From Guidelines to Law

**Shravan Anande and Hari Priya Murarikar 

Introduction

Sports in India are more than just a matter of recreation or entertainment they are a source of pride, identity, and international representation. Yet, for decades, the governance of sports bodies in India has been riddled with problems: administrators holding indefinite terms, overlapping roles, lack of accountability, and most importantly, the neglect of athletes’ voices. Attempts by the government to regulate these issues through executive codes and circulars provided only temporary fixes. Since these directions lacked the force of law, sports federations often ignored them without consequence.

The National Sports Governance Act, 2025 changes this landscape. By replacing executive instructions with a statutory framework, the Act introduces clear rules for how sports organisations must function, ensures transparency in their finances and elections, and creates space for athletes in decision-making. It also establishes new bodies like the National Sports Board and the National Sports Tribunal to regulate and resolve disputes within the sports ecosystem.

This article argues that the National Sports Governance Act, 2025, establishes a comprehensive framework to address long-standing governance issues in Indian sports, while also significantly shaping the experiences of athletes, administrators, and India’s role in global sports. At the same time, it contends that the Act leaves certain challenges and unresolved issues that must be critically examined to ensure effective implementation and meaningful reform.

                  Source: Forumias, National Sports Governance Act 2025.

The Governance Gap

Before 2025, the governance of sports in India was largely based on executive codes, circulars, and policy guidelines issued by the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports. The most prominent among these was the National Sports Development Code of 2011, which sought to regulate term limits of office-bearers, ensure age restrictions, and promote transparency in sports federations.

However, the problem was that these directions were not laws they were administrative instructions. This meant they had no binding force if challenged in court. Federations and associations could ignore them without facing real consequences, and many did. As a result, governance in Indian sports remained inconsistent and often arbitrary.

Several controversies exposed this weakness which can be listed and explained further.

Factionalism within cricket, hockey, and wrestling bodies repeatedly stalled the smooth functioning of federations. Courts were often drawn into these disputes because no specialised legal framework existed.

Some administrators held office for decades, despite the executive guidelines suggesting restrictions. The lack of enforceable law meant that positions of power often became permanent fiefdoms.

Decisions about training, funding, and selection were largely taken by administrators, many of whom had little or no background in competitive sports. Athletes had no formal say in governance.

Since federations controlled significant funds from both the government and private sponsorship, questions arose about financial mismanagement, nepotism, and misuse of authority.

These recurring problems highlighted a governance gap: while India was producing world-class athletes, its sports bodies were run in ways that were outdated, opaque, and resistant to reform. Courts occasionally intervened, but in the absence of a statutory framework, their decisions provided only temporary fixes.

The recent tragedy at Bengaluru’s Chinnaswamy Stadium during RCB’s victory parade—where inadequate permissions, poor communication, and lack of preparedness culminated in fatalities and injuries—serves as a grim reminder that governance failures in sport are not confined to boardroom politics or administrative opacity. They manifest in tangible, often tragic, consequences for athletes, fans, and the public at large. This incident underscores the urgent need for a governance framework that places transparency, accountability, and safety at its core, ensuring that sporting celebrations do not devolve into preventable disasters.

This is the context in which the National Sports Governance Act, 2025 was introduced. It sought to replace scattered executive directions with a clear legal framework that would define powers, prescribe responsibilities, and ensure accountability across all levels of sports administration.

Key Features of the National Sports Governance Act, 2025

The Act addresses long-standing problems in Indian sports administration such as indefinite terms of office-bearers, weak grievance redressal for athletes, and lack of transparency in elections and finances, by creating binding legal obligations. It begins by clearly defining the structure of recognised sports organisations: the National Olympic Committee and National Paralympic Committee at the top, followed by National Sports Federations for each designated sport, and Regional, State, and District Federations as affiliates. Each of these bodies must be aligned with international federations wherever such bodies exist, ensuring harmony with global standards.

To democratise governance, the Act makes it mandatory for every sports body to have a general body, an executive committee, an athletes committee, an ethics committee, and a dispute resolution committee. The executive committee is restricted to a maximum of fifteen members and must include at least two athletes of merit and four women, thereby correcting the earlier absence of athlete participation and gender diversity in decision-making. Further, to prevent concentration of power, the law prescribes strict eligibility and term limits: office-bearers must be between 25 and 70 years of age (extendable to 75 in line with international norms), and no individual can serve as President, Secretary General, or Treasurer for more than three consecutive terms, whether in the same post or in a combination of them.

A major innovation under the Act is the creation of the National Sports Board, which functions as the top regulator with the power to grant or withdraw recognition of federations, monitor their functioning, inquire into misuse of funds, and even constitute ad-hoc administrative bodies where an organisation loses international recognition. Importantly, only recognised bodies are eligible for central government funding, ensuring that public money is tied to accountability and compliance. Dispute resolution is further strengthened through the establishment of the National Sports Tribunal, headed by a former Supreme Court judge or Chief Justice of a High Court and supported by two expert members. The tribunal has civil court powers and provides a specialised forum for sports disputes, although doping cases under the National Anti-Doping Act, 2022 and matters reserved for international federations remain outside its jurisdiction. In certain cases, appeals may go directly to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Switzerland, ensuring global consistency.

