Hockey India president Dilip Tirkey has claimed that the federation’s office-bearers were merely informed about the change in colour of the national teams’ jersey around two hours before it was unveiled publicly, as he sought answers on the process that led to the decision to switch from blue to saffron.In an email to Hockey India executive director R K Srivastava on Monday, Tirkey wrote: “On 27 July 2026 at approximately 8:47 AM, I received a WhatsApp message from you on the coordination group containing a video file and stating that the ‘Hockey India main jersey’ was being put on digital media at 11:00 AM.”He added: “While I acknowledge that this communication was made, the Executive Board requires clarity on whether this constituted merely an intimation of an already finalised decision or whether the views of the President and office-bearers were genuinely sought before the decision was implemented.” Hockey India president Dilip Tirkey. (FILE photo)The email was Tirkey’s second in four days seeking explanations over what he described as an opaque decision-making process surrounding one of Indian hockey’s most recognisable symbols. The controversy erupted after Hockey India unveiled saffron jerseys for the men’s and women’s teams ahead of next week’s World Cup, replacing the traditional blue kit India has largely worn since making its Olympic debut in 1928, barring a handful of isolated instances.The move triggered criticism from former players and quickly became a political talking point. In an earlier email to the executive board, Tirkey had said that even as Hockey India president, he was not consulted before the change was finalised.In Monday’s email, Tirkey asserted that Hockey India must remain an “apolitical sporting institution” and questioned whether the federation had adequately considered the wider implications of the move. He sought to know whether the potential impact on athlete preparation had been assessed, whether the possibility of heightened media scrutiny and public debate was factored into the decision, and whether the Odisha government, Hockey India’s principal sponsor, had been consulted beforehand.Citing a report in The Indian Express that said not all members of the men’s and women’s national teams had been consulted – contradicting Hockey India’s initial assertion – Tirkey also sought clarification on whether written feedback had been obtained from players and whether any concerns had been raised before the announcement.Story continues below this ad“At the outset, I wish to make it clear that the issue under consideration is not merely the colour or design of a playing jersey,” Tirkey wrote. “The matter concerns the decision-making process adopted for a change involving one of the most recognisable symbols of Indian hockey, the authority under which such a decision was taken, the consultations undertaken, compliance with Hockey India’s governance framework, and whether appropriate institutional processes were followed.”While acknowledging Srivastava’s explanation that the colour change was intended to improve performance, Tirkey argued that “the pursuit of marginal gains must itself be assessed against the broader principles of high performance.”“A decision intended to improve performance must not inadvertently create uncertainty, distraction or disruption at a critical stage of preparation,” he wrote.Tirkey also referred to captain Harmanpreet Singh having to repeatedly answer questions about the controversy in the lead-up to the World Cup, saying athletes should not have to defend administrative decisions.Story continues below this adHe asked Srivastava to clarify whether Hockey India had assessed the impact of the controversy on the players’ focus, mental preparation and tournament readiness before making the announcement.“Athletes should not be placed in a position where they are required to publicly justify, defend or explain administrative decisions taken by Hockey India,” Tirkey wrote.The Hockey India president also sought details of the decision-making process, including the names and designations of those involved, when the proposal was first initiated and subsequently approved, and which players, coaches and support staff were consulted before the new jerseys were unveiled.“It has also been reported publicly (The Indian Express) that not all members of the playing squads were aware of the proposed change before its announcement.”Story continues below this adIn this regard, Tirkey sought clarification on whether every member of the men’s and women’s national teams had been informed before the public announcement, whether written feedback had been obtained from players, whether any concerns were raised over the timing, comfort or suitability of the new kit, and, if so, how those concerns were addressed.