherent governance model for systems that are in place. So I think that is why perhaps one of the reasons this was not mentioned in the Act.

Dr. Niyati: Exactly. Let me add one more point because as mentioned—it is as simple as infrastructure. For these sports, when all the modern infrastructure that we are making is examined, do we even consider any sports-related stadium that has been built or is being recently built by either municipal corporations or governing bodies? Do we see that it includes indigenous sports? Do they have Kho-Kho in there? Do they have Mallakhamb in there? Whether that has been even considered while developing infrastructure—when you do not have infrastructure, how do you think that sport will be promoted? Where will athletes play or even opt for it?

So I think somewhere or the other, there needs to be special attention being given by everybody—by the legislature and by the executive—to promote indigenous sports.

Saksham: Yes, ma’am. I think the goals for these sports are very different right now. So we need to focus on other goals for those sports right now, as you correctly said.

Jairaj: Professor Tarun, what are your thoughts on the composition of the National Sports Tribunal? Are there any special features of the NST which set it apart from other tribunals?

Professor Tarun: I think the most special feature of the tribunal is that it is for sport, and I will tell you, I never thought that in my lifetime I am going to see a sports tribunal coming, and I am really glad that the government has taken this step. I think it is a very important step and a very significant step. I think it is one of the biggest highlights of the entire act.

But again here, Jairaj, I think I have the same reservation which I have with a lot of other things in the Act, and I am going to look at it from two perspectives. One is the composition of the tribunal. Now, there are three people who are going to be a part of it. When we are saying that we want international standards coming in—international standard number one is arbitration, which is the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which is already there. The UK has things like Sports Resolution and all these chambers that are there. Malaysia – I think the Asian Arbitration Centre came out with the rules in 2021 or 2023, I do not remember the exact year, where they have come out with Sports Arbitration Rules. So the general international practice is arbitration.

But let us take a look at the Sports Tribunal that we have created. We have got three members, out of which one is going to be either the Chief Justice of India or a Judge nominated by the CJI. We have got the Secretary from the Ministry of Law and Justice and the Secretary from the Department of Sports, Government of India.

Now, as Dr. Niyati has also mentioned, and I also mentioned in the opening remarks, international bodies have major reservations about third-party intervention. The All India Football Federation had to take the brunt of it when the Supreme Court stepped in—FIFA said we are going to give sanctions and take away recognition. I think this is going to be a problem in the future (can be, I don’t know how they’re going to restructure it). Even if you see how the members are going to be selected, the search committee that they are talking about is again going to be by the Central Government…again, external third-party intervention…that is one problem that I have.

The second problem that I have is Section 20 of the Act. Look at Section 20 — it talks about the exclusions that are there when it comes to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal; and every major aspect of sport, whether it is doping or any kind of matter which is under CAS, under the tribunals of the international federations, are excluded. Then what are we exactly looking at?

I think the domain in which this particular tribunal is going to look into — I don’t know what is then going to be considered by them…because all the important aspects already have international standards or domestic standards in place. If all of that has already been taken care of, why is the tribunal made, and what kind of significant contribution is it going to make when it comes to dispute resolution? These two issues have to be really looked into.

I think India…this is a very important time when India should start promoting sports arbitration. We had two attempts which were made: one was in Ahmedabad, one was the Indian Court of Arbitration for Sport, and this was way back…both of them really did not make a mark. There were no rules made, no arbitrators which were taken on board. So I think we could have a tribunal, we can really work on the details of it, but this is the time to really look into sports arbitration and create that kind of expertise.

One more thing before we move forward: in the Tribunal, we don’t have a subject expert. Writing that there is to be a Secretary from the Department of Sport does not make him/her a subject expert. They are bureaucrats. They, of course, have an understanding of it. But why not have an athlete there? Or why not have somebody who has an understanding of sports law, or maybe a renowned lawyer? We do not have a shortage of them in India—we have got great sports lawyers and administrators. So I think we have to relook into the structure and see the significance of this tribunal.

Saksham: Just one second before the next question, I had a question for you, Prof. Tarun. You said that we are trying to follow the Court of Arbitration for Sport while creating this tribunal. Obviously, as you said, the way we have structured it is more of an adversarial court. But then again, like we are seeing currently in the recent Semenya case and more recently in the Seraing case, there are problems with the model of the Court of Arbitration for Sport itself. So do you believe that an adversarial model, as the tribunal is currently imagining, is a better option right now than sports arbitration, at least for India?

