Athlete Trust, Not Just Autonomy, Must Anchor Sports Reform
Rebuilding Indian sport requires treating federations as accountable workplaces, not closed power structures
A background note can be accessed here: Roadmap to Professionalize India’s Sporting Ecosystem
Pranav Yadav: Assistant Director, Sports and Youth Affairs, Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI)
SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports
Recent federation-level crises – most notably the wrestlers’ protests against the Wrestling Federation of India in 2023 and earlier governance controversies in Indian hockey administration during 2021–22 – exposed deep issues in accountability, grievance redressal, and protection of athletes’ rights. How does the proposed professionalisation of sports administration address these trust and power-imbalance failures, and what governance mechanisms remain absent?
Recent crises in Indian sport show that the core governance failure is not administrative incapacity but a lack of trust. In many federations, decision-making power over selection, funding, discipline, and grievance handling is concentrated within a single leadership structure. This deters athletes from reporting misconduct, creates fear of retaliation, and leaves athletes without credible recourse.
The Ministry’s roadmap to professionalise sports administration is a necessary step, but professional staffing alone cannot address these failures. Trust cannot be restored unless governance architecture changes. What remains absent is a clear institutional separation between executive power and grievance redressal.
International practice underscores this gap. In the UK, Sport England mandates independent safeguarding and complaints systems as a condition for support. In Australia, athlete complaints are routed through mechanisms that sit outside federation control. By contrast, in India, grievance processes are largely internal, advisory in nature, lack enforcement authority, offer weak whistleblower protection, and operate without fixed timelines.
Rebuilding athlete trust requires independent complaints and safeguarding bodies, external oversight with statutory backing, and enforceable appeal mechanisms – elements not yet embedded in the current reform framework.
The roadmap proposes autonomous bodies and professional cadres to replace ad-hoc governance. In federations historically dominated by entrenched leadership, how should autonomy be structured to prevent institutional capture while preserving administrative effectiveness?
Autonomy is essential for effective sports governance, but in federations marked by entrenched leadership, autonomy without safeguards risks deepening institutional capture. The roadmap’s proposal for autonomous, professionally managed bodies is directionally sound, yet autonomy must be structured to prevent control from remaining concentrated among a small group of individuals while preserving administrative effectiveness.
The key challenge lies in governance design. Safeguards must include transparent and merit-based appointments, fixed tenure limits with cooling-off periods, public disclosure of decisions and finances, and mandatory independent audits and performance reviews. Without these checks, professionalisation risks formalising existing power structures rather than breaking them.
International experience offers useful models. UK Sport links public funding to compliance with governance standards, creating enforceable accountability. Several European federations separate elected boards responsible for strategy from professional CEOs managing operations, limiting the scope for personalised control.
Autonomy should not mean insulation from scrutiny. Federations must remain accountable to athletes, funders, and the public. Otherwise, new institutional forms risk reproducing old governance failures under a more professional veneer.
While the roadmap emphasises post-retirement pathways and career transitions, episodes like the 2023 wrestlers’ protests suggest athletes exit not only due to career uncertainty but because governance systems become unlivable. How should policy embed athlete voice, grievance security, and workplace dignity into federation governance to prevent forced exits and rebuild confidence in the system?
Athlete exits from competitive sport are often framed as outcomes of financial insecurity or weak post-retirement pathways. High-profile protests point to a deeper cause: governance systems that fail to ensure dignity, safety, and meaningful voice during an athlete’s active career.
Embedding athlete voices cannot be symbolic. Effective governance requires independent and confidential grievance channels, strong protection against retaliation, and formal consultation rights on policies that directly affect athletes. These mechanisms must operate during, not after, an athlete’s career.
In countries such as Canada and Australia, athlete commissions have defined mandates, guaranteed access to boards, and independence from federation executives – giving athletes a meaningful voice without forcing them into protest.
Federations must also be treated as workplaces. Clear standards on workplace dignity, safeguarding, and due process must be enforceable. Career transition programs matter, but they cannot compensate for governance environments that undermine professional survival. Embedding athlete voice and grievance security is essential to prevent forced exits and restore confidence in India’s sporting system.
Author:
Views are personal.