The Indian sporting landscape is on the cusp of a significant transformation with the imminent introduction of the National Sports Governance Bill 2025 in Parliament. This landmark legislation, after a 14-year wait, aims to bring about transparency, autonomy, and efficient dispute resolution mechanisms to redefine how sports are governed in the country.

One of the core objectives of the Bill is to establish a legal framework that ensures transparent and fair functioning of sports bodies. It seeks to address critical issues such as financial opacity, lack of accountability, and the absence of standardized electoral processes within National Sports Federations (NSFs). By bringing NSFs, including state federations, under its purview, the Bill aims to create a more level playing field and promote good governance practices. The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) will also be covered under the National Sports Governance Bill.

The Bill also addresses the critical need for athlete representation in decision-making processes. By mandating athlete inclusion through Athlete Committees and representation of Sportspersons of Outstanding Merit (SOM), the legislation seeks to empower athletes and give them a voice in the administration of their respective sports. This move aims to rectify the current situation where athlete representation is often tokenistic.

To tackle the problem of frequent litigation that often plagues NSF elections and other disputes, the Bill proposes the establishment of a National Sports Tribunal. This tribunal will serve as a single-window system for resolving disputes in a unified, equitable, and effective manner, with the aim of delivering resolutions within months. The Bill also proposes the establishment of Ethics Commissions and Dispute Resolution Commissions to ensure transparency in governance and cut down litigation. This will not only reduce the burden on the regular judicial system but also ensure quicker and more specialized handling of sports-related grievances.

The Bill addresses several key issues, including litigation over NSF elections and selection of athletes, lack of a dedicated forum for dispute resolution, token athlete representation, gender imbalance, absence of standard electoral processes, financial opacity, absence of internal grievance redressal systems, multiple court interventions, lack of legal recognition for safe sports, and limited enforceability of codes. The Bill seeks to create a framework for good governance in the National Sports Federations (NSFs) and the Indian Olympic Association (IOA). It mandates the setting up of a regulatory board which would have the power to grant recognition and decide funding to NSFs based on their adherence to provisions related to good governance.

Moreover, the Bill gains importance considering that sports governance is an important parameter for bid evaluation. India has officially presented Ahmedabad's bid to host the 2036 Olympic and Paralympic Games. The proposed bill provides for setting up of a National Sports Board (NSB), a central authority responsible for granting recognition to national sports governing bodies (NSGBs) and ensuring compliance. The NSB will have the flexibility and autonomy to prepare requisite guidelines and regulations for governance of sports.

While the Bill has been largely welcomed, it has also faced some opposition. The IOA has expressed concerns that a regulatory board might undermine its standing as the nodal body for all NSFs. There are worries that such interference could lead to India being suspended by the International Olympic Committee.

Despite these concerns, the government seems determined to push ahead with the Bill, emphasizing that it is in line with international best practices and is essential for promoting a healthy and ethical sporting environment in India. The Bill is expected to be tabled in Parliament on Wednesday. The sports governance bill seeks to institutionalise a strong framework for timely elections, administrative accountability and athlete welfare. The changes include an increase to the age cap of administrators from 70 to 75 years.