Spoil Sports

It is unfortunate that, even in these times of an increased push for transparency and accountability, vested interests in the Cabinet shot down Ajay Maken's proposed Sports Bill. One of the main provisions of the Bill was to bring all sports bodies, including the BCCI, under the RTI. This was reportedly vociferously objected to by the Cabinet, five members of which are in charge of various sports bodies. Another regulation was to set a retirement age, at 70, for the presidents of sports federations, and cap their tenures to three terms in a row (12 years). This, too, naturally met opposition from the geriatric club of India's sports body presidents. It is true, as has been argued elsewhere, much of the BCCI's success (and there has been much success, the India-England test series notwithstanding) has come from the fact that it is a private body, not reliant on the government for its revenue. While this may be true, it could still voluntarily come under the RTI and make its financial accounts public (another feature of the Bill), as a show of good faith to cricket fans. Cricket Australia does it, what's the problem? This would dispel a lot of the opacity the BCCI is associated with. Instead, the media reported, Sharad Pawar got so angry that he threatened to take the issue up with Sonia Gandhi. As far as the retirement age and presidency tenure goes, 70 is just a number--it could just as well be 75. The point is that there should be a limit, whatever it is, so that the incumbent president doesn't start thinking of himself as the ruler of a fiefdom for life.

The tragedy is that with the demise of this version of the Bill, several other good and non-contentious features also bite the dust. Including athletes in the decision-making bodies of sports federations and giving them 25% of the voting rights can only be a good thing. But, sadly, opacity and feudal workings won the day.