*Dev Kumar Parmar and Swagath Chanila Ramachandra

The National Sports Governance Act 2025 (“NSGA”) is India’s first codified legislation on sports governance, covering oversight, elections, dispute resolution, and athlete protection. This paper examines its core institutions—the National Sports Bodies, the National Sports Board, and the National Sports Tribunal and compares them with global standards set by the IOC, FIFA, and WADA. The Act’s strengths include transparency, democratic elections, athlete safeguarding, and alignment with anti-doping norms. However, concerns arise from excessive government control and the Tribunal’s limited jurisdiction. The article proposes reforms to protect autonomy, expand tribunal powers, and rebalance election oversight for stronger future governance.

Introduction

Sports law in the Republic of India, whilst always growing and expanding, is still a niche field that several practitioners are yet to fully understand and grasp the intricacies of. Part of the growth, expansion, awareness and education of sports law in India is the proactive involvement of the various governmental entities by enacting relevant legislation, conducting detailed studies, and pronouncing landmark judgements. In this sense, one of the most positive steps forward in this direction took place in the month of August 2025, when the National Sports Governance Act 2025 (“NSGA” or “the Act”) received the assent of the President on 18^th August 2025 and was officially enacted.

The enactment of the NSGA marks a pivotal step in Indian sport and Indian sports law, with an intention to transform the way sport is regulated and governed in the country. Prior to the enactment of the NSGA, sporting matters outside of those governed by privately set up national tribunals by various national sporting governing bodies would rely on government circulars, jurisprudence, and the 2011 Sports Development Code alone, resulting in fragmented understanding, litigation, and rules. The NSGA offers a single codified legislation to govern oversight, elections, dispute resolution, ethics and athlete welfare.

Whilst the codification of such a legislation is a step forward, one must never forget that sport is globally interconnected and as such, it is crucial to assess the contents and applicability of the NSGA from a global perspective and standard. Comparatively analysing the NSGA alongside established international governance norms such as those established by Fédération Internationale de Football Association (“FIFA”), the International Olympic Committee (“IOC”) and the World Anti-Doping Association (“WADA”) can help identify areas wherein the NSGA can be improved, as well as areas wherein it is comprehensive. Alignment with these global standards provides a true test of the efficacy of the NSGA and provides a path for further improvement in the future.

This paper first examines India’s NSGA’s core features including National Sports Bodies, oversight mechanisms, and tribunal establishment. Second, it compares these provisions against FIFA, IOC, and WADA standards, identifying alignment strengths and autonomy concerns. Third, it proposes specific proposals to safeguard sports body autonomy, expand tribunal jurisdiction, and rebalance election oversight.

Core Characteristics of the NSGA

Prior to analysing the NSGA in comparison with international and global standards, the authors seek to identify some of the main features of the act which shall then be analysed. These features have been identified to be the crucial pillars of the NSGA, both from an institutional and procedural perspective, whilst not undermining the importance of the other elements of the Act. They are:

National Sports Bodies

Under Chapter II, articles 3 and 4 the NSGA provides for the establishment of National Sports Bodies (“NSBs”) which shall act as governing bodies for their respective sports / sports organisations, i.e., the National Olympic Committee, National Paralympic Committee, National Sports Federation for each designated sport and Regional Sports Federations for each designated sport. Additionally, the NSGA provides for the various requirements and conditions to be met by each of these bodies, namely:

1. There may only be one (1) National Olympic Committee and one (1) National Paralympic Committee;
2. The National governing bodies must have international recognition and affiliation with their respective International governing body (where an international governing body is in existence);
3. Each NSB shall have a general body, an executive committee, ethics committee, dispute resolution committee, athletes committee, a president, general secretary, and a treasurer;
4. Requirements in relation to qualification to stand for election to the executive committee of an NSB, such as being a citizen of India who is at least twenty-five (25) years of age, not being of unsound mind, being proposed and seconded by a voting member of the general body etc.;
5. Requirements in relation to the mode of election and terms to be served by elected members in the NSB.

