National Sports Governance Bill 2025: Game-Changing Reforms Set to Transform Indian Sports

Today, all eyes in the Lok Sabha will be on a Bill that could change the way sports are run in India forever. The National Sports Governance Bill 2025 is set to be tabled, carrying with it the promise of ending years of mismanagement, political interference, and behind-the-scenes power struggles.

For decades, the headlines have told a troubling story—cricket match-fixing scandals, corruption in major events like the Commonwealth Games, and sports federations run like private clubs instead of public institutions. Athletes have often found themselves fighting not just opponents on the field, but a broken system off it.

This Bill seeks to flip that script, giving sports in India a transparent, accountable, and professional framework. If passed, it could mark the beginning of a new era—one where the focus finally shifts from controversy to performance, and from boardroom politics to podium finishes.

Background & Historical Context

India’s sports governance journey has been a slow climb, marked by bursts of ambition but long stretches of neglect. After independence in 1947, national priorities were poverty, health, and education; sports, though culturally rich, stayed in the background. The first major leap came in 1951, when New Delhi hosted the inaugural Asian Games — a symbolic show of soft power, but with little institutional follow-through.

In 1954, the government set up the All-India Council of Sports (AICS) to advise and support federations, but tight budgets left many athletes unable to compete internationally. The real shift arrived with the 1982 Asian Games, triggering the creation of a dedicated Department of Sports and the National Sports Policy (1984), which aimed to boost infrastructure, participation, and excellence. The Sports Authority of India (SAI) was born in 1986 to exe cute these ambitions, but with sports on the State List, progress was uneven and underfunded.

The 2000s brought a reform push: the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports (MYAS) was formed in 2000, the National Sports Policy was revised in 2001, and the National Sports Development Code (2011) introduced governance norms, anti-doping measures, and gender equality mandates. But as a mere guideline, the Code lacked legal teeth — setting the stage for a statutory overhaul.

Recent flagship programs — Target Olympic Podium Scheme (2014), Khelo India (2017), and Fit India Movement (2019) — focused on elite support, mass participation, and public health. In 2024, the government sought public input on a new National Sports Policy and Governance Bill. By July 3, 2025, the Khelo Bharat Niti launched, tying sports to social progress, tourism, and India’s 2036 Olympic bid — all requiring stronger, legally enforceable governance.

Why Reform Became Urgent

The Bill is not just policy—it’s a response to years of scandals and systemic rot:

• Cricket Match-Fixing (2000): CBI probe exposed bookmaker links, banning stars like Azharuddin and Jadeja.
• Commonwealth Games Scam (2010): Corruption, delays, and poor facilities tarnished a sporting showcase.
• IPL Spot-Fixing (2013): Player arrests and team suspensions revealed deep crime-sports links.

Mismanagement wasn’t limited to cricket:

• AIFF: Governance disputes cost ₹3 crore in legal fees (2022) and led to FIFA suspension.
• WFI: Sexual harassment allegations against the president in 2023 triggered nationwide protests.
• Hockey India & DDCA: Courts intervened over transparency, corruption, and age-fraud issues.

Add to that India’s rank as second in global doping violations, chronic age fraud in junior sports, resistance to RTI Act coverage by bodies like the BCCI, and slow dispute resolution that forced athletes into prolonged legal battles.

The 2011 Draft National Sports Development Bill under Ajay Maken tried to address many of these issues — transparency, RTI inclusion, and age/tenure caps — but was blocked by political and sporting lobbies. That resistance explains why the 2025 Bill is both ambitious and politically high-stakes.

The Bill: Drafting and Legislative Timeline

The National Sports Governance Bill 2025 didn’t just appear overnight—it’s the product of years of policy debates, stakeholder consultations, and careful political maneuvering. As a flagship move in the government’s drive to overhaul sports governance, it has been led from the front by the Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports (MYAS), with Union Sports Minister Mansukh Mandaviya as its chief architect.

From the start, the drafting process was inclusive. Mandaviya held detailed talks with national sports federations, players, and coaches, while the Ministry opened the floor to the public—receiving about 600 suggestions from citizens across the country. These shaped key clauses on age and tenure caps for office-bearers, mandatory representation of sportspersons and women on executive committees, and the framework for new institutions like the National Sports Board and National Sports Tribunal.

The Bill made its parliamentary debut in the Lok Sabha on July 23, 2025, during the monsoon session—introduced alongside the National Anti-Doping (Amendment) Bill 2025, designed to align Indian law with the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Code. Paired with the recent launch of the Khelo Bharat Niti 2025, this signals a coordinated, multi-pronged strategy for sports reform—one that blends governance upgrades with athlete welfare, anti-doping compliance, and mass participation.

