Scaffolding Without a Structure: A Critical Analysis of India's Sport Governance Act, 2025

Introduction-:

Sports in India have consistently remained one of the most dynamic sectors, especially in the recent years, growing at 12-14 % CAGR and currently valued around USD 19 billion (INR 1.3 Lakh crore) in FY 24-25 and is poised to reach USD 130 billion by 2030. These figures reflect the promising future of the Indian sporting sector. The industry employs around 500,000 people and manufactures more than 300 types of sports equipment with most of the production being outsourced to the Asia-Pacific region, which is now among the world’s largest centres for sports goods manufacturing. Although it holds a promising future, the sector has always remained under the cloud due to its opaqueness and lack of rules and regulations. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Human Resource Development (2014) had observed that most of the National Sports Federations (NSFs) such as the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) which was established under the National Sport Development Code of India, 2011 is being dominated by non-sportspersons which hinders professional management, athletes’ welfare, accountability and transparency.  This politicisation of sport bodies often involves politicians and bureaucrats dominating the key deciding committees, where there is limited athlete representation and long tenure for non-sporting officials, which has led to financial irregularities on a large scale.

To curb this politicisation of sports and to ensure transparency, the government introduced the “New Sport Governance Act, 2025” on 18 August 2025 which partially came into force on 1 January 2026. The legislation mainly aims to ensure the proper representation of the athletes in the major decision-making bodies by establishing institutions such as: National Olympic Committee, National Paralympic Committee, National Sport Federation and Regional Sport Federation for each designated sport (together, “National Sport bodies”) so as to decentralise the selection and governance process within the sporting framework. This act also led to the establishment of the National Sports Tribunal which will oversee the sport-related disputes although the jurisdiction of the same is still contentious due to the exclusion of multiple matters from its jurisdiction.   

Understanding the Institutional Framework

All National Sports Bodies under the said act must hold international recognition and affiliation. Members of the executive committee and athletes’ committees are elected and to ensure transparency in the whole process, this act also establishes the National Sport Election Panel which will oversee the election process and it consists of specified personnel with expertise in conducting elections in accordance with the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Seeking to streamline governance and institutional accountability, the act also establishes the National Sport Board (NSB) consisting of the chairperson and other members headquartered in Delhi. This body will act as a supervisory body responsible for granting recognition to sports organisations, maintaining official records, carrying out inquiries, forming ad-hoc bodies when a National Sports Body loses international recognition, issuing guidelines for the formulation of codes of ethics, maintaining election panel rosters, and coordinating with national and international sports bodies to promote sports development and athletes’ welfare. Cases of financial mismanagement in sports organizations have greatly crippled the sporting infrastructure by forcing the athletes to train and play in unhealthy and inappropriate conditions, and even losing their lives in some cases. In this context, the absence of an effective mechanism to ensure fiscal accountability has long been a matter of concern. The establishment of a National Sports Board under the said act offers a ray of hope to ensure financial transparency and responsible governance in the Indian sporting ecosystem. It also mandates that the NSB must ensure the maintenance of proper financial accounts and annual statements, which shall undergo periodic auditing by the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India (CAG).

Establishment of quasi-judicial body

The absence of structured dispute resolution body in the sports arena has resulted in the accumulation of cases related to sports disputes before the constitutional courts, many of which dealt with administrative issues. According to data compiled by the Sports Law Experts, since 2015 there were approximately 770 lawsuits related to sports and sporting bodies. Out of those, 150 pertain to disputes relating to governing body elections and other related issues, whereas 64 cases concern athletes dissatisfied with the selection process. This situation highlights a significant institutional gap and underscores the imperative need for a quasi-judicial body that can resolve sport related disputes.