The establishment of these clear and comprehensive requirements for each NSB, and the recognition of the need to establish such NSBs for each sport/organisation is pragmatic and constructive towards the streamlining of sporting rules and regulations in India. There is however, an immediate challenge raised as it inherently works on the presumption that each sporting discipline has a singular international governing body, whereas indeed some sporting disciplines have multiple bodies that govern the sport, and some do not have one at all. 

National Sports Board

Under Chapter III, articles 5 to 7, the NSGA provides for the establishment of the National Sports Board, which acts as an overseeing body for the multiple national sports federations and organisations in the country.

One of the key points outlined under Article 5 of the NSGA, which the authors seek to highlight, is under clause (2) wherein there is a clear recognition of the fact that persons appointed as the Chairperson or Members of this board shall have special knowledge or practical experience in the field of sports governance and sports law, amongst others.

Understanding that sports law is not only a niche subject within law in general, but is an entirely separate field of law requiring its own education and knowledge is crucial to the development of sports law and the sporting industry in India. The NSGA identifies such a need for experts in sports law, with specialised knowledge and practical experience, which in the authors’ opinion, is particularly constructive.

The National Sports Board shall also be responsible for granting or revoking recognition of sports organisations, maintaining a register of all organisations, issuing guidelines and safe sports policies for the protection of women and minor athletes, and the governance of the recognised sports organisations amongst various other functions and duties.

National Sports Tribunal

Under Chapter IX, articles 17 to 26, the NSGA provides for the establishment and functioning of the National Sports Tribunal, which aims to provide independent, speedy, and cost-effective resolution of sports disputes.

The objective with the establishment of such a Tribunal is to centralise and streamline the resolution of sports-related disputes, which were previously spread across various private tribunals and court systems. However, one of the pertinent points to bear in mind with regards to the Tribunal is that it shall not have jurisdiction over specified disputes such as those that fall under the purview of international or national sporting bodies, which already have their own dispute resolution mechanisms.

This limitation of jurisdiction, in the authors’ opinion, is a major lacuna with respect to the National Sports Tribunal (“NST”) as it consequently fails to address the lack of competency and proper procedural handling of sporting disputes before such (specifically) national sporting body tribunals and dispute mechanisms, which currently acts as a detriment to sports dispute resolution in India. 

This approach is interesting as it at least appears, prima facie, to move in the opposite direction to tribunals set up in many other jurisdictions which actually seek to find routes to accept disputes despite there being the ability for the matter to be heard at another tribunal; a move to keep disputes ‘at home’.  From a footballing perspective, it might appear that such an idea may also go against the current push by FIFA to have each of its member associations developing its own National Dispute Resolution Chamber, meaning that if the NST will not be competent to hear matters, the National Body for football will have to enable an independent tribunal separate from itself in the near future.  It might be that for instances such as this, the NST could have sought to accept jurisdiction rather than to move away from it.

Reference Points for International Sporting Governance

In order to properly analyse the NSGA in comparison with international sports governance models, the authors first seek to identify certain relevant models, for various reasons, which would offer a valid and constructive comparison. These are multifold. First, the IOC’s Basic Universal Principles of Good Governance outline the core standards of the Olympic movement including the six pillar concepts such as transparency, integrity, accountability, democracy, development, and autonomy, alongside other concepts such as adherence to the rule of law. These are universally and globally accepted principles that have served as the foundation for good governance in sport, offering a good standard of comparison for the NSGA.

Second,FIFA is, on many metrics and perspectives, the largest and most successful international sporting body in existence. The organisation is governed by the FIFA Statutes, which emphasises the independence of member associations from governments, democratic elections, routes for dispute resolution under Article 2. This framework, which governs arguably the largest sporting organisation in the world, also offers a good standard for comparison for the NSGA.

Third, the WADA Code provides the framework and governance of anti-doping policies, rules and regulations across several national and international sporting entities from organisations to laboratories to athletes (p. 9-13). Such a governance model, which harmonises anti-doping rules, regulation and governance across all such stakeholders offers an excellent standard of comparison for the NSGA.

