In the last decade, the sports sector has witnessed considerable change and evolution. There has been an increase in the number of professional sports leagues across the country. Thus, it was necessary to revamp the National Sports Development Code of 2011 as it was not adequately equipped to regulate newly formed professional leagues and the revenue that they generated. As a result, the Ministry of Youth and Sports formed a panel to develop a new draft law. However, when the draft code was finally presented, it faced backlash from the Indian Olympic Association (IOA), the ministry, and other groups. Therefore, the code remained in a state of limbo ever since.

The National Sports (Development) Bill 2011 sought to legislate for governance reform in the federations. The key elements included voting share of athletes, introducing a sports ombudsman to deal with disputes, and age and tenure limitations. However, there was insufficient political support to convert the Bill into legislation.

Judicial intervention in Indian sport peaked in 2015 when the Supreme Court appointed the Lodha Committee to map out governance reforms for the Board of Control for Cricket in India. The BCCI was never required to implement the NSDC 2011 because it did not seek public funding. But in the 2013 Indian Premier League spot-fixing scandal, the Supreme Court saw a need to impose a new constitution on the BCCI by judicial order.

Summary of the Draft
The panel constituted by the Sports Ministry drafted the new code- National Code for Good Governance in Sports 2017. The panel was composed of diverse members, it included four eminent athletes/coaches, one NSF President, 2 Politicians, one Sports Journalist, and one Sports Lawyer. The panel drafted the code enunciating a wide range of provisions relating to board composition and management, membership structures and elections, athlete representation, transparency and financial integrity, dispute resolution, and monitoring of compliance. Compared to the National Code of 2011, the 2017 Code is more elaborate.

In 2018, there were reports which stated that the Sports Ministry was unhappy with the Code drafted by the panel. The Indian Olympic Association and NSFs publicly opposed to the draft. In 2019, the Sports Ministry formed a 13-member panel to propose changes to the draft NCGGS 2017. However, the Delhi High Court stayed the operations. Since then, the Code has remained in a state of limbo.

The NCGGS 2017 consists of the following: Article I- Definitions; Article II- Recognition Criteria; Article III- Nature of Entity; Article IV- Governance and Management; Article V- Membership Structure and Elections; Article VI- Athlete Representation; Article VII- Transparency and financial integrity; Article VIII- Code of ethics, whistleblower and conflict of interest policy, NOC Ethics Committee; Article IX- Grievance redressal and dispute resolution, ombudsman; Article X- Operational integrity; Article XI- Sanctioning of events by the NOC and NSFs; Article XII- Monitoring of compliance and interim measures; Article XIII- Amendments; and Article XIV- Legal effect.

Election Rules are incorporated into the National Code for Good Governance in Sports 2017. Clause 1- Scope and Applicability; Clause 2- Conduct of elections; Clause 3- Returning Officer; Clause 4- Calling elections and the electoral college; Clause 5- Nominations; Clause 6- Scrutiny and Finalization of nominations; Clause 7- Campaign practices; Clause 8- Neutrality and independence; Clause 9- Polling; Clause 10- Counting of votes; Clause 11- Declaration of results; and Clause 12- Sanctions and complaints.

2017 Draft in a State of Limbo - Reasons

Three specific provisions of the Act created the most contention among various stakeholders. They are:

• Ban on politicians
A major point for many shareholders is a provision in the bill that prohibits politicians from serving as officials and board members in National Olympic Commissions, as well as national sports federations. This is not surprising given the number of politicians who serve as board members of various sports federations across the country. Politicians who may face defeat and those who support them see this provision as unjustified and discriminatory. It is further argued that the implementation of this provision could prove quite detrimental to Indian sports. Several programs that focus on sports infrastructure require a certain level of political support to be eligible for grants, funding, and approval. It is also argued that the involvement of politicians, especially at the national level, ensures that sport is taken seriously and not sidelined. This is particularly important because most of India's sports infrastructure is state-owned. Some argue that the involvement of politicians hinders the development of sports because there is always the risk of things becoming political. Additionally, experts have pointed out that India's participation rate in sports is highly unusual.