Prof. Tarun: Look, at one point of time, we say that our courts don’t have that kind of expertise, right? If you are going to go into the same model, how are we then helping the ecosystem? Because the problem still stays – that’s one.

Number two, the Caster Semenya case that you spoke of—it is one of those rare cases which has gone to the Human Rights Court (ECHR) because there was a major issue regarding a human rights violation that was happening. I am not saying CAS does not have problems. There have been major issues with CAS. That is why in the 1990s, they had to go through an absolute overhaul to change their systems because the IOC was really intervening in it.

My whole process is that when we are saying that international standards are going to be taken care of, and if there is a conflict between domestic systems and international systems, the international system is going to prevail—why can’t we look at it from a sports arbitration perspective? Let us be a little bit of devil’s advocate and try to help the other side. If we are saying that we want to really give those kinds of powers to the Tribunal, then why do we have such a long list of exclusions? Because there is already an international standard that has been made. You really can’t go beyond that. So I think we really have to relook into it. It is a great step—I am not going to deny the step—but I think again, a major deliberation needs to be done when it comes to the Sports Tribunal.

Shauryaveer: Dr. Niyati, you have explored accountability in sports product liability extensively. However, concerns with regard to safety and equipment have not been addressed by the new Act. How has the new Act failed to address this opportunity? What more could have been done to legislate in this regard?

Dr. Niyati: I think you know you’ve asked a very timely question and I’m glad that you have asked this because primarily product liability or injuries that happened to athletes is something which is not discussed a lot in our jurisdiction per se, when I speak of, and therefore I feel that athlete safety, which is something of a first thing in any sporting model which needs to be looked at somewhere or the other is not looked at in India. We already have the Consumer Protection Act (very recently that came up the new Consumer Protection Act of 2019) which actually deals with faulty products and services however, but when you expect an athlete to rely on Consumer Protection Act, it’s not just discouraging, but also impractical. Why I say so is because number one, most athletes are not even aware of their consumer rights, let alone in a position to pursue legal remedies available to them as consumers. Second, we’ve seen sports and we have all seen in sports and those who would have played sports would agree with me that the athlete is hardly sometimes, you know, an independent consumer, the equipment that they get is usually provided through coaches, academies, federations…so therefore the responsibility to be placed under the current system on the athlete alone and not on the federations and organisations, is something which I feel is faulty and the Act does not look into that aspect.

While you know many federations in India do require certified gear, the real issue is not what happens in cases of where the equipment is faulty or it causes injury. We do not have an oversight authority for testing. We do not have an oversight authority that would recall the products or even for injury tracking. When we speak of Safe Sports in the current legislation…as I mentioned earlier, it does not speak of physically securing athletes, it only speaks about women and minor athletes. Therefore, what I’ve seen is that the understanding of Safe Sport that has been introduced should be more than mere safeguarding of women and children, but should also mean the extent of physical safety of every athlete. 

Now when you see internationally, federations already prescribe strict equipment standards. When you see FIFA, it lays down for turf, for example, or when you look for ITF it would lay down for balls that can be used or even when you look at the FIH lays down for hockey surfaces. Even if you look at the ICC, it lays down for helmets and the protective gear. So every International Federation does lay down the equipment standards. But the whole question is do in India we have compliance to industrial and international standards? Do we have a safety authority that would take care of equipment safety for athletes primarily? Do we have a strict liability regime? No, we do not have a strict liability regime, which means we follow, we provide the same protection to an athlete as we provide  protection to a consumer which should not be the case, they should not be treated at par. Again, we have seen in other countries that they have a sports injury register for surveillance and for reporting. Do we have that? Do we have mandatory insurance coverages for athletes or not? 

These are the things that are missed. Maybe when the governance model is uptight as mandated in the statute, we would see that this happens, but keeping in mind the statute does not provide with these, I think it has somewhere missed a crucial opportunity to protect athletes from injuries that could have been prevented. So the mechanism that is right now sometimes does not align with global best practices. Therefore we think that athlete welfare plus accountability, both of them should go hand in hand and that is what we’ve missed.

Shauryaveer: Following up on that, what kind of framework do you envision to ensure safety at the grassroots level for athletes based on any product, or to ensure the equipment is up to international standards—at least up to certain standards? What kind of framework, especially at the grassroots levels, can we have in a country such as India where sports are played by so many people in each and every road of the country?

