The passage of the National Sport Governance Bill in the Lok Sabha on Monday is surely a watershed in the regulation of all sports bodies in India — over 50 national federations, and quite possibly the Board of Control for Cricket in India, will be governed differently in due course. This Bill, like the draft sports code of 2011 and 2017, spells out the manner in which national sports bodies should be run, but crucially moves powers of administrative oversight from the Sports Ministry to the National Sports Board — an ‘independent regulator’ which will wield formidable powers. These would include the recognition or otherwise of all sports bodies, apart from ensuring that they play by the rules of the game. The Bill raises misgivings at the outset over whether it will lead to excessive government interference in the running of the affairs of sports bodies. As compared with the sports code, the Bill dilutes the terms and conditions of appointment and tenure of office bearers in these associations. According to the code, the tenure of an elected member of an executive committee cannot exceed 12 years and his age cannot exceed 70 years. The Bill, in effect, applies an age limit of 75 years and seems to apply it only to the President, Secretary and Treasurer. As for tenure, this Bill allows for a cooling off period of a tenure of four years and allows the individual to return, for another 12 years perhaps. This implies that bosses in perpetuity like Suresh Kalmadi in the past, of the Indian Olympic Association, or more recently, Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh of the wrestling federation, are here to stay. The Bill also relaxes the mandatory number of sportspersons in governance positions, compared with the code. There are anecdotes galore on how government appointees undermine the running of these bodies, and this is perhaps reflected in India’s underwhelming performance in the Olympics. But it is also a bit of a stretch to make an unqualified case for autonomy at the expense of accountability. This is, in fact, a conversation that is taking place in the global governance of sport, including football, of course. In India, ‘autonomy’ has not translated into professionalism. The appointments of office bearers to boxing, wrestling and kabaddi federations are mired in controversy and before court. The Bill’s move to set up a tribunal to oversee these matters is expected to expedite resolution of over 700 disputes. Broadly speaking, accountability is crucial when the public interface is so substantial. By registering sports bodies (and de-recognising impostors), there will for the first time be an inventory of information in this regard. This brings us to the richest body of all, the BCCI. Rumours aside, there is no reason as of now to believe that the law will not apply to it. Cricket is a reasonably well governed sport, but its finances are a mystery. The pursuit of transparency should not disrupt professionalism — and this is a maxim that would apply generally as well. Published on August 11, 2025