• Age limit
Following the draft, a member who reaches the age of 70 will be ineligible to take part in the elections for Board positions. This applies to both the Indian Olympic Association and various National Sports Federations. Proponents of the age limit argue that it will increase youth participation and representation in sports management. In essence, this would lead to a flood of ideas. Opponents of the age limit, however, point out that it leads to a waste of the wisdom and skills of older managers. In addition, it can create problems for governments with very few qualified and experienced stakeholders. Referring to this provision, the IOA in a letter to the Sports Ministry suggested that it would be wiser to impose an age limit of 75 years. Although the age limit of 70 years was in line with the principles of the Olympic Charter, according to the IOA, 75 years would be a better age limit for India's situation.

• Term limit and cooling-off period
The 2017 draft states that an officer or board member can serve two consecutive terms of up to four years, after which the person will only be eligible to hold such a post once more after a four-year cooling period. In other words, although there is no maximum term for board members, they must complete a mandatory cooling-off period after serving two consecutive terms. Experts agree that this provision effectively promotes good governance and ensures that no individual or group disproportionately centralizes or consolidates power. Although the concept of the cooling period is relatively unique, it can be argued that it could be a new tool to prevent the concentration of power.

Suggestions:

• Consultative approach
  • It is not sufficient to list a set of conditions and requirements that federations must comply with.
  • A consultative approach needs to be adopted, i.e., rather than issuing directives for stakeholders to follow, it is better to have open discussions.
  • It should be out in the public domain for all interested parties to hear.
  • This would increase public participation, especially that of youth in Indian sports.
  • With the public having more awareness of the issue, it reduces the risk of politicians and bureaucrats misappropriating.
    
• Taking reference from the Australian Model
  • In Australia, sports governance is centered on monitoring, maintaining checks and balances, and effectively evaluating organizational performance.
  • Sports Australia works with various federations and stakeholders rather than dictating terms.
  • They have a learning-based approach that educates stakeholders on good governance and how to achieve it.
  • The role of Sports Australia is essentially that of a mediator and facilitator.
  • They monitor the progress of various boards to achieve the expected standard and assist them by providing tools and support as needed.
    
• It would be wise to make changes to certain provisions
  • Removing the ban on politicians is not practical in India.
  • Alternatively, a minimum number of politicians on the board could be considered.
  • Relaxing the age limit could help build consensus.
  • It may be prudent to consider the IOA's proposal to raise the age limit to 75 years.
  • In situations where there are not enough qualified members, exceptions can be made.
  • There is also a need to review the checks and balances of national sports promotion organizations.
  • Funding and financial oversight for non-governmental sports organizations should also be reviewed.

Conclusion
Despite the conflicting views on the draft, it is undeniable that it is a bold and progressive attempt to reform the governance of sports in India. However, we must ensure that the Bill is truly practical and accepted by all key stakeholders. We must recognize that this world is not ideal and that certain compromises may be necessary to pass generally positive legislation.

Also, efforts must be taken to introduce a consultative approach in not just drafting the updated version of the 2017 draft but also future Bills. It may not even be limited to the sports sector as states like Kerala have already implemented a policy of pre-consultative legislation. Emulating Australian management practices in sports could also benefit India. Our country is large and diverse, so inflexible centralized regulation may not be in our best interest. Instead, it would be better to let the federations lead and let the Ministry of Sports and other administrative bodies act as assistants and advisors to the various federations and sports organizations in our country.

References:

• In Pursuit of Good Governance - Analysing the Main Points of Conflict in India's Draft Sports Code - Joshua McLeod and Shaun Star
  URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350431899_In_Pursuit_of_Good_Governance_-_Analysing_the_Main_Points_of_Conflict_in_India's_Draft_Sports_Code
• Draft National Code for Good Governance in Sports, 2017
  URL: https://yas.nic.in/sites/default/files/DraftNationalCodeforGoodGovernanceinSports.pdf