Redistributing Power, Not Just Roles: Rethinking Sports Governance in India
Sustainable sporting success depends not on autonomy alone, but on redistributing power toward athletes and grassroots systems
A background note can be accessed here: Roadmap to Professionalize India’s Sporting Ecosystem
Find the companion commentary here: Athlete Trust, Not Just Autonomy, Must Anchor Sports Reform
Smit Singh: National Head (Sports),All India Professionals’ Congress
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 – from Indian footballers appealing directly to FIFA to the 2023 wrestlers’ protests – reflect not defiance but exhaustion. In both cases, athletes turned public only after internal systems failed to protect their dignity, livelihoods, or safety. This signals a trust deficit rooted in power imbalances, not administrative inefficiency.
Professionalising sports administration can reduce arbitrariness and improve process discipline. However, professionalisation alone cannot substitute for protection. India lacks an independent safeguarding and grievance body that athletes can approach without fear of retaliation. Disciplinary authority remains concentrated within federation executives, allowing grievance redressal to become an internal exercise rather than impartial justice.
This deficit is compounded by weak long-term investment in athletes’ lives. Despite nearly 30 percent of India’s population being aged 15–29, public spending on sport accounts for only about 0.074 percent of the Union Budget. Most athletes outside cricket struggle to sustain their careers once medals fade.
International comparisons underscore the cost of late and uneven support. Japan and China convert early identification and structured pathways into sustained outcomes; India does not. Trust will be restored only when governance protects athletes continuously – from childhood to competitive levels – rather than treating them as short-term medal instruments.
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 important, but the critical question remains – from whom, and for whose benefit. In federations shaped by entrenched leadership, autonomy without structural redesign risks becoming insulation rather than reform.
Preventing institutional capture requires deliberate dispersion of power. Historically, authority has been concentrated – with the same executive controlling selections, discipline, finances, and appointments – creating opacity and exclusion. Effective autonomy must therefore rest on distributed governance, with clearly separated technical committees, financial oversight boards, and athlete councils that exercise real authority rather than advisory influence.
Embedding athletes as co-governors is central to this design. Trust cannot be rebuilt if athletes remain passive recipients of decisions that shape their careers. Voting rights and formal roles transform governance into a shared enterprise rather than a top-down system.
Autonomy also demands accountability beyond compliance. Institutions should be assessed on outcomes – timely grievance resolution, athlete safety, and the growth of grassroots and coaching ecosystems. Funding should reflect these outcomes. Public resources must follow performance and integrity, not positional power. Autonomy, properly designed, strengthens institutions by making them resilient to individuals rather than dependent on them.
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?
As India prepares to host the 2030 Commonwealth Games and bids for the 2036 Olympics, athlete retention has become a strategic concern. Yet the reasons athletes leave are often structural, not aspirational. Pushpa Minj, a para-throwball champion now selling vegetables, and Rashmita Patra, a former international footballer running a paan shop, illustrate how achievement does not translate into security. Their stories explain why families hesitate to support sporting careers.
The 2023 wrestlers’ protests highlighted that exits are driven not only by uncertain post-retirement prospects but by governance environments that become unlivable during an athlete’s active career. When speaking up risks exclusion and success still leads to instability, attrition is rational.
Policy must therefore embed athlete voice, grievance security, and dignity into everyday federation functioning – not defer them to post-retirement welfare. This requires elected athlete representatives with decision-making power, grievance mechanisms that are independent and insulated from retaliation, and enforceable standards of dignity in training and competition spaces.
This is not a failure of any single administration, but of a system that has normalised disposability. Confidence will return only when athletes believe the system is designed to sustain them, not exhaust them.
Author:
Views are personal.