CHENNAI: Committees and sub-committees seem to be the new flavour in the sports ministry. A few days ago, the ministry had formed a 17-member ‘sports experts advisory committee’ headed by the sports minister. There are 12 sportspersons on the list along with the Target Olympic Podium Scheme (TOPS) CEO and the Sports Authority of India Executive Director (TEAMS). The ministry has also announced a Sports Expert Panel with 17 sportspersons in it. However, their roles have not been defined.
According to the circular dated February 8, sports secretary/joint secretary will be the convener of the sports experts advisory committee. Interestingly, there is no mention of SAI DG, which could be because sports secretary is in additional charge of the post. The sports ministry would have done this in good faith but what seems baffling is that the committee would be performing some of the roles SAI and National Sports Federations are supposed to do.
A closer look at the key roles as per the circular points to that as well: “Talent identification and advising for development of sub-junior and junior athletes for training; oversee the selection of national athletes/teams to ensure fair and transparent selection; observe the coaching facilities during national coaching camps; observe and provide analysis on performance of Indian/foreign coaches; monitoring performance of Indian teams/sportspersons in international events; advise SAI/NSF in formulating LTDP; feedback to government on NSF systems and bringing them on par with best practices in India and the world; reducing court cases over selection policies and championships…”
Talent identification and training, just to name a couple, is done by NSFs and SAI. There are dedicated scouts, selection panel and programmes through which they select players. They also monitor and chart out long term development plans. It will be interesting to see how the advisory panel chips in.
The ministry must be aware that they already have a Mission Olympic Cell (MOC) who apart from “approve customized programs for athletes chosen under the TOP Scheme”, also “recommends financial disbursement for customized programmes (for elite athletes in priority disciplines); to support, monitor and review progress of athletes in accordance with the training programmes… to communicate regularly with the athletes on their progress, requirements and perspectives.” In a recent meeting, the MOC has apparently given consent to form 12 sub-committees in as many priority disciplines (athletics, archery, badminton, boxing, hockey, rowing, shooting, table tennis, squash, weightlifting, wrestling and swimming). On top of that, there are TOPS and SAI TEAMS as well as monitoring athletes’ progress.
The sports advisory committee would definitely bring more expertise but there should not be a case where too many cooks spoil the broth. However, NSFs are not too comfortable with this either. Some felt that they are already been monitored very closely and there was no need for another committee that could infringe on their role and power as well. Some even felt that this would lead to lack of mutual trust between the two.
The advisory committee has also attracted attention because some of the players are yet to retire or make an announcement. One or two are in fact actively participating while some are part of an academy or even running an academy. It will be clearer as days progress but sports ministry should look into active players in the list and role clarity to avoid friction between different stakeholders. The ministry can find a mechanism through which multiple non-government organisations and sports foundations can be monitored as well.