Opinion India’s new National Sports Policy promises inclusion but fails to cater to women, transgender and disabled athletes

Anchored on five pillars — Excellence on the Global Stage, Sports for Economic Development, Sports for Social Development, Sports as a People’s Movement, and Integration with Education — the policy positions sports as a tool of national development. It proposes grassroots infrastructure, athlete welfare, sports science, public-private investment, and even a legal and regulatory overhaul of sports governance. Importantly, it claims inclusion as a central concern, aiming to boost participation among women, persons with disabilities, tribal communities, and economically disadvantaged groups.

While the NSP 2025 gets the narrative right, it falls short in translating its vision into enforceable equity. Without rights-based frameworks, measurable outcomes, or accountability mechanisms, its ambitious promises risk remaining aspirational.

A strong foundation

The policy’s alignment with the National Education Policy 2020 is welcome. It emphasises physical literacy from early childhood, training of sports educators, and dual-career pathways for student-athletes. Its recognition of para-sports is also a step forward, offering targeted grassroots programmes and compliant infrastructure.

On the economic front, the NSP 2025 links sport to job creation, equipment manufacturing, and tourism. Through initiatives like “One Corporate-One Sport” and “Adopt an Athlete,” it seeks to build funding pipelines through Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Public Private Partnerships (PPPs). It also promises integration of data, AI, and performance analytics into coaching and monitoring systems. Taken together, these measures lay a broad foundation for reimagining India’s sports ecosystem. But when it comes to structural inclusion, the policy stops short.

Inclusion without accountability

Despite repeated references to women, persons with disabilities, and “underrepresented groups,” the policy fails to embed inclusion in institutional or legal guarantees.

Women are referenced throughout as athletes, volunteers, and beneficiaries. But the NSP 2025 proposes no quotas or targets to increase female participation in governance, coaching, or competitions. There is no affirmative action requirement for sports federations, nor is funding tied to the adoption of gender equity plans.

Globally, inclusion is now linked to enforceability. In Australia, all national sports bodies receiving public funds must ensure 50 per cent gender representation on boards by 2027. Sport England mandates that funded bodies adopt and report on diversity action plans. India’s federations, in contrast, remain male-dominated without facing any funding consequences.

The NSP 2025 includes a dedicated para-sports section and promises infrastructure access and talent development. But the policy treats disability as a parallel track, not an integrated one. There is no universal design mandate for new infrastructure, nor any requirements for inclusive PE in schools or training of coaches in disability inclusion. This doesn’t fulfil India’s commitments under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which requires equal access to mainstream sporting activities.

The most glaring omission is that of transgender and non-binary athletes. The NSP 2025 refers to “underrepresented groups” but does not acknowledge trans persons, offer self-identification provisions, or outline anti-discrimination safeguards. There is no participation framework, leaving trans athletes vulnerable to arbitrary exclusion or invasive scrutiny.

By contrast, several countries have begun creating inclusive systems. New Zealand, Canada, and federations under the International Olympic Committee have adopted gender inclusive policies that ensure dignity and fairness. India’s silence leaves gender-diverse athletes legally unprotected.]

What the policy leaves out

Best practices across the globe show the importance of enforcing inclusive policies; good intentions are not always enough. Canada’s Accessible Canada Act mandates that all federally funded sports meet accessibility standards. Australia’s National Sports Strategy links public funding to measurable diversity benchmarks. The International Olympic Committee’s Gender Equality Review Project lays out targets on leadership, coaching, media, and resource parity — none of which find mention in the NSP 2025.

The common denominator across these frameworks is accountability. Inclusion becomes meaningful only when backed by targets, monitoring, and consequences for non-compliance. The NSP 2025 should have set clear targets for women and persons with disabilities in leadership, coaching, and selection roles, and made funding conditional on measurable diversity benchmarks. The absence of a universal design mandate for sports infrastructure is a missed opportunity. Without it, accessibility for disabled athletes remains uneven. Inclusive coaching training, especially at the grassroots, should have been made mandatory.

Finally, the NSP 2025 could have proposed an independent oversight body to monitor inclusion across federations. Without such mechanisms, the promise of participation risks remaining symbolic. To fulfil its vision of “sports for all,” the policy must treat inclusion not as a soft value, but a legal and structural commitment. India’s global sporting aspirations must begin with fairness at home for women, persons with disabilities, and gender-diverse individuals who are too often invisible in the system. Without that, the finish line for equality will continue to move just out of reach.

The writer is a lawyer based in New Delhi and a Research Fellow at the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy. Views are personal