A few days back,the sports ministry,through the Sports Authority of India (SAI),advised all sports federations to appoint a CEO. Efficient running of sports bodies was said to be the aim behind the move.
The government wasn’t going to interfere in the recruitment of the chosen professional. Not just that,they even offered to pay the CEO’s salary. The proposal though,was unanimously rejected. The mistrust between two important stakeholders of sports administration had once again come to fore.
It’s globally acknowledged that it is CEOs,usually sports management professionals,who take care of the day-to-day running of sports federations. The idea has worked in India too.
Take Hockey India for example. There are noticeable changes in the way hockey is governed in the country since the federation has appointed Elena Norman,an Australian with a vast background in sports management,as its CEO.
Incidentally,HI didn’t want Norman to be on government rolls. Suspicion runs deep in sports administration.
Hockey is one of two sports in the country that has a CEO,the other being basketball. Most of the office-bearers in other Indian sports federations hold honourary posts,which means they have other time-consuming day jobs.
Naturally,sports is not the only thing on their minds.
Last month,the British Olympic Association (BOA) appointed Bill Sweeney as its CEO. Sweeney is a former business development head of Puma and Adidas,and he has been tasked with building a brand.
The sheer reluctance of Indian federations to tread that path is baffling.
But it isn’t just the federations that need a modern administrative template. Even the government needs to get its house in order.
By that count,doesn’t the Sports Authority of India also warrant a CEO?
(Mihir is a senior correspondent,based in Mumbai)
mihir.vasavda@expressindia.com
