NATIONAL SPORTS GOVERNANCE ACT 2025

THE KEY FEATURES

1. National Sports Board: The act empowers the central government to establish a National Sports Board (NSB).NSB will grant recognition to the national sports bodies and register their affiliate units.  Only recognised bodies will be eligible to receive funds from the central government.  The Board may suspend or cancel such recognition or registration, subject to specified conditions.

Other functions of NSB include:

i) issuing guidelines on code of ethics and compliance with international rules,

ii) inquiring into matters affecting welfare of sportspersons, sports development, and misuse of funds

iii) creating ad-hoc administrative body in case of loss of international recognition of a national body.

NSB will consist of a chairperson, and a prescribed number of members.  To be appointed to NSB, a person must have special knowledge or experience in public administration, sports governance, sports law, and other related fields.  The central government will appoint the members of NSB on recommendations of a search-cum-selection committee.  The central government will prescribe the composition of the committee.

2. National Sports Governing Bodies:The law provides for establishing: (i) National Olympic Committee, (ii) National Paralympic Committee, and (iii) National and Regional Sports Federations for each designated sport.  The national bodies will have affiliation with respective international bodies.  These bodies will also have affiliate units at state and district levels.

It requires these bodies to establish: (i) certain committees for their functioning, (ii) a code of ethics to govern conduct of persons such as members, affiliates, athletes, coaches, and sponsors, and (iii) a grievance redressal mechanism for complaints from such persons. It prescribes governance structures for these bodies (executive committees, athlete representation, women’s quota, ethics and dispute panels).

3. Administrative structure of national bodies: Every national sports body will have a general body, consisting of equal number of representatives from each affiliate member and certain ex-officio members.  It will have an executive committee consisting of up to 15 members, with at least two outstanding sportspersons and four women.

The law specifies certain conditions for being a member of the executive committee.  These include: (i) the person must be aged between 25 years and 70 years, and (ii) must comply with international rules (charter, statute, or bye-laws of international federations) on age and term limits.  The law also specifies that a person aged between 70 and 75 years may become a member if permitted by the international rules, and will serve for a full-term.

4. Election oversight and term limits: The Act provides for (i) a National Sports Election Panel (to be notified by Government) to supervise elections, (ii) limits on tenure (maximum consecutive terms with mandatory cooling-off periods), and (iii) state/district election panels for affiliates. The aim is to prevent long-entrenched incumbency and factionalism.

5. National Sports Tribunal & dispute resolution: A specialised tribunal is created for sports disputes (chaired by a senior judicial figure and two eminent members). Many internal governance and recognition disputes must first be heard before this tribunal (streamlining litigation and ensuring specialist adjudication). Appeals generally to the Supreme Court (subject to international rules).

6. Athlete welfare, safe sport & ethics obligations: NSFs must constitute Athletes, Safe Sports and Ethics committees; adopt Safe Sport policies (sexual harassment, abuse), grievance mechanisms, and athlete welfare measures. The Act aims to put athletes at the centre of governance.

7. Financial transparency & audit: Recognised bodies must maintain audited accounts; the Act contemplates a National Sports Board Fund, and financial oversight mechanisms (including CAG audit requirements for funds routed through the NSB/government).

8. Use of national names/insignia controlled: Organisations seeking to use “India”, “Indian”, “National” or national insignia must be recognised; unauthorised use can be restricted to protect brand and representation of national teams.

9. Relationship with RTI—limited scope, contentious amendment: The final Act ties Right to Information (RTI) applicability to whether a body is “substantially financed” by the State; bodies without such funding (e.g., the cash-rich BCCI) are effectively excluded from RTI unless they receive state assistance. This produced substantial debate and media coverage.

10. Compatibility with international statutes and anti-doping: The Act seeks alignment with the Olympic and Paralympic Charters and creates a statutory interface for anti-doping bodies; however, it also preserves space for international dispute resolution (CAS) where required.

STRENGTHS

• • Comprehensive, statutory framework — ends a piecemeal approach and brings key governance elements into law (recognition, elections, athlete inclusion, safe sport).

• • Specialist dispute forum — tribunal and election panel can speed, standardise and professionalise dispute resolution.
  • Alignment with international norms — explicitly references Olympic/Paralympic Charters, making India’s governance more compatible with global bodies (important for hosting and participation).

WEAKNESSES

1. Risk of over-centralisation and political influence — NSB’s powers are wide; appointment and oversight safeguards need clarity and external checks. Empirical governance literature warns concentration of recognition power without countervailing oversight invites capture.

2. RTI carve-out creates transparency asymmetry — exempting bodies that do not receive government funding (e.g., BCCI) weakens uniform public scrutiny and could encourage use of private funding to avoid accountability. Media coverage documented extensive debate on this point.

3. Implementation capacity at state/district levels — compliance (audits, Safe Sport implementation, election logistics) demands funding and training; without it, the Act risks uneven application and marginalisation of smaller sports.

4. Potential conflict with international statutes — where international federations require particular governance rules or dispute forums (CAS), statutory restrictions must be navigated carefully to avoid sanctions or recognition issues. The Act preserves CAS where needed, but the interface must be handled carefully.

PRACTICAL / POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Publish clear Rules & SOPs before enforcement — detailed rules for NSB appointments, election-panel composition, tribunal procedure, conflict of interest, and Safe Sport investigations should be notified and widely consulted. (Empirical lesson: rules reduce arbitrary implementation.)

2. Ring-fence an independent implementation unit with budget — create an independent secretariat with specialist investigators (for Safe Sport), training funds for state/district federations, and grants for compliance audits. Evidence from other sectors shows funding raises compliance rates.

3. Narrow the RTI exemption or add compensating transparency — either bring big commercial federations under RTI or require equivalent disclosure (annual audited accounts, conflicts, sponsorship contracts) to avoid accountability gaps. Civil society coverage recommends mandatory public disclosures if RTI is not applied.

4. Staggered implementation with monitoring & review — phase in tenure limits and election rules (12–24 months) with mid-term independent review to fix operational problems. This lowers disruption to athletes and competitions.

5. Independent safeguards for NSB & Tribunal appointments — require multi-stakeholder selection panels (judicial representation, athlete representatives, independent experts) with published selection criteria to limit politicisation.

6. Public dashboard & open data — mandate an online dashboard with registered bodies, recognition status, audited accounts, ongoing complaints and tribunal outcomes—this offsets the RTI gap and builds public trust. Empirically, open data reduces corruption and improves investor/partner confidence.

CONCLUSION

The National Sports Governance Act, 2025 is a landmark statutory attempt to professionalise Indian sports governance — it fixes many structural gaps (recognition, athlete inclusion, dispute resolution). If implemented transparently and with capacity support, it can reduce administrative paralysis and improve athlete welfare. The Act’s major vulnerability is centralisation + selective transparency (the RTI carve-out) which could produce new accountability blindspots unless corrected by strong disclosure rules and independent oversight.