As of August 7, 2025, the Bill has cleared the first step—introduction in the Lok Sabha—and now faces the usual route: passage through both Houses of Parliament, Presidential assent, and government notification in the Official Gazette to take effect.

One early change after introduction shows the government’s tactical approach. Originally, Clause 15(2) placed all recognised sports organisations under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. This was amended on August 6, 2025 to cover only those receiving government grants, offering relief to bodies like the BCCI, which has long resisted RTI due to its financial independence. It’s a telling adjustment—one that echoes lessons from Ajay Maken’s failed 2011 Bill, softening friction with powerful federations to keep the reform momentum alive.

Chronological Timeline of Key Milestones in Indian Sports Governance

This timeline distills over seven decades of policy shifts, controversies, and institutional changes into a clear arc—showing exactly how India arrived at this legislative moment. For policymakers, it’s a ready reference; for the public, it’s the backstory behind one of the most ambitious sports reforms in the country’s history.

National Sports Governance Bill, 2025 — Key Provisions at a Glance

A bold step toward cleaning up and modernizing Indian sports governance, this Bill replaces ad-hoc rules with a legal framework built on transparency, accountability, and athlete empowerment.

1. One Sport, One Body

Creates a National Olympic Committee (NOC), Paralympic Committee (NPC), and a single recognized federation for each sport.
Why it matters: Ends decades of turf wars under the 2011 Sports Code, giving sports bodies clear legal status.
Impact: Better coordination, stronger international ties.

2. Inclusive Executive Committees

Max 15 members per committee, including 2 top athletes and 4 women.
Why it matters: Athlete voices and gender diversity become mandatory.
Impact: Policies reflect athlete needs; fewer grievances go unheard.

3. Age & Tenure Caps

Top posts limited to 3 terms (12 years); usual age cap 70, extendable to 75 in special cases.
Why it matters: Stops power monopolies, encourages fresh leadership.
Impact: Leadership churn — even in powerful bodies like the BCCI.

4. National Sports Board (NSB)

A statutory regulator with SEBI-like powers — from recognizing bodies to enforcing ethics, probing fund misuse, and tackling doping.
Why it matters: Centralizes oversight with legal teeth.
Impact: Uniform governance, stronger safeguards.

5. National Sports Tribunal (NST)

A fast-track court for sports disputes, led by senior judges; appeals go to SC or CAS (Geneva).
Why it matters: Ends years-long legal battles.
Impact: Faster, cheaper, more consistent justice.

6. RTI & CAG Oversight

Govt-funded bodies fall under RTI and CAG audits.
Why it matters: Transparency becomes mandatory for public money.
Impact: Greater public trust, fewer financial scandals.

7. Ethics & Athlete Safety

Mandatory Code of Ethics, grievance redressal, and Safe Sports Policy to prevent harassment.
Why it matters: Protects athletes, especially women and minors.
Impact: Safer, more respectful sporting environments.

8. Fair Elections via NSEP

Polls run by ex-Election Commission officials; bodies must do the same for affiliates.
Why it matters: Ends rigged elections.
Impact: Democratic, merit-based leadership.

9. Protecting National Identity

Only NSB-approved bodies can use Bharat/India or national symbols.
Why it matters: Stops misuse of national image.
Impact: Only legitimate teams represent India.

Legal Implications & Possible Challenges

The National Sports Governance Bill, 2025 is one of the most ambitious attempts to clean up India’s sports administration. But its strong medicine also raises serious constitutional and legal debates that could be settled as much in courtrooms as in Parliament.

1. Constitutional Flashpoints

• Autonomy vs. Central Oversight – The Bill arms the National Sports Board (NSB) with sweeping authority over recognition, funding, compliance, and even the use of “India” or “Bharat” in team names. Supporters argue this is necessary to bring accountability; opponents see it as central interference in independent sports bodies.
• Fundamental Rights Concerns – Provisions like age (70 years) and tenure caps may face Article 19(1)(c) and 19(1)(g) challenges on the right to form associations and practice a profession. However, the government may defend them as “reasonable restrictions” under Article 19(6), citing governance reforms upheld in BCCI v. Cricket Association of Bihar (2016).
• Centre–State Jurisdiction – Since “sports” is in the State List (Entry 33, List II), Parliament’s competence could be questioned. The Centre is likely to rely on residuary powers (Article 248), international commitments, and matters of national interest to justify its role.

2. Administrative Law Pitfalls

• Excessive Delegation Risks – The Bill allows the Centre and NSB to frame detailed regulations. While this gives flexibility, courts have struck down rules that go beyond the scope of the parent Act.
• Judicial Review – NSB and National Sports Tribunal (NST) orders can still be challenged before High Courts or the Supreme Court for bias, unreasonableness, or violation of natural justice. “Good faith” immunity is no shield against mala fide actions.

