Recasting the Mould

On July 23, 2025, India’s Parliament witnessed a decisive moment in the country’s sporting history when Union Sports Minister Mansukh Mandaviya introduced the National Sports Governance Bill, 2025, in the Lok Sabha during a charged Monsoon session. The proposed legislation seeks a fundamental overhaul of India’s sports governance ecosystem, replacing decades of opacity, factionalism, and administrative inertia with transparency and an athlete-first approach. At a time when India is setting its sights on hosting the 2036 Olympics and preparing for cricket’s return to the Olympic stage at the 2028 Los Angeles Games, the Bill signals a bold intent to confront entrenched dysfunction and align with the highest international standards. Yet, its ambitious scope also sets it on a collision course with some of the most powerful sporting institutions in the country, none more so than the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), which has long resisted direct governmental oversight.

For decades, Indian sports governance has been mired in systemic failure. Federation elections and team selections have often been marred by opaque processes, favouritism, and litigation, with more than 350 disputes currently pending in courts. The fallout from the 2010 Commonwealth Games corruption scandal, which severely tarnished India’s image on the global stage, underscored the urgent need for reform. The 2011 National Sports Development Code attempted to address these issues, but its advisory nature rendered it largely toothless. Now, the 2025 Bill, drawing upon the unrealised framework once championed by then Sports Minister Ajay Maken, offers an enforceable legal structure designed to dismantle this culture of chaos.

At the heart of the Bill is the creation of the National Sports Board (NSB), a statutory apex body appointed through a government-led search-cum-selection process. The NSB will regulate all National Sports Governing Bodies. It will have the authority to grant, suspend, or revoke recognition of federations, enforce governance norms, and step in to manage federations in crisis. Complementing the NSB is the establishment of a National Sports Tribunal, chaired by a sitting or retired judge of the Supreme Court or a Chief Justice of a High Court, with the mandate to resolve disputes related to selections, elections, and administrative functioning with the powers of a civil court. Appeals from the tribunal will lie directly with the Supreme Court, unless an international sports body’s statutes mandate alternative arbitration. This move is intended to eliminate the years-long legal tangles that have cost athletes their prime competitive years.

The Bill’s provisions are unambiguously athlete-centric. It requires that the executive committees of NSFs, limited to 15 members, include at least two sportspersons of outstanding merit and four women, ensuring a significant voice for athletes and gender diversity in governance. Athlete Committees within federations will institutionalise this representation further, creating a permanent channel for athlete concerns to reach decision-makers. In order to prevent the consolidation of power within closed circles, the Bill imposes tenure caps of three terms or a maximum of 12 years for key office-bearers such as the president, secretary general, and treasurer, alongside an age limit of 70 years, extendable to 75 if required by international sports statutes.

Transparency and accountability form the spine of this legislative proposal. Recognised sports bodies will require a No Objection Certificate from the NSB to use designations like “India” or “National” in their names, and will be subject to regular audits and electoral oversight through a National Sports Election Panel composed of former senior election officials. Initially, the Bill’s drafters sought to classify all NSFs, including the BCCI, as public authorities under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. However, after pushback from certain federations, an amendment was introduced to limit RTI applicability to only those bodies receiving government grants or financial assistance. This exemption spares financially independent bodies like the BCCI from mandatory RTI compliance, though it does not shield them from other transparency obligations when they use government facilities or infrastructure.

It is this balancing act between transparency and autonomy that makes the BCCI’s inclusion under the Bill both the most significant and contentious aspect of the reform. As the world’s wealthiest cricket board, functioning under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, the BCCI has historically maintained an arm’s length from government control, leveraging its financial clout and international standing to negotiate terms on its own. Under the new Bill, it will be required to obtain annual recognition from the NSB, adhere to governance standards, hold timely elections, and channel disputes through the National Sports Tribunal. While some see this as long-overdue accountability for a body that wields immense influence over public life, others fear it could set a precedent for undue state interference in sports administration.

The promise of the National Sports Governance Bill, however, is undeniably transformative. If implemented with integrity, it could finally free Indian sports from the internecine factionalism, legal entanglements, and governance decay that have hampered progress for decades. For athletes, it offers a pathway free from administrative sabotage, where merit, not politics, determines their place on the field. For India’s Olympic ambitions, it signals to the International Olympic Committee and the global sporting community that the country is willing to play by the rules of the world’s best.

Yet, the challenges to its success are equally formidable. The BCCI and the Indian Olympic Association have already voiced concerns over perceived overreach, fearing that excessive governmental control could undermine their autonomy. Opposition leaders, including Congress MP Manish Tewari, have questioned the Bill’s constitutional validity, warning that centralising too much power in a government-appointed NSB could erode the federal and independent character of sports administration in India. There are also apprehensions that, without proper safeguards, the NSB could become a breeding ground for bureaucratic inertia or political patronage, undermining the very reforms it seeks to institutionalise.

Ultimately, the fate of this legislative experiment will rest on its implementation. The government must ensure that the NSB and the Tribunal operate with complete independence and are staffed by individuals of unimpeachable integrity and expertise. It will need to engage constructively with federations like the BCCI and IOA to address their concerns and build consensus, rather than pushing reforms through confrontation. Public outreach will be critical—both to educate athletes and grassroots sports administrators about the new system, and to ensure that the reforms take root not just in high-profile sports but also in the disciplines that struggle for attention and funding. The RTI exemption for non-funded bodies will need to be offset with alternative transparency measures, such as voluntary disclosures, independent audits, or public performance reports, to maintain credibility.

In replacing the ineffective 2011 Sports Code with an enforceable statutory framework, the National Sports Governance Bill, 2025, represents India’s clearest statement of intent to transform itself into a sporting superpower. The National Sports Governance Bill is, in essence, the first whistle in what could become India’s greatest sporting renaissance. Whether it roars or fizzles will depend entirely on how well it is played from here.

Amal Chandra is an author, policy analyst, and columnist; Prof. Sony Kunjappan is the Head of DSSM at the Central University of Gujarat. Views expressed are personal