The National Sports Governance Act (NSGA), 2025, officially enacted on August 18, marks a watershed moment in India’s sports administration history.
For the first time, governance norms for sports federations have moved from the realm of non-binding guidelines to enforceable statutory law. The Act aims to tackle decades of inefficiency, power concentration, and opaque finances within Indian sports bodies yet, in doing so, it has ignited an intense debate over government overreach and the risk of violating international autonomy norms. The NSGA replaces the National Sports Development Code of 2011, transforming what were once executive advisories into legal mandates. It introduces sweeping changes term limits, age caps, financial transparency, gender and athlete representation while creating three new statutory institutions to enforce compliance.
A New Governance Structure, at the heart of the Act are three newly constituted statutory authorities:
- National Sports Board (NSB) – The central regulatory body overseeing recognition, funding, and governance compliance for all National Sports Federations (NSFs).
- National Sports Tribunal (NST) – A judicial mechanism for expeditious resolution of sports disputes.
- National Sports Election Panel (NSEP) – An independent electoral body supervising NSF elections to prevent procedural irregularities.
This trio of institutions is designed to bring professional, transparent, and legally accountable oversight to Indian sport. Yet, all three are appointed directly or indirectly by the Central Government, a detail that sits uneasily with global sports statutes demanding non-interference.
Why the Act Was Needed
For years, India’s sports governance operated under the soft framework of the 2011 Code. Lacking statutory backing, it could not compel compliance enabling entrenched officials to flout term limits, avoid audits, and resist reforms. The NSGA seeks to end that impunity by giving the Sports Ministry and NSB legal authority to enforce discipline, suspend non-compliant federations, and freeze funding.
Some of the most notable reforms include:
- Mandatory term limits: Presidents, Secretaries, and Treasurers can serve only three consecutive terms (maximum 12 years) with a cooling-off period.
- Age caps: Office-bearers must be below 70 years, with conditional relaxation to 75 years if permitted by international federations.
- Representation requirements: Every federation’s Executive Committee must include at least four women and two Sportspersons of Outstanding Merit (SOM).
- Transparency obligations: Federations are now covered under the Right to Information Act (RTI) and must publish audited accounts annually.
The National Sports Board (NSB) serves as the linchpin of this new governance ecosystem. Its powers are extensive ranging from recognition and funding approvals to disciplinary and derecognition authority. It can also form ad hoc committees to take over non-compliant federations a power reminiscent of the ad hoc control that triggered FIFA’s suspension of the All India Football Federation (AIFF) in 2022. The NSB is also the main gatekeeper of government funds. Any body not recognized by it becomes ineligible for central grants a powerful incentive for federations to comply. However, this authority is accompanied by significant risk: under global norms, the mere perception of “state control” in sports administration can attract sanctions.
Balancing Oversight with Autonomy
The centralization of appointments is the Act’s most controversial aspect. The Chairpersons and Members of the NSB, NST, and NSEP are all appointed through committees controlled by the Centre. Critics argue that this mechanism, though efficient for accountability, effectively institutionalizes government control violating the principle of organizational autonomy enshrined in the Olympic Charter (Article 27) and FIFA Statutes (Article 15c). In practical terms, this means that while India’s sports governance has become more structured, it now risks being seen as “politically influenced.” Global bodies like the IOC, FIFA, and FIBA have repeatedly warned against such arrangements.
The 2022 FIFA suspension imposed after a court-appointed committee briefly replaced the AIFF’s elected body remains a cautionary tale. The NSGA tries to mitigate this risk through a consultation clause: before suspending or derecognizing any national body for financial or electoral misconduct, the NSB must consult the relevant international federation. This provision is designed to ensure actions are seen as regulatory, not political. Yet, experts believe this safeguard may not be enough to dispel global concerns.
Athletes and Representation
One of the Act’s most progressive steps is the inclusion of Sportspersons of Outstanding Merit (SOM) in every federation’s Executive Committee. For decades, Indian sportspersons have complained of being excluded from decision-making by bureaucrats and non-athlete administrators.
However, the criteria for SOM recognition outlined in the forthcoming Draft Rules remain undefined. Whether the category includes only Olympic and World Championship medallists or also national champions and veteran athletes will determine how genuinely representative this reform becomes. Too narrow a definition risks turning the athlete quota into tokenism.
Financial Integrity and Judicial Reform
Financial transparency is a core pillar of the NSGA. Federations must now make audited accounts public, and any misuse or misappropriation of funds invites immediate suspension or derecognition. The integration of RTI compliance adds another layer of accountability, bringing federations under public scrutiny for the first time. The National Sports Tribunal (NST) introduces a long-awaited judicial reform, offering a specialized forum for resolving disputes over governance, elections, and recognition.
Headed by a former Supreme Court or High Court Chief Justice, the NST’s decisions are appealable only to the Supreme Court, ensuring consistency and speed while bypassing the patchwork of High Court interventions that historically slowed proceedings. Meanwhile, the National Sports Election Panel (NSEP) ensures federations conduct free and fair elections under independent supervision, reducing the risk of manipulated or extended tenures one of the chronic problems that plagued Indian sport.
The NSGA’s nationwide applicability has also stirred legal debate. Under India’s Constitution, sports is a State subject (List II) meaning states ordinarily legislate on it. The Central Government has justified its intervention using Article 253 (to implement international commitments) and residuary powers (Article 248). However, unlike the National Anti-Doping Act, which implements a UNESCO convention, the NSGA draws its legitimacy from the Olympic and Paralympic Charters, which are not formal treaties.
Legal experts warn that this could expose the Act to constitutional challenges, especially since it applies even to non-Olympic sports like Kho Kho, Chess, and Kabaddi.
Delegation and Rule-Making Gaps
Another point of concern is the Act’s reliance on delegated legislation. Many key provisions including the composition of the NSB, athlete eligibility norms, and Safe Sport standards will be defined later through Ministry-issued rules. This flexibility allows administrative adaptability but risks diluting parliamentary oversight and creating ambiguity for federations in the interim.
The Path Forward: Reform with Diplomacy
Despite its risks, the National Sports Governance Act represents India’s most serious attempt yet to modernize and professionalize sports governance. For athletes and federations long frustrated by inertia, it offers enforceable accountability and structure. For policymakers, it provides a foundation for building an ethical, data-driven sporting ecosystem.
However, to ensure the Act strengthens rather than destabilizes Indian sport, the following steps are crucial:
- Transparent Appointments — The Search-cum-Selection Committees for NSB and NST must include independent experts, not just bureaucratic representatives.
- Clear SOM Criteria — Broaden eligibility to include athletes with sustained performance and leadership potential.
- Diplomatic Engagement — The Sports Ministry and Indian Olympic Association must proactively engage with the IOC and FIFA to present the NSGA as a governance reform, not interference.
- Parliamentary Oversight — Bring core elements of the Draft Rules into the statutory text to reduce the scope for executive manipulation.
The National Sports Governance Act, 2025, is both a landmark and a litmus test. It codifies accountability where there was once impunity but in doing so, risks testing the delicate balance between reform and control. If implemented with transparency and international alignment, it could become the defining framework for a new era of Indian sport. If not, it could yet echo the same governance pitfalls it set out to end.
