Responding to criticism on X, AFI said that the circular was intended to “put athletes first” and ensure “clarity in contracts”, adding that its legal team would review agreements to protect athletes from potential pitfalls. Here’s what to know about the circular and the ensuing controversy.
What existed before
For Indian athletes, sponsorship has largely remained a private negotiation. “Athletes typically entered into endorsement agreements independently or through agents, subject only to event specific restrictions — like national kit or federation sponsor conflicts during competitions. Commercial autonomy largely remained with the athlete,” said Gaurav Saxena, Advocate, Bombay High Court and founder, BetterRep Sports.
The only restrictions that did exist were narrower and not for AFIs to impose. They flowed from participation agreements tied to international events, blackout periods during major competitions such as the Olympic Games, where individual sponsorships are not permitted during the event, and a period of time prior to the event to protect Olympic sponsors from ambush marketing.
Sports lawyer Abhinav Shrivastava, partner at LawNK Partners, said, “At most, there would have been terms in their participation agreement restricting their personal sponsors from exercising their sponsorship rights while the athlete is participating in world athletic events. But nothing else this sweeping or restrictive, where personal sponsorships are subject to AFI approval.”
The circular departs from that model. It extends control beyond competition windows into the athlete’s everyday commercial life, making every contract contingent on federation approval. What was once episodic restriction becomes continuous oversight.
AFI’s explanation rests on protection. Saxena noted that the move appears to have been “prompted by athletes’ frequent change of sponsors and entering into unfavourable agreements”, but added that it is being “spun as a way of protecting athletes”.
The process itself has drawn scrutiny. “There is no public indication of any prior stakeholder consultation with athletes, agents or representatives. The circular appears to have been issued unilaterally,” he said.
AFI’s power and its limits
The criticism of the circular converges on a basic legal question: can a sports federation regulate private contracts? “The circular itself does not provide any legal or statutory backing… there is no legal basis for the wording of the circular,” said Advocate Shivam Singh, Of-Counsel at Chamber 20A.
That absence matters because AFI is not a statutory regulator. Its authority flows from its affiliation with and recognition from World Athletics as an Indian National Federation. “Its powers do not exceed beyond that,” Singh added, describing it as a private body governing the sport, not the contracts of those who play it.
The legal challenge, if mounted, is likely to turn on this distinction. Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 voids agreements that restrain lawful trade. “This is an AFI-curated restraint of trade,” Singh said, arguing that the circular interferes with both athletes’ and sponsors’ ability to negotiate freely.
The Constitution’s Article 19(1)(g) grants all citizens the right of freedom “to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business”, but Article 19(2) permits “reasonable restrictions” on that right for the interest of the sovereignty, and integrity of India; the security of the state; friendly relations with foreign states; public order; or preventing incitement to the commission of an offence.
The AFI, according to the experts, may face difficulty in bringing the circular within this framework. Any restriction on an athlete’s ability to enter into sponsorship agreements would have to meet the test of reasonableness and proportionality — something the current measure, in its broad form, may struggle to satisfy.
Shrivastava places the issue within a broader line of cases involving sports bodies. “What an athlete actually does, using their own personal brand and image, is exercise their right to leverage their persona and generate a livelihood from their sport, which comes in conflict when there is a blanket approval requirement. An impediment of this nature also limits the athlete’s opportunity to build their own brand as sponsors would be less willing to invest in a long term strategy with an athlete if each renewal and the commercial terms of each sponsorship are subject to AFI review and approval,” he said.
Courts, he added, have treated such federations as bodies exercising public functions, and thereby tested their decisions on constitutional principles against arbitrariness and overreach.
What’s at stake
The immediate effects of the rule may be uneven, but the structural shift is clear. For established athletes, the approval layer may slow negotiations. For those at the margins, it may shape whether deals happen at all.
“In theory and effect it could hinder early-stage commercial support,” Saxena said, referring to emerging athletes dependent on smaller sponsors.
Singh stated that “the emerging athletes would either comply or square up against the AFI and challenge it in court… if not the players, then sponsors with deep pockets will”.
The criticism, across the board, returns to the same point — control without clearly defined guardrails. As Srivastava noted, a narrower mechanism to account for conflicts or provide guidance “can be justified as being proportional to the potential harm to athlete interest sought to be addressed”, but a blanket approval system shifts the balance entirely.
A player in action during the Indian Athletics Series -3 hosted by the Athletics Federation of India at JLN Stadium, New Delhi, on April 11, 2026. Photo: ANI /Sumit 
Share
