CHENNAI: Finally, months after withholding payments, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and IOC Solidarity have decided to resume payments to the Indian Olympic Association (IOA). The IOA said this in a statement on Wednesday. The IOC had withheld the funding in October last year because of internal dispute in the IOA and for not appointing a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) even after an executive board meeting in January last year.
According to the IOA, in a letter addressed to the president IOA, the IOC has commended the positive measures taken by the IOA and the Indian government to strengthen the sporting ecosystem and support athletes at every level, from grassroots to elite.
The IOC was quite peeved with the way IOA was functioning especially after IOA president PT Usha and the committee had recommended the appointment of Raghuram Iyer as the CEO in January last year. Majority of the EC members revolted against Usha and things spiraled out of control with both parties throwing barbs at each other.
However, with India showing immense interest to host the Olympic Games in 2036 and also the 2030 Commonwealth Games, such a situation in the National Olympic Committee became untenable. The IOC has also made it clear that a strong NOC is required to present a successful bid.
Finally, the CEO’s appointment was ratified by an EC meeting and subsequently a special general meeting was convened last month in New Delhi to ratify 2030 CWG's bid. As expected, the IOC also highlighted the two key developments. According to IOA, key developments were the formal appointment of lyer as the IOA's CEO and the adoption of the National Sports Governance Act by the Government of India — both seen as pivotal steps in building a stronger foundation for sport in the country.
What seems interesting is that the IOC is taking interest in India’s National Sports Governance Act as well. There are provisions in the Act that could compromise the autonomy of the IOA and National Sports Federations who would owe more allegiance to the National Sports Board (for annual recognition) after the Act is notified. This could lead to compromising the autonomy of the IOA and the NSFs. What seems even more critical is that even if there is any discrepancy in the recognition the aggrieved parties can only approach a tribunal whose composition will be controlled by the sports ministry.
Usha said that "This reflects our shared commitment from the IOA to the Government of India, under the new and transformative sports legislation — to uphold the highest standards of governance in sport.”
The IOC’s National Olympic Committee Relations and Olympic Solidarity Director, James McLeod, in a letter addressed to the IOA president and all EC members had said in October last year that “The IOC had deployed intense efforts over the past few months to help you collectively find constructive solution to address the daily functioning of the IOA and work together... There are obvious ongoing internal disputes and governance issues facing the IOA including a number of reciprocal allegations which have been raised within the executive council. This situation creates a lot of uncertainty and needs clarification and therefore until further notice, the IOC and Olympic solidarity will not make any payments to the IOA.”
