Sports Minister Mansukh Mandaviya on Wednesday introduced the National Sports Governance Bill in Lok Sabha.The Bill proposes two major changes to the way sport is governed in the country. The first is the formation of a National Sports Board, which will have sweeping powers to lay down rules and oversee the functioning of federations, including the Board of Control for Cricket in India.The second is the constitution of a National Sports Tribunal, which will have the powers of a civil court. The tribunal will decide disputes ranging from selection to election involving federatios and athletes. Aggrieved athletes and administrators will no longer be able to approach the lower or high courts. The tribunal, instead, will be their first port of redressal. And its decisions can only be challenged in the Supreme Court.In an interview with The Indian Express, eminent sports lawyer Nandan Kamath breaks down the key aspects of the Bill, explains its significance and underlines the aspects that may need some caution. Excerpts:Why do you think a Bill like this was needed and what is its significance?If you look back, the 2007 Draft Comprehensive National Sports Policy mentions the need for a sports regulator for India. The Bill now proposes a National Sports Board along these lines—a Sebi-type body to establish a unified national structure for sport.Many of the provisions and structures in the Bill owe their origin to the National Sports Development Bills drafted – but not passed – in the early part of the last decade. You can draw a straight line from these to significant portions of the Bill.With a National Sports Board, the regulatory capacity of the government in sports will increase. The institution will get a budget and can hire specialised staff with legal and auditing expertise, for instance, to evaluate how the 56 NSFs [National Sports Federations] and their affiliates are being run. I believe this is a significant step forward.About judicial intervention…Story continues below this adIn the absence of legislation, the Sports Code of 2011 has been the administrative instrument in place that established standards for the government’s recognition of National Sports Federations. Without statutory backing and regulatory institutions in place this was always going to be a stopgap measure at best, and its implementation history has indeed been chequered.This regulatory failure led to extensive judicial intervention in the affairs of sports bodies, especially with many federations being obviously run quite poorly. However, many court cases have remained unresolved for years, other judgments have been walked back on by the courts themselves. There are numerous federations being run by ad-hoc bodies and almost every federation election is now challenged in court. I don’t think this is sustainable.The end goal of judicial intervention is public interest. While cleaning the stables is a means, the desired end must always be healthier sports institutions.But now, we are presuming that the tribunal will stay independent and free of conflicts.Story continues below this adYou are right, many will say ‘oh, not one more tribunal’, when many of our tribunals have not been successful in India. While this is a first for India, standalone dispute resolution chambers and tribunals is the model that sport follows globally. Having time-bound procedures and sports-aware people in dispute resolution is preferable so as to keep sport healthy and moving forward. Of course, any tribunal will need well-qualified, independent-minded members.Is there a similar concern for the National Sports Board, where the presumption is that the right people will be heading it?The powers proposed to be vested in the Board have always been there with the Sports Ministry. I believe that having the Board as a statutory public institution with a defined role and obligations will increase public scrutiny and transparency over how these powers are exercised. On matters relating to how decisions relating to sports bodies are made, who is making them and the reasoning for them, there is no judge more powerful than public opinion. As the saying goes, sunlight is often the best disinfectant. For instance, if there is an allegation over the conflict of interest of a member of the Board, this will play out like it did in the Sebi Chairperson’s case recently.The other type of public transparency is through information about sports bodies. Right now, it is not easy to identify the appropriate district sports federation for a particular sport that governs the entry point to sport for all of us. For someone who wants to play the sport competitively, for someone who would like to hold an event or sponsor or partner, there is often nowhere to go to determine which body to deal with.Story continues below this adThe Bill proposes that the Board will register all the affiliated units of the NSFs. This first step of ‘governance through information’ by the Board can then lead to ‘governance through standard-setting’ (like Sebi does with listing standards) and ‘governance through framework alignment’ whereby the system comes together to work in unison.There are concessions made to administrators over the age cap and tenure. What is the logic behind increasing the age limit to 75 and doing away with the tenure issue?The logic I have seen professed is that various concessions are needed to enable more Indian administrators to be represented on, and in leadership positions within, international sports bodies. It has been suggested that it takes time and experience to first understand the game of administration locally and then establish oneself in the international fora. Of course, such perceived benefits must be balanced with the obvious risks of entrenchment and institutional capture and it is important to tread carefully.Regarding the Board of Control for Cricket in India. So far, they have not been under a government umbrella. How does it change now?I don’t know what the government’s formal stance is on this, but I did see reports that the intent is for the BCCI to also come under the ambit of the law. There is no exception really for the BCCI, though it has never been recognised as an NSF thus far. If the BCCI is also covered, its constitution will have to be brought in line with this legislation.One of the material changes there will be with the existing age and tenure clauses. The BCCI constitution has a maximum of three terms of three years each in the BCCI or a state association after which an office bearer cannot be elected again. Another question is whether the BCCI becomes an Indian Olympic Association (IOA) member given the inclusion of the sport in the forthcoming Olympics?Story continues below this adDoes the Bill disenfranchise the athletes of their right to go to the courts?According to the Bill, the first port of call for disputes is the internal dispute resolution chamber and then the tribunal in an appeal. As mentioned earlier, this is in line with international sports dispute resolution structures. For instance, in the FIFA system, all participants from players to clubs are barred from approaching the ordinary courts in any country. You have to use the FIFA or member association dispute resolution chambers, and appeals lie only to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).A mature sports dispute resolution process is deliberately intended to be separate from the court structure. Keeping dispute resolution accessible, financially viable and fair to athletes will be a critical aspect of good governance.