2012 WASN’T a great year for governance in sports, and the first couple of months in 2013 seem to be off to an even rockier start. With the Lance Armstrong ‘confession’, and anti-doping measures taking on a whole new meaning across other professional sports, the storm just doesn’t seem to abate. And now the football scandal that is still under investigation as Europol investigates the alleged match-fixing of approximately 680 football matches, include World Cup and Euro qualifiers, and even two Champions League games. While governance across the world of sports is being challenged, Indian sports aren’t far behind when it comes to the need to revamp good governance practices. In fact, good governance practices for sports administration in India are a serious challenge today. And, with the International Olympic Committee (“IOC”) recently suspending the Indian Olympic Association (“IOA”) there seems to be no real solution in sight.
Over the last century, there have been scandals that changed the very face of a sport, or the dynamics of the sports industry. Even the most sophisticated sports jurisdictions have faced challenges, and there could be lessons for Indian sports administration & governance from some of those scandals. Not every global sports governance scandal will have lessons for India, but there are some which may.
Perhaps the best-documented cleaning up of a sport was as a part of the rebuilding from the ‘Black Sox’ scandal that hit the North American-Major League Baseball in 1919. After allegations and eventual confessions of match-fixing during the World Series by eight players of the Chicago White Sox, the first ‘Commissioner’ of professional baseball was appointed with powers that extended to every facet of baseball governance and administration. Judge Kenesaw ‘Mountain’ Landis took the MLB Scandal and set an example of transparency, accountability and governance. The office of the Commissioner remains in Baseball and in fact most professional sports leagues across the world (and until recently the IPL as well) have their own offices of the Commissioner.
From the current IOA-IOC situation’s perspective, the most relevant scandal would be the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics 2002 (“SLC Olympics”), recently brought back into the spotlight by former U.S. Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, as an example of his ability to handle crisis situations and balance budgets. Until then considered corruption-free in over 105 years of its existence, the IOC was set back by allegations of bribery by the bid-city organizers of members of the committee, resulting in the eventual expulsion of ten members of the IOC, and sanctions on additional members.
The ramifications were swift and lasting, and eventually the make-up and formation structure of the IOC was re-evaluated and deconstructed, with more stringent term limits, along with higher representation of former athletes. The scandal almost scuttled the SLC Olympics, and took a heavy toll on fund-raising and infrastructure development. Eventually, the SLC Olympics were brought back on track through a corporate management and governance system, reduction in costs, and a sizeable federal stimulus so as to prevent any further delays or shortfalls. Essentially, the state and federal governments along with investors and sponsors found a way to bridge the gap and stem the tide, saving what would have been a catastrophic dent on the reputation and credibility of the IOC & event organizers, the U.S. administration, and investors/sponsors across the world. In many ways, this situation was similar to the Delhi Commonwealth Games 2010 controversy, with one major difference- for the SLC Olympics, a solution was found, and a measured response was initiated.
For the purpose of this article, “Indian Sports” shall mean- the Indian sports domain that includes athletes, federations/governing bodies, and investors/sponsors.
Despite there being striking differences between the international precedents discussed above and the scenario in Indian Sports, there could be some vital lessons to be learnt and applied to the Indian context.
Setting up an authoritarian office of the Commissioner as in the wake of the Black Sox scandal may not help Indian Sports, due to the vastness of the Indian Sports domain & its diversity, and also because a single-figure of authority may not be able to instill governance in perpetuity. In fact, Baseball remains mired in alleged scandal due to the performance enhancing drugs-era that has marred its success.
However, if for India the concept of the ‘office of the Commissioner’ is expanded to a board of directors and working sports committee(s) with powers to enforce and execute within the Indian Sports landscape, then there might be merit in this. The board of directors could consist of distinguished individuals with relevant experience in one or more of the following skills- administration, business, sports management, and sports participation (i.e. athletes). The board of directors would then empower and delegate tasks to the working sports committee in collaboration with the relevant stakeholder as the case may be.
Similarly, as was the case with the SLC Olympics, a single figure of authority may not be the solution for Indian Sports. However, by expanding the concept, a case can be made for establishing a board of directors along with a working sports committee to be able to action similar results and handle crises better than a somewhat disorganized sports administration and governance structure than currently exists in India.
In India, the role of the state and central governments will be more significant than in other jurisdictions, especially for infrastructure and funding. This will hold true -especially for amateur sports in the absence of a collegiate system such as the National Collegiate Athletic Association in the U.S. However, by involving the respective government representatives along with private sector individuals in the board of directors and the working sports committee, the focus should be on creating sports governance and administration overhauls that encourage and enable broad-based growth. Single catch-all legislation such as the draft Sports Bill will likely not have solutions for every governance issue that India faces.
So, it’s important to take the lessons from relevant international precedents, and find a situation-specific solution. Establishing a decision-making board of directors experienced in corporate governance, sports administration, and sports development, is a good first step. The board of directors should then create and delegate tasks to working sports committees with priority specific expertise.
Governance is about systems and compliances, so we will be amiss if the very way that we go about initiating change in Indian Sports, is done in a manner that lacks systems or organization. The fundamental of sports is about team work. The fundamental of governance in Indian Sports too should be about team work, and the contribution of every set of stakeholders in their particular areas of expertise. Involve each and every one of the stakeholders that ought to have a say, but ensure that they are provided the forums that give them in particular a chance to maximize their skill-sets for the greater social good.
