A New Playbook of Transparency

The sports fraternity has much to rejoice in with the passing of the National Sports Governance Act, 2025, on August 12 by Parliament, which subsequently became an official Act when it received the assent of the President of India on August 18, 2025. While globally, various laws have been in force for decades for the regulation of sports and protection of athletes, for India this is the first time such legislation has been enacted. The Act replaces the National Sports Code of 2011, which was merely a model code lacking legal force, and addresses numerous issues hitherto pushed under the carpet, such as biased selections, mismanagement of sports bodies and federations, gender bias, exploitation of athletes, systemic corruption, and so on. Apparently, the thoughtful Central legislation is a response to various observations and directions on the matter by the Supreme Court on different occasions.

The Act is hailed by almost all as a landmark legislation since it aims to ensure transparency, accountability, and athlete welfare, which is reinforced by a provision of mandatory audits by the CAG of National Sports Federations that receive State support. The vision of the government behind the Act is to create a transparent, athlete-centric, and globally aligned sports governance framework with an ecosystem of encouragement, fair play, and justice. The Act is global in spirit, for it aligns with the Olympic and Paralympic Charters and international sports governance standards, helping mitigate the risk of derecognition by bodies like the IOC. Reportedly, the Bill was shared with international bodies such as the IOC, FIFA, World Athletics, and others, and incorporated about 700 responses from stakeholders with a view to integrate Indian sport with the global ecosystem.

The provisions are revolutionary in the history of Indian sport:

a) establishment of a National Sports Board to oversee and regulate National Sports Federations (NSFs) with powers to both recognise and derecognise sports bodies;

b) constitution of a National Sports Tribunal (NST) with powers equivalent to a civil court for dispute resolution, with only the Supreme Court as the forum for appeals on NST decisions;

c) a mandate that every NSF’s executive committee should include at least two outstanding sportspersons and four women to promote gender equality;

d) compulsory Athletes’ Commissions for all National Olympic Committees (NOCs), National Paralympic Committees (NPCs), and NSFs to ensure participation of athletes in policy-making and governance; and

e) a mandatory Safe Sports Policy to protect women, minors, and vulnerable individuals from harassment and abuse, through provisions for internal grievance redressal mechanisms.

Most significantly, for the first time, the new law brings all recognised sports organisations receiving government grants under the RTI Act, 2005, doubly ensuring transparency.

While the legislation promises a bright future for sport in India, certain provisions could be a cause of concern. For example, the provision of three consecutive terms (12 years) for key positions like President, Secretary General, and Treasurer in sports bodies may become convenient for politicisation of the institutions, since incumbents may push for their self-serving agenda against the spirit of the Act. Instead, one term with no repetition of office could have been more effective as a disincentive for any possible shenanigans. Similarly, the exemption of sports bodies that do not receive state support and function on their own business models from the purview of the RTI Act, 2005, may lead to unfettered commercialisation of some sports.

Commercialisation—the increasing influence of business interests in sports driven by sponsorships, media rights, and profit motives—is an issue that is not sufficiently addressed by the Act. The ecosystem of sport has undergone a drastic change all over the world. Today, sport has metamorphosed into a full-fledged business industry worth Rs 5,894 crore (USD 796 million). The IPL is the pinnacle of such metamorphosis for cricket in India. There are 15 more leagues in sports like badminton, football, kabaddi, wrestling, and boxing, all with robust financial worth. A strong nexus between media, sport, and commerce has emerged as a viable model not only for business but also for the self-advancement of sportspersons. The sports industry also promotes investment and generates job opportunities such as commentators, experts, sports journalists, nutritionists, sports physiotherapists, umpires, referees, and data analysts. The industry reportedly has the potential to reach the USD 10 billion level in the next five years. Ergo, commercialisation, to reasonable limits, is necessary, for it helps in the development of infrastructure, training facilities, and athlete support, and facilitates global exposure, but the downsides often outweigh the advantages.

Commercialisation and corruption apparently have a close relationship, with serious implications for the integrity, fairness, and spirit of competition. The Commonwealth Games 2010 scandal exposed financial scams and mismanagement by organising committees. Revenue priority over athlete welfare or grassroots development, excessive focus on entertainment, and corruption nexus (such as match-fixing driven by betting syndicates) are the fallouts of over-commercialisation. Cricket has been particularly vulnerable, with scandals like the 2013 IPL spot-fixing case involving players, bookies, and team officials. The Justice Lodha Committee (2016) report highlighted many systemic issues. Over 350 legal cases related to sports governance were pending even as the National Sports Governance Act, 2025, was passed.

Equity has been a major issue all along. For instance, the BCCI’s financial autonomy with revenues of around Rs 27,411 crore in 2024–25 contrasts sharply with struggling NSFs for sports like athletics or hockey. Selective games are marketed as products, dramatised with entertainment to create wider viewership. Data from the Broadcast Audience Research Council (BARC) 2016 show that the IPL had 362 million viewers, followed by the Soccer League India (224 million), the Kabaddi League (220 million), the Wrestling League (109 million), the Hockey League (43 million), and the Badminton League (36 million).

Commercialisation, moreover, has also given rise to unethical practices under the garb of professionalism, which have become the new normal all over the world. The National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA) reported 116 doping violations in India in 2022. Globally, cases like Lance Armstrong (cycling) and Russia’s state-sponsored doping programme (2014 Sochi Olympics) highlight the scale of the issue.

There are no specific legislations targeting over-commercialisation of sport in India. Only the Copyright Act, 1957, and the Trademarks Act, 1999, provide remedies for IP violations, but enforcement against ambush marketing is inconsistent. The US addresses commercialisation through specific IP, antitrust, and labour laws, with a focus on NIL (Name, Image, and Likeness) rights and streaming regulations, whereas the European Union has competition law and IP protection, with harmonised anti-doping and broadcasting regulations. Strict gambling and broadcasting laws in the UK ensure fair commercialisation while guaranteeing easy public access to major events. In Australia, stringent IP laws and anti-doping regulations are in force, even as the focus has increased on e-sports commercialisation.

To sum up, the sports fraternity has plenty of reasons to celebrate, as the new law is a turning point in the narrative of Indian sports. However, sooner or later, we also need an institutional framework with proper checks and balances to address the evils of over-commercialisation. In the meanwhile, we must make continuous efforts to check the downsides of commercialisation. Effective governance based on ethical canons is all that we need to uphold the integrity of sport.

The writer is a former Addl. Chief Secretary of Chhattisgarh. Views expressed are personal