Whilst there are multiple other international governance models which have successfully persisted for years, the authors have chosen the above three for the purposes of comparison in this article as whilst not without their own challenges, these are opined to be the most successful, robust, significant and comprehensive international governance models in the sporting world to date.

Comparative Analysis of the NSGA with the International Models

Having outlined the governance models in order to compare the NSGA with, the authors will now highlight certain characteristics of the NSGA that are in alignment with the aforementioned international models, acting as positives, as well as areas where there is a lacuna between them, demonstrating the areas for consideration with the future editions of the NSGA.

Points of Alignment / Strengths

First, is the transparency and accountability the Act provides. The NSGA, under Article 14 (2) subjects all recognised sporting organisations that receive financial grants or aid from the government to the scrutiny of the Right to Information Act 2005 and the obligations that arise therein. Whilst international frameworks do encourage disclosure of information, such requirement of compliance with public information regulation marks the NSGA as a pioneer in statutory transparency and is a standout area for the NSGA in comparison with international models.

Second, is the system of elections. The NSGA provides for a systematic and neutral mechanism to run elections across all sporting bodies, including those created within the purview of the NSGA itself. Such election models mirror those provided in international frameworks that demand free and fair elections, overseen by independent electoral committees. As such, the NSGA’s commitment to democratic legitimacy is consistent with international standards.

Third, the creation of the National Sports Tribunal for the resolution of sporting disputes reflects the international insistence / encouragement for sporting disputes to stay away from civil courts. In this sense, the NSGA is in alignment with the international frameworks and IOC norms, albeit the jurisdiction element of the tribunal is a limiting factor which shall be discussed below.

Fourth, the Act promotes athlete protection. The creation of the mandatory Safe Sport Policy under the NSGA echoes the global emphasis for safeguarding of athletes, particularly those belonging to minority groups. Such a statutory requirement for a safeguarding policy is compliant with the international model / requirement for athlete protection and ensures that athlete welfare is not entirely discretionary.  A limitation here however is that the policy does appear to expressly refer to ‘women and minors and other persons as such prescribed’. The prescription is in connection to whom the Indian Government officially refers to as prescribed persons for safe sport, and in this sense the protection may in practicality not be as far reaching as necessary, and certainly not as far reaching as in many other countries.

Lastly, the NSGA expressly provides that matters in relation to doping shall not be under the jurisdiction of the National Sports Tribunal, and shall instead be dealt with as per the National Anti-Doping Act 2022. This method of governance for doping matters is in alignment with the WADA Code and preserves consistency with international anti-doping governance.

Areas of Tension / Lacunae

The first major area of tension between the NSGA and international models lies in the government-created oversight institutions as per the NSGA. The Act provides for multiple powers to the Central Government of India, especially in the establishment of the National Sports Board and appointment of its members.Further, the NSGA Election Panel and Tribunal are also statutory creations of the Central Government with appointments influenced by the same. Despite referring to separation and invitations for ‘normalisation’, where a body has lost recognition or is non-compliant, in itself such governmental intervention may cause direct friction with FIFA and the IOC’s long-standing principle of autonomy and warning against governmental interference in the internal affairs of sporting bodies. As such, the powers conferred to the government as per the NSGA may require a narrower definition, with limitations on the exercise of such powers so as to avoid triggering allegations of interference, which sporting bodies in India have been infamously subject to in the past (see here and here).

Second, as outlined previously, whilst the creation of the Tribunal is consistent with keeping sporting disputes out of civil courts, the jurisdictional element of the Tribunal is lacking. The Act states that the Tribunal shall not have jurisdiction to hear disputes arising out of tournaments organised by international federations, disputes falling under the purview of specific national sports bodies or their tribunals, disputes falling under the purview of international federations of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”), as well as matters that require parties to submit to a specific dispute mechanism as per international statutes or charters. As such, the matters that actually can be heard by the Tribunal are severely limited and the NSGA appears to have limited impact in resolving the issue of incompetency / ineffectiveness in the private tribunals of national sporting bodies, which serves as one of the major problems in sports dispute resolution in India.

