Government and sports don't mix

Writing in Mint about the proposed law to regulate sports bodies in India, Ayaz Memon points out that the Indian government has a dismal track record in sports administration. He believes though that the BCCI must be more transparent and open to public scrutiny.

The BCCI functions like some freemasonry, shrouded in secrecy and with a veneer of arrogance, which is not just unnecessary but also unacceptable in current climes. That said, I am vehemently opposed to the government taking over the BCCI; indeed, all sports bodies should be disencumbered from the government if Indian sport is to make real headway.

The Australian system, according to me, has strong merits. There is no sports ministry in that country. The government provides broad guidelines—sports for all, zero-tolerance for drugs and promoting health and healthy competition—on which the Australian Sports Commission​ (ASC) acts in collaboration with various federations and associations.

An editorial in the Indian Express says the proposed bill should "unquestionably be seen as a naked power-grab". In the same paper, Desh Gaurav Chopra Sekhri, while praising the bill's intents, questions its scope and methodology.

Bringing the BCCI under the RTI might be plausible when it comes to profit-making, or conflicts of interest-related queries. However, given an unlimited licence to question each aspect of the NSF’s activities and authority, it’s more than likely that the RTI will become a national referendum on team-selection processes involving the public. The risk of frivolity is extreme, and could actually inhibit any professional progress made by those federations who actually intend to promote and develop their respective sports.