3. Likely Litigation Hotspots

• Writ Petitions – Sports bodies could move High Courts to contest the Bill’s constitutional validity or specific NSB decisions.
• NST Appeals – The Bill creates a direct appeal to the Supreme Court, bypassing lower courts, potentially speeding up dispute resolution.
• Interpretation Battles – Ambiguities like what qualifies as “government assistance” under the RTI Act will likely require judicial clarification.

4. Strategic Flashpoints

• BCCI Showdown – Cricket’s governing body has historically resisted RTI inclusion and government oversight. While the Bill subjects it to NSB recognition and NST jurisdiction, expect prolonged legal pushback.
• International Sensitivities – Age caps, government-appointed members, and recognition requirements may attract scrutiny from the IOC and WADA, which generally frown on direct political control. A misstep could even risk suspension from global events.

Bottom Line: The Bill is a bold step towards transparent, accountable sports governance. Yet, its durability will depend on whether it can survive constitutional scrutiny, avoid overreach in implementation, and manage the delicate balance between reform and autonomy — all while keeping India in good standing internationally.

Comparative International Models

A comparison with sports governance frameworks in other jurisdictions provides useful lessons for India’s proposed model, highlighting both convergences and divergences.

United Kingdom – Code for Sports Governance

Introduced in 2016, the UK’s Code for Sports Governance is mandatory for any organization seeking or receiving public funding from UK Sport or Sport England. It rests on four pillars—transparency, diversity and inclusion, accountability, and integrity—and follows a tiered compliance structure:

• Tier 1 – Small, one-off projects (£10k–£250k)
• Tier 2 – Medium investments (£250k–£1m)
• Tier 3 – Major, long-term funding (>£1m)

The Code has improved governance across 4,000+ organizations by directly linking compliance to funding. Its proportional approach avoids overburdening smaller bodies while holding larger, well-funded federations to higher standards. Periodic reviews, such as the 2020 update on diversity and inclusion, show adaptability.

Relevance for India:
India’s Bill mirrors the UK’s principle of linking recognition—and thus funding—to governance compliance. The UK’s tiered approach could inform a proportional regulatory framework in India, given the wide variation in scale and resources among Indian sports bodies. However, unlike the UK’s funding-based mechanism, India’s Bill creates statutory bodies (NSB, NST, NSEP) with broader powers over all recognized sports entities, including those not receiving public funds.

Australia – Sport Integrity Australia (SIA)

Established under the Sport Integrity Australia Act 2020, SIA serves as the national body for safeguarding athlete welfare, sport integrity, and fair competition. It integrates anti-doping, integrity enforcement, and athlete protection under one umbrella, with functions spanning prevention, monitoring, investigation, and enforcement.

SIA operates as a single point of contact for integrity matters, simplifying reporting and fostering trust. Its unified structure allows a coordinated response to threats such as doping, match-fixing, and abuse. However, evolving risks—like online betting—require constant adaptation.

Relevance for India:
The Bill addresses doping (in tandem with the Anti-Doping Bill), athlete welfare, and safe sport policies, and proposes a National Sports Tribunal (NST) for disputes. While these elements echo SIA’s objectives, India’s approach distributes integrity functions across multiple bodies—NSB, NST, and the Anti-Doping Agency—rather than creating a single authority like SIA.

United States – NCAA Governance

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) governs collegiate sports through a decentralized, volunteer-driven structure. It operates across three divisions, with governance bodies made up of member institution representatives. The NCAA emphasizes athlete welfare, fairness, and equal opportunity, while integrating athletics into academic life.

However, it faces significant challenges—especially around the commercialization of college sports and recent reforms granting athletes Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) rights. The decentralized US model, with numerous independent national governing bodies, complicates coordination and relies heavily on self-regulation.

Relevance for India:
India’s integration of sports with education and promotion of leagues finds a parallel in the NCAA’s collegiate sports model. But unlike the US’s fragmented, self-regulatory structure, India’s Bill proposes centralized statutory oversight covering all recognized sports bodies.

Key Takeaways

Across the UK, Australia, and the US, a common trajectory emerges: greater transparency, accountability, and integrity in sports governance, often driven by public funding and national interest.

• UK: Links governance compliance to funding; uses proportional requirements.
• Australia: Centralizes all integrity functions in one authority.
• US: Demonstrates the complexity of large, multi-sport ecosystems and commercialization challenges.