Dr. Niyati: When we speak of grassroots level, I understand that. However, when you say played on the road, that is something which is absolutely a private affair, so we will not speak of that. We will only speak of regulated sport, for example, school games happening in schools, or some tournament organised by a federation, or a local tournament that is either funded by a federation or funded by a local sports governing authority. That would amount to grassroots level for the purposes of this conversation.

When you ask what should be done, number one—this is something which we as a centre actually work on—is athlete education. Are athletes even aware of the rights that they have? Number two: accountability on coaches and organisers. Do the coaches and the organisers, by any logic, feel accountable, or are they made aware of their duties?

Number three: the one who procures the equipment and the instruments or safety protective gear—do they follow the international standards or not? When I say international standards, I mean standards laid down by international governing sports federations, which are mandatory upon the National Sports Federations and all the federations that are associated with national federations. The local bodies need to comply with this.

What I feel is when you say grassroots level, what it means is that everybody that is involved in the sporting culture should be, number one, made aware of and told about their accountability. This is important not just for preventing injuries, but after an injury happens…what I feel is that there should be a sports injury register where you would register an athlete’s injury so that a proper mechanism is then laid out as to who procured the instrument, from where, who is the manufacturer, so that the particular manufacturer is to be held liable.

Also, what I feel is that somewhere or the other, when the Indian Government is speaking a lot about Make In India and when we see a lot of gadgets coming up from our local manufacturing hubs—be it Jalandhar or Amritsar or places like this—what I feel is that even empanelling them in our mechanism…for example, if we say BIS mark or the certification marks that we follow in India, if we work with them closely, I think we can prevent a lot of injuries that happen to our athletes.

Again, one aspect is insurance of athletes. When an athlete goes out to play, only at a certain tournament level is that athlete provided with insurance. Can we have a mechanism where even schools have insurance mechanisms for their school teams? If, you know, ideas like these come up; not just to prevent an athlete from having an injury, but even his aftercare and rehabilitation is taken care of after the injury.

What I feel is that the sports ecosystem should not only look for product liability but also the aftercare and rehabilitation. This is something which we need to think along the lines of, to have safe sport and athlete welfare working together.

Saksham: Thank you so much for that answer. Like you also mentioned the Safe Sports policy, and Professor Anamika, you also mentioned that one of the biggest problems is inclusivity. Do you think the Act, specifically under the Safe Sports policy, has adequately covered the possible problems of representation of queer athletes in India? This, of course, is particularly relevant in the conversation about the participation of transgender athletes in sports. Do you think it is something that the Act has managed to cover, or how can it cover it if it has not?

Prof. Anamika: That is such an important question, Saksham. Thank you for raising it. If we were to look towards the National Sports Governance Act of 2025, like I previously mentioned, it does gesture towards inclusivity. If we were to look at Section 6(f), it talks about Safe Sports policy for women, minors, and other classes of persons. On the face of it, on paper, this seems inclusive. But honestly, if you were to ask for my personal view, it feels very myopic. It really does not put inclusivity at the forefront. It does not spell out how LGBTQ+ athletes, even transgender athletes, are going to be protected. How are they going to be treated? What are going to be the eligibility criteria for their participation…or just about any other check.

What we are left with would be some kind of a legal and institutional limbo, where formally you may be covered under an anti-discrimination language—provisionally language—but in practice you can still very well be excluded by selection committees, by federations, by restrictive medical criteria.

Even if you look globally, you rightly say that it is one of the most contentious debates right now—their inclusion, their participation. Just thinking of IOC and FINA and World Athletics, we see that they are constantly revising their policies on transgender athletes and their participation in sports. Now, even their policy experimentation time and time again is coming under fire, but at least they are trying, something is happening on that front.

In India, we do not really even have to look West in order to engage in this conversation. We already have some phenomenal grassroots initiatives that are taking place. These grassroots initiatives are backed by our local governments or local bodies, authorities. If I were to give you an example, we can think of the transgender athletic meet which happened in 2017 in Kerala, or the all-trans football team from Manipur. These are clearly indicative examples of how inclusion is possible if there is any will for it.

Coming back to your question, the direct answer for it is no, there are not specifically any provisions that address this. But the answer really lies in the Safe Sports policy. That is actually where the opportunity honestly lies. If it can be drafted with some kind of foresight, if it could certainly talk about protections not just against abuse, if it could put anti-discrimination guarantees, if it could embed fair participation norms for queer athletes, we perhaps would reach a space where inclusion on field is in fact a reality for India as well. But given we are not there yet, this is going to remain a critical advocacy space. It is going to remain a critical debate for years to come till the Parliament actually addresses it.