The Act also takes a significant step towards transparency by recognising sports organisations as “public authorities” under the Right to Information Act, 2005. They are subject to audits by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, and their elections are to be supervised by independent election panels comprising retired election officials. Additionally, the Act mandates the framing of a Safe Sports Policy, aimed particularly at protecting women and minor athletes from harassment or abuse, with strong reporting and redressal mechanisms.

Finally, the central government retains specific powers to exempt organisations from certain provisions, relax eligibility conditions in special cases, and impose restrictions in the interests of public order or national security. While these powers offer necessary flexibility to deal with exceptional circumstances, they also raise concerns about possible overreach. Overall, these features collectively mark a decisive move towards athlete-centred, transparent, and accountable governance in Indian sports, replacing the patchwork of executive orders with a coherent statutory framework.

Challenges and Unresolved Questions

While the National Sports Governance Act, 2025 marks a significant step forward, its implementation raises several challenges and unresolved questions. A primary concern is the risk of over-centralisation of power in the National Sports Board, which is composed of members appointed by the central government. Although the Board is designed to ensure oversight and accountability, its heavy reliance on government-appointed members could raise doubts about independence, particularly in disputes involving politically influential sports federations. Ensuring that the Board functions as a neutral regulator rather than an extension of governmental control will be crucial to the Act’s credibility.

Past experiences with sports governance in India most notably the functioning of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) demonstrate how politically influenced appointments can compromise neutrality and credibility. Despite being the wealthiest and most powerful sports body in the country, the BCCI has repeatedly faced allegations of opacity, conflicts of interest, and concentration of power.

Another area of uncertainty relates to the effectiveness of the National Sports Tribunal. While the Tribunal provides a specialised forum for resolving sports disputes, its jurisdiction is limited, with doping cases and issues governed by international federations remaining outside its scope. In addition, appeals to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Switzerland in certain matters could create overlaps or conflicts, leaving athletes uncertain about the appropriate forum for redress. Moreover, the Indian experience with sector-specific tribunals such as the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) or the Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs) shows how delays, understaffing, and questions about independence can undermine their purpose. There is a real risk that the National Sports Tribunal could meet a similar fate, where athletes and federations find themselves caught in protracted proceedings with little timely relief.

The success of the Tribunal will depend on its ability to offer timely, impartial, and authoritative rulings without being overshadowed by international mechanisms.

The provision for athlete representation also raises questions about depth versus tokenism. While the Act mandates the inclusion of athletes in governance structures, the real issue is whether their voices will carry substantive weight or be reduced to symbolic participation. If athletes are treated merely as formal members without decision-making influence, the Act’s promise of athlete-centric governance may remain unfulfilled.

Finally, there are likely to be serious implementation challenges, especially at the grassroots level. Conducting free and fair elections at the state and district levels, often plagued by local politics, will be difficult to monitor effectively. Smaller federations, many of which struggle with basic financial management, may find it difficult to comply with the requirements of regular audits, RTI obligations, and the Safe Sports Policy. Without adequate capacity-building and support, these compliance burdens could widen the gap between well-funded national federations and resource-poor local bodies.

In short, while the Act introduces a robust legal framework, its effectiveness will hinge on how these challenges are addressed in practice. Without careful safeguards, the risk is that the Act could replicate older problems of concentration of power, weak enforcement, and token accountability under the veneer of statutory reform.

Comparative Note

The National Sports Governance Act, 2025 also reflects a broader global trend in reforming sports governance. In the United States, the Amateur Sports Act of 1978 created the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee and granted athletes certain rights, including mechanisms to challenge unfair decisions. Similarly, in the United Kingdom, the Code for Sports Governance sets mandatory standards on transparency, diversity, and accountability as a condition for receiving public funding. Both models highlight the importance of legally enforceable governance norms rather than voluntary compliance.

In South Asia, too, countries like Bangladesh and Pakistan have introduced governance reforms, though often limited to strengthening their National Olympic Committees and sports boards, with less emphasis on athlete representation and accountability compared to the US and UK.

India’s new law draws inspiration from these practices but adapts them to its own federal and administrative structure by explicitly recognising national, regional, state, and district federations. Unlike the US and UK, where the governance framework is relatively centralised, or countries like Bangladesh and Pakistan, where governance is still largely bureaucratic, India’s layered approach reflects both the country’s diversity and the wide range of sports played across different regions.

In this sense, the Act signals that India is catching up with international governance standards while tailoring them to its unique political and sporting landscape. Its real test, however, will be whether these statutory provisions can be implemented with the same rigour and consistency as seen in other jurisdictions.

Conclusion

The National Sports Governance Act, 2025 is a watershed moment for Indian sports law, shifting accountability from non-binding guidelines to enforceable legal norms. Yet, its success will depend on genuine implementation through fair elections, financial transparency, and real athlete participation. If implemented in spirit, the Act can reshape Indian sports administration into a system that values athletes as much as medals, accountability as much as ambition.

**Shravan Anande is a fourth-year B.A., LL.B. (Hons.) student at NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad.

**Hari Priya Murarikar is a third-year B.A., LL.B. (Hons.) student at NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad.

**Disclaimer: The views expressed in this blog do not necessarily align with the views of the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy.