India's Olympic Failure Raises The Question: Who Is Better As Sports Administrator, Sportsperson Or Politician?

India has underperformed yet again at the Olympics.

When India’s contingent of 117 athletes went to Paris, a double-digit medals tally was expected.

However, with one silver and five bronze medals, the country with 1.4 billion population was placed at the 71st spot — nine places below Pakistan. 

A dismal display despite the presence of many top athletes, both in the past and present, has turned the focus on the nature and role of sports administration.

While some argue for sportspersons to take the helm of sporting bodies, others argue for professional administrators or politicians to hold fort.

Let’s dive into this debate.

Who Typically Head India’s Sporting Bodies

X user Kaipullai looked into the 32 top positions in athletics, badminton, boxing, shooting, hockey, archery, weightlifting, swimming and table tennis.

Turns out, politicians are sitting at the helm of affairs in majority of these sports. Only hockey and athletics have former sportspersons as presidents.

Similarly, out of 63 vice presidents (average of seven in each sport) in these nine sports, only six have a sporting background.

The dominance of politicians can be gauged from the fact that in four out of nine sports — archery, boxing, weightlifting and swimming, only politicians run the show.

In many of these bodies, posts like senior vice president and honourable general secretary have been arguably created to accommodate favourites.

The Case For Sportsperson-Administrators

After the poor performance at the Paris Olympics, calls to include sportspersons at the higher ranks, instead of just in coaching positions, is gaining momentum.

This demand is not new. It caught sail in the aftermath of Sharad Pawar, Suresh Kalmadi, and K P S Gill holding on to their respective posts in sporting bodies.

There is merit in the argument of handing sports administration to former players.

Players who have risen through the ranks are more in tune with the requirements of a new player. These players have first hand experience and deep understanding of sports. 

They are more likely to understand the challenges faced during training and competition and prioritise the welfare of athletes. An athlete-centred approach would always be more handy in providing better training conditions, facilities and support systems (both mental and physical).

Sportspersons are also often more respected by athletes and coaches, which can foster a more positive and collaborative environment within sports federations.

Moreover, in a country like India where most talented players have to fight bureaucracy and oligarchy, an empath who has done the same is needed to make the fight easier.

Former players like Sebastian Coe, John Eales and John Bertrand among others, have contributed significantly to their respective sports.

India's Past Doesn't Back The Case

However, despite having best of intentions, there are many examples where players have found it tough to translate their sporting success into administrative one.

For instance, former captain Sourav Ganguly, who changed the way India played cricket, failed to bring bureaucratic efficiency to BCCI (Board of Control for Cricket in India) in his stint as board president.

Skillsets required for being an elite sportsperson and administrator are quite different. While sports training puts emphasis on delayed gratification, the managerial position sometimes require delayed decision making and coordination with people who do not always move ahead with the same goal in mind. 

Additionally, decision making as a player is a transparent event where the outcome is fast and open for everyone to judge. On the other hand, decisions as administrative head are mostly taken behind opaque closed door and it also takes times to make any material impact.

These are few issues which require politicians to enter sports administration and sort them out. What these elite players fail to execute in back channel negotiations, politicians thrive on it.

The Case For Politician-Administrators

They enter these top positions with truckload of experience regarding dealing with various stakeholders of any domain. The nature of democratic polity (checks and balances) is such that they learn the art of keeping everyone in the loop very quickly.

Politicians tend to fare better in galvanising people, handling media and mobilising resources. With their contacts, even getting sponsors on board is not such a difficult job. 

Adille Sumariwala, former athlete and current president of the Athletics Federation of India said, “They go and convince higher authorities, they sit in cabinet meetings because they are ministers. And that is why we benefit. They have the reach.”

Diana Edulji, former Indian women’s cricket captain and former member of committee of administrators (COA) deputed by Supreme Court to look after BCCI also stresses that politicians are needed to cut through red-tapism.

Politicians Too Have Fallen Short

It is the red-tapism which later boomerangs for sports lovers. After helping sports federations, the politicians tend to develop a red-tapism for their own sake. It includes galvanising votes, rigging elections, corruption and use of financial muscle to hold onto power.

Not a long ago, Suresh Kalmadi, former Congress member of Parliament who doubled up as president of Indian Olympic Association (IOA) was face of the corruption in Commonwealth Games scam. Similarly, Sharad Pawar’s tenure as president of BCCI was also controversial due to alleged involvement in selection process.

All of it became legally difficult in the wake of National Sports Code, 2011 which advocated for ending the hegemony of political class doubling up as sports administrators. However, it took more than a decade to get majority of national sports federations to comply with these rules.

But even when elections are conducted, often nepotistic products or close aids of existing presidents take charge — creating further mismanagement.

Such a level of mismanagement has forced Supreme Court (SC) to appoint respective COAs for running sports like cricket, football, hockey, judo, table tennis and equestrian in the country. 

Forget individual sports federations, even IOA has found it difficult to align itself with the values of the Olympic Charter. IOA was also put under COA by Delhi High Court, which was later overturned by SC.

Moreover, most of the politicians are absolutely unaware of what is going on at the ground level. One can’t expect them to know which injury would require a simple hansaplast and which one would require platelet-rich plasma injections. The detachment with players’ life tends to make them indifferent towards their problems.

The lack of player-centric approach tends to delay the decision making process and rely on secondary feedback — often negatively impacting the careers.

No Template For Sports Management

To sum it all, politicians do bring efficiency in initial stage, but also tend to dilute it with hunger for control and factionalism. With time, players’ and sports’ interests take back seat while financial and personal interests are given utmost priority. 

Even BCCI — the most efficient sporting body in India — is guilty of prioritising money over long term interests of sport.

Perfection in sports administration is illusion, but it doesn't mean we should stop striving for it. Appointing sportspersons at lower level of administration and then letting them reach the top could be a good beginning.

Another solution can be mandating the presence of sportspersons at key decision-making positions.