Jairaj: The Act mandates creation of the National Sports Board, which will oversee all sporting federations. Is the NSB a welcome change, or does this compromise the independent functioning of sports federations?

Professor Tarun: I think every answer of mine starts with the control and intervention concern. Honestly, do our federations need oversight? Absolutely we do, because there are some specific challenges that Indian federations face, keeping in view the nature of how the system in India works, and so on and so forth. We need an oversight body. When you are saying an independent oversight body, Jairaj, I don’t know if the NSB is going to be that independent.

What problems have the sporting federations faced till now? Let’s take an example of a number of them. Let’s take the Wrestling Federation as an example. People had a major problem with the Wrestling Federation of India because there was political and bureaucratic intervention in the WFI. Let us take a look at others—the Amateur Boxing Federation of India faced the same kind of issue, the Badminton Federation of India also, if I remember correctly, faced the same kind of issue.

We are saying that we need an independent body—independence from what? Independence from political and bureaucratic approach. The sports federations have really faced bad music because of this. When you are saying we need that kind of oversight, look at the body which has been created—the composition of that body, of who is going to actually come out with that body – the central government again.

Again, that is the same thing that has happened before. Where is the change? What is the independence of that body? The whole thing is that if you are talking about international standards, the international standards then have to be taken care of to the fullest. It cannot be like we want to create an independent structure, but that independent structure is to counter all the political and bureaucratic intervention before. But the body that is going to create that independent structure is also coming out of the central government. That’s where I think the independence of it can be questioned. But of course, I want to stay positive and look forward to how they are going to create it and what is going to come out in the end.

Dr. Niyati: If I may add something—when we speak of sports governance, what we primarily understand is autonomy of sporting organisations and federations, and their autonomy is primarily important, keeping in mind sport is one of the unifying features of all the people worldwide. You may be from any country, you may be from any legal system, you may be from any religion, but when you come out to play sports, you follow the regulation of sports.

The moment when we say that there is a National Sports Board which will be governing sporting authorities—or which will be, for example, if you look at the simple provision for which it is being made, which would be registering National Sports Federations and thereby determining their legitimacy—what you do is streamline a structure. I think Tarun Sir would concur with me when I say this, because when you want to organise for example, a national level championship, as we tried to do to promote Kalaripayattu at GNLU, we faced a lot of trouble keeping in mind that there were multiple national federations. When we tried to do it with one, the other stated that no, you need to do it with us because we are the one that is recognised. I think that problem is being solved.

But then the whole question is whether tomorrow, apart from the current (something that we might be highly speculative of) when a National Federation is following the International Federation’s guidelines, it would get recognised under the National Sports Board. But then the whole question is, will there not be any further requirement? For example, it needs to be a registered body—we understand that. But then, moreover, apart from that, something adding more kind of guidelines that would, if in case they do not align to what international federations seek…for example, if there is an international federation that would promote inclusion of queer athletes, but if in India we see it is not the case right now, will it not be antithetical to what has been promoted by an international body?

Therefore, one way to look at it is streamlining—very good, welcome move. But then if it is only restricted to streamlining, as we have seen in our country, the political interference, the kind of government interference in sports is something that we are very afraid of. It should not, at the end, look like the highest government officials are now intruding into the sports management or governance of every sporting federation through creation of a National Sports Board. That should not be the ultimate result of it. Again, very speculative, but learning from the previous experiences is what we are coming from, and therefore we are very troubled by it. 

Saksham: Yes ma’am, thank you for that, definitely agree with you. If we essentially allow bureaucrats to get back into the federation, it essentially defeats the purpose of the Act because we already have that issue. So definitely one thing, like Tarun sir said, I think a very good word to describe the Act is visionary. But of course, it introduced a lot of things…but of course, a lot to do right now.

Shauryaveer: Thank you for that answer. I’ll move ahead to the next question. Another factor that may affect existing sporting organisations is their inclusion under the RTI regulations. Due to multiple rounds of amendment of the Act public organisations such as the BCCI need not come under RTI scrutiny. The determining factor for this is whether the said organisation receives government funding. How do you see this relaxation playing out? Does it undermine the accountability of such organisations to the public?

