In the post-Commonwealth Games period, there has been a focused effort towards bringing a system of governance into the sports industry. The recently-proposed and remanded Draft National Sports (Development) Bill 2011, aimed at bringing accountability into sports. Without dwelling on the assumptions made under the Bill, one may accept its Constitutional validity for the purpose of this article. The Bill's stated goals aimed at ensuring complete transparency and professionalism in the sports domain. The Bill was, however, considered burdensome in its provisions, and had a utopian element to it. Crucially, it didn't have the support of any sports-specific precedents.
NATIONAL SPORTS FEDERATIONS
The main complaint against Indian sports today is that the national sports federations (NSFs) are completely autonomous, without any regulation, and aren't transparent, with minimal accountability. Therefore, it is feared that the interests of the sports industry's diverse stakeholders aren't being harmoniously addressed by NSFs. The current Bill draft attempts to rectify this situation by listing out a comprehensive code of compliances and rules for the NSFs, with the Sports Ministry as the implementing agency. By setting out a comprehensive code of regulations, rules and compliances, the Parliament will be burdened with a static and all-encompassing legislation, which is impractical for the nascent Indian sports industry, that is also an extremely dynamic industry globally, with constantly evolving issues and solutions.
Delegated legislation cannot amend or modify the provisions that form part of an Act of Parliament, even if they turn stale — a virtual certainty. And, since all NSFs are required to comply with the international governing bodies (including Fédération Internationale de Football Association - FIFA, International Cricket Council - ICC, and others), Indian sports need a flexible and experienced regulating body to allow sports in India to evolve at a global pace.
GOVERNANCE AND SPORTS
Direct government intervention is problematic and inefficient because of limited resources and professional/experienced personnel at the Sports Ministry's disposal, to regulate and resolve any challenges that the industry may face.
Timing is critical, and the government may not be able to efficiently solve problems due to time and talent constraints.
However, governance in Indian sports is a critical need and therefore one must find a solution. Extreme approaches, such as the Sports Ministry performing the role of a watchdog, or the sports industry following the international models of providing complete autonomy to the NSFs and leagues under the assumption of sophisticated and matured “market forces” acting as implicit regulators, aren't advisable.
The solution for regulating sports is by taking the middle path: an independent regulatory authority along the lines of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC), and Competition Commission of India (CCI). The Sports Regulatory Organisation (SRO) will have the mandate of regulating the sports domain.
SPORTS REGULATORY ORGANISATION
The main features of this model would be the following:
Through the Bill , Parliament will establish the SRO.
The Bill will provide for the manner of appointment of the members of the SRO including the minimum qualifications, executed through a selection committee appointed by the Government directly.
Members of the SRO will be experts in sports governance, and also in other aspects, including sports marketing/management, broadcasting, sports participation, and the business of sports overall.
The legislation should provide the framework for the authority of the SRO, including main principles that regulations should aim towards. These include transparency and accountability of NSFs, and bilateral protection of the rights and interests of the diverse stakeholders. The power to recognise and/or de-recognising NSFs should also vest with the SRO.
The legislation must also provide for the manner in which the regulations are to be framed.
INDEPENDENT REGULATORS
India has solid precedents. Examples of independent regulators effectively regulating different sectors such as telecom (TRAI) and electricity (CERC/SERCs) are well-documented and accepted nationally.
TRAI has not only regulated the sector to protect consumer's interests consistently, but has also occasionally abstained from any regulation, when it felt there was sufficient competition in the market. Effectively, it has helped in increasing the competition between different market players, therefore incentivising them to improve quality and reduce tariffs. Mobile number portability is one such example.
Similarly, CERC, by bringing in effective open access and trading regulations, it has tried to bridge the gap between power supply and demand of power.
With successful models already in place in India-specific scenarios, the SRO is a natural corollary for the sports domain, and should be given a chance. This approach, which distances the regulation of sports from the government's direct purview, will not only result in effective regulations but also in building the confidence of the NSFs, industry and investors in sports. Taking the middle path should provide a solid impetus to Indian sports.
(The authors are Senior Associate and Sports Attorney, respectively, at J. Sagar Associates. The views expressed are personal.)