India’s Bill reflects this global shift but opts for a uniform, statutory framework. While this ensures consistency, the UK’s proportional model and Australia’s specialized integrity focus suggest that flexibility based on size, funding, and risk may enhance effectiveness and avoid overburdening smaller federations.

Implementation Challenges & Practical Steps

1. Building Institutional Muscle

Passing the National Sports Governance Bill 2025 is just the first lap. The real race begins with turning the law into action — building institutions, ensuring smooth transitions, securing funding, and fostering a culture of transparency and athlete-first governance.

Challenge: Setting up the National Sports Board (NSB), National Sports Tribunal (NST), and National Sports Election Panel (NSEP) with the right people and strong systems.
Practical Steps:

• Secure dedicated budgets for infrastructure, staffing, and daily operations.
• Recruit proven experts in sports governance, law, public administration, and judicial functions.
• Go digital — transparent records, online grievance portals, and case tracking systems.
• Train the team — workshops to ensure staff understand the Bill and its procedures.

2. Phased Compliance – No Overnight Shocks

Challenge: National Sports Federations (NSFs), especially those with long-time administrators, must adapt to age/tenure limits and mandatory representation (two outstanding sportspersons & four women in Executive Committees) — without disrupting ongoing tournaments.
Practical Steps:

• Allow 1–2 years for constitutional changes and elections.
• Hold guidance workshops to help federations interpret and apply the rules smoothly.

3. Money Matters – Funding & Accountability

Challenge: Ensuring both regulators and federations can bear compliance costs without draining resources.
Practical Steps:

• Launch the National Sports Board Fund with clear, transparent disbursement rules.
• Make CAG audits mandatory for all funded bodies.
• Encourage public–private partnerships like Adopt an Athlete or One Corporate–One Sport.
• Link funding eligibility directly to NSB recognition.

4. Transparency That Goes Beyond RTI

Challenge: RTI applies only to publicly funded bodies — meaning giants like the BCCI could remain outside its scope.
Practical Steps:

• Issue NSB transparency guidelines for all sports bodies, regardless of funding.
• Require annual reports, audited accounts, and key policy decisions to be public.
• Build digital disclosure platforms for easy public access.

5. Athlete-Centric Grievance Redressal

Challenge: Convincing athletes that the NST is truly independent and efficient.
Practical Steps:

• Ensure adequate staffing to meet case timelines.
• Run awareness campaigns for athletes, coaches, and officials.
• Enforce a Safe Sports Policy to protect minors and vulnerable participants.

6. Keeping Global Relations Smooth

Challenge: Avoiding friction with the IOC or international federations over national autonomy concerns.
Practical Steps:

• Maintain continuous dialogue with global sports bodies.
• Showcase alignment with Olympic and Paralympic Charters.
• Frame the reforms as part of India’s 2036 Olympic readiness strategy.

Conclusion

The National Sports Governance Bill 2025 marks a decisive step towards reforming India’s sports ecosystem by embedding transparency, accountability, and athlete-centric governance into its core. Its provisions — from fixed age and tenure limits to mandatory representation of women and sportspersons, stronger grievance mechanisms, and phased compliance timelines — have the potential to dismantle entrenched inefficiencies and restore public trust.

However, the Bill’s success will depend on more than just legislative approval. It will require institutional readiness, sustained funding, robust monitoring, and above all, a willingness among sports bodies to embrace reform as a shared national mission rather than a compliance burden. Coordination between the government, the National Sports Board, federations, and international sporting authorities will be critical to ensure smooth adoption without disrupting competitive integrity.

If implemented with precision, this Bill could serve as a model for sports governance in developing economies — positioning India not only as a sporting powerhouse but also as a global benchmark for integrity in athletics. As the country eyes ambitious goals such as the 2036 Olympic bid, these reforms could form the governance backbone needed to turn aspiration into achievement.

🏆 Fair play starts with informed minds. Stay updated. Stay empowered.
📢 Share this article to encourage transparency and accountability in sports.
🌐 Discover more in-depth analyses at thinkingthorough.com
💬 Your perspective fuels the conversation—join us in reimagining sports governance, one discussion at a time.

References

Government of India. (2025). THE NATIONAL SPORTS GOVERNANCE BILL, 2025. https://prsindia.org/files/bills_acts/bills_parliament/2025/Natonal_Sports_Governance_Bill_2025.pdf

Renati, M. (2025, July 2). A look at India’s sports policy journey post independence | Explained. The Hindu. https://www.thehindu.com/sport/a-look-at-indias-sports-policy-journey-post-independence-explained/article69761276.ece

The National Sports Governance Bill, 2025. (n.d.). PRS Legislative Research. https://prsindia.org/billtrack/the-national-sports-governance-bill-2025

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about National Sports Bill 2025