Prof Tarun: I hope cricket fans don’t troll us for what we particularly believe when it comes to RTI and BCCI. Look, I personally believe Shaurya, Saksham, and Jairaj that whenever you’re a public functionary (you can be registered in whatever way you are) if you’re doing a public function, you’re using infrastructure created with the help of the government through public money, I believe that there has to be an oversight accountability on you and people can have a different opinion about it. Personally, I feel that BCCI should be under the RTI. There should be checks and balances on BCCI because we’ve seen in the past they’ve done a tremendous job. I think it’s one of the most celebrated federations around the world. I’m not going to even talk about India. I think it has created that kind of stage for itself. But have we seen problems in the BCCI? Of course we have. We’ve seen what happened in the IPL scam, we’ve seen sometimes how things have been taken care of. It needs that kind of look into transparency and accountability. 

RTI as a mode, I think it’s a brilliant, brilliant work done and why not? But you know, if you are so clear and you’re doing everything properly, there should be no problem…at the end of the day, it’s a public function that you’re doing. It’s a national team. It’s not a privately run team. And when you’re doing something at the public level, I think it’s very important to be answerable to the public through the RTI and I truly believe they should be held accountable. And I think that can only be done when they are under RTI. So for me there is a no brainer, it’s an absolute no brainer. Nothing against cricket fans. 🙂

Saksham: Sir, Shauryaveer is the biggest cricket fan I know. 

Prof. Tarun: I’m really sorry if you feel bad about it.

Shauryaveer: Sir, I agree with you there…as a cricket fan, I have several issues with the BCCL.

Dr. Niyati: Yeah, so every cricket fan should have issues with BCCI and therefore they should want…ultimately it is cricket which is we…

Shauryaveer: There are several instances of mismanagement, while the BCCI has done a brilliant job, there can be no denying that there have been several instances of mismanagement…off the top of my head, the way Virat Kohli’s ODI captaincy debacle was done with Sourav Ganguly at the helm of the BCCI. So I do agree with you completely there.

Prof. Tarun: No, I think I remember the whole issue with NADA, the National Anti Doping Agency came in, there have been major issues of age fraud that you know that have come in and I’m talking about the best of the best athletes. Another very important aspect I think which we were discussing in the morning as well while we were preparing for the podcast, I think how at least in cricket, I can speak of how these issues of age fraud have been made very normally have been taken into in a very…I would not say positive, but in a very funny way…where people say, you know, that people have done it. I’m pretty sure I remember there were a few cricketers, I don’t want to name them, who were making fun of the fact that there have been age fraud issues. People have played in U19 or U17 teams when they were not under 17 or 19 and normalised it. I think it’s absolutely not normal to think of these things as a pass off or something. These are very important issues. I’m glad that the government has come up with the Age Fraud code as well, which I hope will be out there very soon, because there has been problems with cricket when it comes to governance, mismanagement, transparency, match fixing, spot fixing, doping, age fraud. Now, if each and every federation is looking at transparency, accountability and you have the RTI to keep a check on it, why not BCCI?

Saksham: Yes, Sir, definitely. We had a chance to talk with Mr. Nandan Kamath a while ago and this was, I think, the day the Age Fraud code came out. He’s also played a lot of state and national cricket, so we were discussing this with him. He said it’s very normalised…he could tell you so many players (obviously he also didn’t take names) So many players who’ve done it and it’s fully normalised, especially in cricket. It’s something that we see.

Prof. Tarun: Look, you know, Saksham it’s happening, and people have reservations about it is great. When you start celebrating these kind of things by saying that, you know, it happens, [players say] “maine bhi kara hai”…it has happened with other players and you’re just sitting at an international platform and making these kind of comments and letting it go as a joke. Uncalled for, international athletes should be very, very cautious about making these comments.

Saksham: Definitely agree with you sir, ok so you had a great discussion now. So as we wrap up this discussion now, so we’ve explored several critical gaps in the act right now. So thus taking a holistic view of all of these, what would essentially be a sort of a road map for the next phase of sports reform in India because as we discussed, the Act is definitely visionary, but it has a long way to go. Also looking ahead to the next decade, how do you envision the intersection of technology, governance and athlete rights shaping the future of sports flow in India?

Prof. Anamika: We’ve had such a wonderful conversation around the gaps and the loopholes, and therefore it feels absolutely apt to actually talk about the road map ahead, and what is the next phase of sports law reform in India.