The Sport Governance Act proposes the establishment of a National Sports Tribunal (NST) as a one-stop forum to streamline all sports related disputes. However, the effectiveness of this tribunal may be limited because the legislation places several restrictions on its jurisdiction. The act systematically classifies and excludes categories of disputes that do not fall under the NST and these disputes are:

1.     Disputes that occur in competitions or events organized by an international federation.

2.     Matters that fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the internal dispute resolution committees of national sports authorities, other adjudicatory bodies or courts, international federations, or the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

3.     Doping-related disputes governed by the Anti-Doping Act, 2022.

As seen above, the major chunk of the disputes concerns governance disputes such as election of office bearers, selection of sportspersons and disciplinary proceedings regarding allegations of human rights violations; however, the act systematically excludes these issues from the jurisdiction of the NST. This type of exclusion would defy the fundamental objective of establishing the NST, as a large share of the disputes would still remain out of its jurisdiction. So, it may fall short of its purpose of reducing the burden on the constitutional courts. The restriction is even more stark when compared to models that exist internationally: Sport Resolutions UK or Australia's National Sports Tribunal have wide-reaching jurisdiction to deal with precisely these types of disputes -- selection grievances, governance conflicts and disciplinary proceedings. By systematically excluding these categories, the NST of India has not only limited its own remedial jurisdiction, but fails to follow a blueprint for a functional sport tribunal around the world which has been proven to be effective.

India's Sporting Gold Rush

Since independence, the sport sector has often been seen as opaque, frequently marked by inconsistent leadership elections and lack of accountability. These structural flaws have discouraged private investment and contributed to the development of a weak and underperforming sports ecosystem. However, under the new regime, the Act aims to streamline issues relating to the recognition and dispute resolution within sports governance. This opens the door for the establishment of the competitive league and sporting competition which will foster the holistic development of the sports sector such as strengthening athlete support system which includes the integration of sports science, medicine, and technology to enhance athletic performance but also development of the broader supporting ecosystem like training sports personnel, including coaches, technical officials and support staff.

The growing bureaucratic challenges regarding recognition of a sport federation have created uncertainty regarding the official status of organizations or federations. Such bureaucratic confusion often dissuades private stakeholders and investors. The National Sport Board, vested with the responsibility of accrediting sport federations, could alleviate this uncertainty and allow private investors to perform due diligence with greater clarity and confidence. This could stimulate more investment and create new avenues of opportunities for grassroots athletes to cultivate and exhibit their talents. Moreover, the NSB’s authority to withdraw recognition or appoint an administrator creates opportunities to professionalize federations’ governance.

The rapid evolution of player-tracking technology and artificial intelligence has revolutionised the way athletic performance is measured, sustained and valued in modern sport. With the New Sport Governance Act, 2025, investors may seek opportunities in the areas such as exclusive data collection including performance tracking, sports analysis and distribution rights, given the consent of the athletes. This framework can generate substantial commercial and analytical value for investors and helps in professionalizing the sports sector. Despite technological advancements a critical gap persists: no suitable legal framework exists to protect athlete interests and data rights. While the use of analytics improves physical performance and enhances training, the use of athletes' personal data for commercial purposes without informed consent raises significant concerns for athletes’ privacy and autonomy.

Conclusion

The New Sport Governance Act, 2025, arrives at a pivotal moment. India’s sporting sector is currently valued at USD 19 billion and poised for exponential growth, hindered by political entrenchment and institutional opacity. By establishing the NSB, NSEP and NST, the Act provides a clear framework that India's sports system has been missing. Scaffolding alone does not build the house. Structural reform alone is insufficient: the NST’s constrained jurisdiction leaves the most contentious disputes such as elections, selections and disciplinary matters without an effective domestic forum, and the absence of a data‑rights regime leaves athletes vulnerable to commercial exploitation in a technology-driven sporting economy. India has shown legislative intent; now it requires the legislative precision to match that intent.

Authors: Prakhar Tiwari, Second  Year  Student at National Law University, Odisha and Atharva Singh, Third Year Student at Krit P. Mehta School of Law, SVKM NMIMS