India’s Olympic Ambition: Institutional Reforms & Governance

Syllabus: GS2/Governance; Sports

Context

• The Prime Minister of India has reiterated India’s intent to host the Olympic Games (2036), building on the decision to stage the Commonwealth Games (2030) and the expansion of domestic platforms to broaden athlete participation and exposure.

India’s Olympic Ambition

• India’s Olympic Ambition aligns with the government’s sustained investment in infrastructure and athlete development, building upon initiatives like Khelo India, Target Olympic Podium Scheme (TOPS), and the Fit India Movement.
• According to the Union Budget 2025–26 released by the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, India allocated ₹3,794.30 crore to the sector, with ₹1,000 crore for Khelo India, a record high.
  • It underscores the Centre’s emphasis on nurturing grassroots talent and preparing for large-scale international sporting participation.
• The Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports reports the establishment of over 1,000 Khelo India Centres across India, providing structured support for nearly 3,000 athletes through coaching, nutrition, equipment, and medical care.

Why Olympic 2036 Raises the Stakes?

• International Scrutiny and Compliance: The International Olympic Committee (IOC) places strong emphasis on ethical governance, athlete safeguarding, gender equity, and financial transparency.
• Scale of Public Investment: Hosting the Olympics involves massive public expenditure on infrastructure, urban development, and security.
  • Risks include cost overruns, crony contracts, and underutilised ‘white elephant’ stadiums without robust governance mechanisms.

Why Institutional & Governance Reforms Are Needed?

• Fragmented & Opaque Structure: Most National Sports Federations (NSFs) operate as autonomous bodies, often dominated by long-serving officials with limited athlete representation.
  • The National Sports Development Code (2011), formulated to enforce age limits, tenure caps, and transparency norms, has faced persistent resistance from federations, leading to frequent litigation and administrative paralysis.
• Politicization of Sports Bodies: Several federations continue to be headed by political figures rather than professionals with domain expertise.
  • It undermines efficiency and continuity in decision-making, diluting long-term vision and accountability.
• Absence of Structured Pathways For Athletes: Some sportspersons are equipped for administrative duties due to limited mentoring, skilling, or exposure during their playing careers despite their invaluable experience.
  • It deprives Indian sports governance of athlete-centric insight, weakening the connection between policy and performance.
• Digital and Data Deficit: India’s sports ecosystem lags in digital adoption and data analytics.
  • Modern sports management demands integrated athlete tracking, injury monitoring, and performance analytics, areas where most federations still rely on fragmented or manual systems.
• Regional Variation: Disparities in funding and performance across states persist.
  • Medal tallies at the Khelo India Youth Games remain concentrated among a few resource-rich regions, revealing uneven growth.

Lessons From India’s Commonwealth Games (2010)

• The Commonwealth Games (2010) in Delhi exposed governance lapses and cost inefficiencies, despite India’s 101-medals.
• It has prompted calls for improved project management, transparent procurement, and professionalized administration as prerequisites for the 2036 Olympics.

Institutional and Technological Reforms

• The Sports Authority of India (SAI) has initiated the National Centres of Excellence (NCOE) and introduced a Digital Athlete Database System to integrate analytics, injury tracking, and performance data.
  • These reforms aim to make sports governance more data-driven and responsive.
• Moreover, the National Centre for Sports Science and Research (NCSSR) is being expanded to strengthen evidence-based coaching, sports medicine, and technology integration, essential elements for Olympic readiness.
• Task Force (2025) led by Abhinav Bindra identified persistent governance lapses within national sports federations, poor accountability, staff shortages, and the lack of a trained administrative cadre.
  • It noted that existing sports administration training remains fragmented and outdated, with little emphasis on practical management or inter-institutional coordination.
  • As India’s investment in sport rises, the gap between ambition and administrative capacity has become increasingly visible.

Way Forward: From Aspiration to Institution

• India’s road to 2036 will test whether it can convert growing enthusiasm into durable institutional strength.
• Khelo India has widened participation and funding has improved, but true transformation depends on four pillars:
  • Professionalized Sports Administration: Creating a skilled, accountable cadre of sports managers.
  • Governance Reform: Reducing political control and ensuring transparent, merit-based leadership.
  • Athlete-to-Administrator Pathways: Building structured mentoring and transition programs.
  • Data-Driven Decision-Making: Integrating analytics and technology into every level of sports management.
• India’s Olympic aspiration risks being built on enthusiasm rather than endurance without these reforms.
  • The Olympic Games (2036) can be a defining milestone but only if institutional credibility and professional governance rise alongside ambition.

Source: BS