And for me really it will rest on two pillars at the end of it. One should be responsible integration of technology and the other the holistic inclusive sports ecosystem. Now for the latter, like I’ve already mentioned, it can’t simply be that we’re importing already contested models and the West is struggling just as much, so we really need more of science informed right based approach in terms of having inclusive models.

And then in terms of technology, why I’ve said responsible integration…it can’t be that we start using ten different types of technologies without the kind of infrastructural maturity to back it up, without the kind of structures that protect our data, protect our athlete data rights. So on technology, the Act right now is still very thin, but we have to move beyond merely mentioning technology in passing like we see in section 30. Instead, we have to bring in a comprehensive legal architecture that governs athlete data rights, it aligns with global standards like the Olympic AI agenda, something that balances innovation with fairness. So we cannot absolutely, going ahead, afford to play catch up on these issues as well or something that you know we can foresee happening. So if you were to ask for the next decade, I don’t see intersection of technology, governance and athlete rights as three separate conversations, but as one integrated agenda that has to be taken and read together.

Dr Niyati: When we speak of, when we even contemplate about the future of sports in our country and what should be the road map, we have a lot of answers. But for me, I would always keep the athletes at the centre because the moment I keep athletes at the centre, the sports is taken care of, the governance is taken care of and everything related to a sports ecosystem is taken care of, when you pay a lot of attention to that athlete.

So for me, when I say speak of the athlete, the first step would be whether when I invite an athlete even to enter into the realm of sports, whether already existing sporting mechanisms, infrastructure and things that would be needed, keeping in mind when he enters into sports are already taken care of…in the sense an athlete’s trainers, whether his or her trainers are aware of their duties and responsibilities, and can they be held accountable for their actions? Number one. Number two, when we speak of the athlete while he’s playing, whether the athlete is aware of his rights and liabilities or not, and that’s where we speak of athlete legal education programme. 

Lastly, when an athlete retires, do you even make use of that athlete or not, do you as a sporting ecosystem make use of that athlete or not? Where does that athlete go? Does that athlete join some private company, does that athlete become a government employee or is that athlete given an opportunity in a structured manner to give back to sport? So there’s a concept of sporting ambassadors and an athlete ambassador where an athlete would go back to their town, to their school and train other athletes. So the whole question is you have an Olympian or you have an international winner or somebody who has played at an international level and represented India, comes back down and is not just involved in his day-to-day trying to feed his family, but is already given a role here – where he would earn for himself and for his family just by giving back to sports.

So when you keep an athlete and the whole life cycle of an athlete is taken care of, I think sporting reforms would automatically follow. So that should be a one point focused agenda that I feel should go on regulations thereafter.

Prof. Tarun: I think most of the points are taken care of by Anamika ma’am and Niyati ma’am. One area which I have started very recently researching upon and has really caught my eye because it has become an international level problem, at least in places like Africa and UK. 

I think very recently in 2023 or 2022 even, I think the Football Association came out with some kind of data as well, if I remember correctly, is the whole issue of sports trafficking. Because India is becoming that one stop venue for a lot of at least South Asian countries, African countries and South American countries, I think this can be a major problem in the coming future. If I remember correctly, I think the University of Nottingham has done something about it – they’ve come out with a report on sports trafficking and how you know it happens. The United Nations is extremely vigilant about it. I think one thing that we have to really look into to counter such a problem is the role of sports agents. I think FIFA has done something really good when it comes to keeping an oversight on the agent; at the domestic level we really need to create that. Because where Niyati ma’am was saying that training the trainers and using these athletes…I think sports agents play a very important role in India. When you know a lot of junior leagues have now started a lot of minors are going to come in their role. Responsibility and oversight has to be something that has to be looked into because sports trafficking has become a major problem. 

I think there is one very important study done by some scholar in Africa, I can’t remember the name, and they’ve said that how the modus operandi functions, what kind of issues that minor athletes have faced…all these minors have got into slavery, prostitution. I think the NCRB has to get involved, has to keep a check, because this can be a major problem in the coming future. When we are saying that we want to become a sporting superpower; while you want to become a sporting superpower, I think you need to have a very good hold on…we have problems of trafficking in general. But with this new component of sports coming in, I think it would be a major problem, so I hope we have some kind of oversight, some kind of regulation of sports trafficking, because it can become a major problem in the coming future. Till now we don’t have data to show that.