The broad powers conferred to the Central Government of India as per the NSGA, allowing for the appointment of designated sports for regions, establishment of the National Sports Board, appointment of members in sporting bodies / overseeing bodies, establishment of the Tribunal and the Election Panel, extend beyond those that an international regulation would deem acceptable. Whilst transparency, proper regulation, and accountability are indeed desirable, the extent of state control prescribed in the NSGA risks friction against FIFA and IOC standards, inviting potential sanction.

As such, it is clear to see that whilst the NSGA provides a positive step forward in the governance of sport in India, and is in alignment with international standards and models in several points, there are still areas of concern which must be addressed in order to ensure to continued growth of the sports industry in the country, without incurring the ire of international organisations.

Suggestions for future considerations in relation to the NSGA

The intention of the authors is not to solely highlight the points of limitation in the NSGA, but to do so with a view to identifying solutions to bridge such limitations. As such, having highlighted some of the lacunae, the following suggestions for amendment to the NSGA are recommended:

• Safeguard Autonomy of Sports Bodies – The state control prescribed in the NSGA must be reduced, and potentially replaced by an independent committee to oversee the establishment and regulation of the respective sporting bodies. In any case, should such powers not be limited, a provision or section that expressly outlines and guarantees the autonomy of sports bodies in line with FIFA / IOC principles, emphasising that state interference will be subject only to non-compliance with transparency or athlete protection requirements, may be inserted to safeguard autonomy.

• Expansion and strengthening of the Tribunal – Whilst not expressly ruled out, the scope of the Tribunal may be expanded to act as a body of appeal from the various private tribunals of national sporting associations, ensuring there is a centralised method of dispute resolution, at least as a second instance body.  It can be said that it is often the case that there is ineffectiveness of private national sporting body tribunals and offering sporting entities with an option for resolution prior to appealing to CAS, which can be inaccessible to most entities in India due to costs, might be an attractive and practical use for the NST. Such decisions of the Tribunal may also be subject to appeal at CAS, in line with international models.

• Re-balancing election oversight – Amend the duties of the Election Panel to providing election principles and standards for national sporting bodies to comply with in their own election rules, allowing for each sporting body to run their own election processes in compliance with their own rules which shall be acquiescent to the Election Panel principles. Such re-definition of the Election panel as an observer / compliance certifier will reduce the centralisation of power.

Conclusion

The enactment of the NSGA is a bold attempt to modernise sports governance in India, and it is a definitively positive step forward in the education and awareness of sports law specialisation and understanding in the country. The Act embraces many of the best practices from international models such as transparency, uniformity, democratic elections, and dispute resolution.

However, the state driven architecture of the Act, with significant powers prescribed to the Central Government, raises questions in relation to autonomy and control which historically speaking, FIFA and IOC have treated with the utmost seriousness. Such potential issues in relation to autonomy of sporting bodies will no doubt be well known to sporting entities in India, who have experienced sanctions along these lines in the past. Further, the lack of scope of jurisdiction of the National Sports Tribunal also raises a question of its effectiveness and intended objective, which remains to be seen. Despite the limitations, with proper implementation and deference to international models, the NSGA may act as an excellent foundational model, to be built on in the future, for the governance of sport in larger democracies like India. The framework has been laid, and its success in the future will depend on careful amendments, institutional independence, and a constant eye on aligning with inte

*Dev Kumar Parmar is a leading and renowned international sports lawyer and Principal Director of Parmars, representing federations, clubs, agents, and athletes in matters around the world. He is recognised for his robust advocacy, global speaking engagements, and mentorship of young legal professionals.

Swagath Chanila Ramachandra, Junior Associate at Parmars, is a sports lawyer handling disputes before FIFA, CAS, BAT, and national tribunals all around the world as well as delivering lectures, drafting international policies and assisting in the organisation of industry events