Dr. Niyati: Also, I think we should add on this point also what we as a team usually discuss…Anamika ma’am would agree…that when Sir says that the Act is visionary, what we understand is that when it speaks of the board and speaks of the governance model, it says that athletes should be included in decision making and the whole question is whether even an athlete is (I’m not saying capable of, of course athletes are capable of doing anything), keeping in mind governance roles, do our athletes need some training to take managerial responsibilities is something that needs to be looked into. 

So training an athlete to take up governance and leadership roles is something that needs to be looked into so that they just don’t become…for the namesake that they are there in the governance body. However, their contribution is absolutely negligible. So they should not be there, just as signifying or fulfilling that criteria that, oh, we have athlete members, we have women members. But then do you actually train them for that or not is something which is very important. So a mechanism for where they can contribute to a major extent is something that we need to look into.

Professor Tarun: I think international models are there, Dr. Niyati. We have got Athlete 365 that the IOC runs where we create that leadership in the athletes. Having said that, I think something that the three of us always talk about is that copy-pasting systems and putting them in India will not work. You need to create an indigenous system. Take inspiration from Europe, take inspiration from the US, take inspiration from any nation—Australia and New Zealand have done some really good work—but don’t try to copy-paste it. It has not worked in India before. It will not work in India in the future as well because we have our own problems. So I think a good combination of best practices, global best practices combined with indigenous practices, I think is going to be a major solution.

Saksham: Firstly, I would say that, for example Dr. Niyati talked about having athletes actually trained. You also said that we could have an athlete as a technical member in the National Sports Tribunal. That is definitely needed because it would bring the athlete’s perspective. However, we cannot have only an athlete serving as the governing decision maker because they do not understand the full bureaucracy and governance. Definitely, we can have them in the decision-making, and as you mentioned, we can definitely provide training programs.

Additionally, the reason I posed this question with the vision of a decade is because, as you mentioned, we are looking to host the Olympics in ten to eleven years—essentially within a decade. As you stated, and as Anamika ma’am talked about regarding technology, I do not believe that our current athlete data system will be acceptable by several countries’ standards. We definitely need to improve on that, we definitely need to match up to international standards if we one day, at least in the next ten years, dream of hosting the Olympics.

Lastly, most importantly as sir said, we definitely cannot copy-paste models. It is not feasible at all with our size, the number of athletes we have, and the problems we face at the grassroots level. To return to Dr. Niyati’s discussion about sports equipment—that is not a problem faced at the elite level of sports. That is a problem we observe more at the grassroots level. I keep coming back to the word that Professor Tarun used—that the Act is visionary, that it has a lot of potential, but there are definitely a lot of things we need to work on.

Prof. Tarun: Having said that, we all should be very positive about it. I think it is a very positive step taken. I was very pleased with this development.

Saksham: Definitely. I believe this Act represents a huge step for Indian sports in the future. We can only hope to improve from here.

Prof. Tarun: We all put our names with sports law. Now we have a sports law, so I am really happy.

Shauryaveer: Thank you for that, Professor. Just to sum things up, I thought we could do a little exercise where we can go around the room and all three of you could just describe either this Act or this conversation in one sentence.

Professor Tarun: Just one sentence.

Shauryaveer: One sentence. I was going to say one word, but decided to make it a sentence instead.

Dr. Niyati: The law or this conversation?

Shauryaveer: Both – either/or.

Prof. Tarun: This conversation has been brilliant. I am really glad that students are advancing these conversations about the Act. I think visionary for sure will be a word, but a reality check needs to be done. We really need to have a reality check.

Dr. Niyati: I feel the Act has touched the pulse, it has identified the areas that need attention. We hope that the prescription that comes later on actually works and cures all the problems that the current Indian sporting ecosystem is facing. So hopeful and optimistic is my understanding.

Prof. Anamika: I think for me, the conversation itself around it would be holistic. While the law that has come into place, it is translated on our books and it is translated on paper, what we really need now is for it to translate on the field. That would, perhaps, sum it up.

Saksham: Thank you very much, and thank you to all of you again for this conversation. It has been very illuminating for us and we are sure it will be the same for our viewers. I think we have learned a lot more, not just about the Act, but about India’s sports vision for the future. Once again, thank you so much for this. With this, we’ll conclude the podcast for today. Thank you so much for your time. 

Dr. Niyati: Congratulations to you and your team for this initiative you took. This represents the first step, and we look forward to more such interactions. All the best.

Prof. Anamika: Thank you so much for today.