The National Sports Governance Act, 2025: Regulatory Developments and New Opportunities
The National Sports Governance Act, 2025 (“Act”) was recently enacted by the Parliament of India and received Presidential assent on August 18, 2025. The key objectives of the Act are (i) to recognize sports bodies and federations; (ii) establish governing bodies; (iii) set up a dispute resolution tribunal; (iv) provide for welfare measures for sportspersons; and (v) align with international sports charters.
KEY FEATURES OF THE ACT
National Sports Bodies: The Act provides for establishing one National Olympic Committee, one National Paralympic Committee, a National Sports Federation (“NSF”) for each designated sport, and a Regional Sport Federation for each designated sport (together, “National Sports Bodies”). Each of the National Sports Bodies is expected to have international recognition and affiliation. Further, every National Sports Body must have a general body, along with an executive committee, an ethics committee, a dispute resolution committee, an athletes committee, a president, a secretary general and a treasurer. The Act also provides for the terms of composition, qualification, eligibility, election, and disqualification with respect to such committees.
National Sports Board: The Central Government (“Government”) will establish a National Sports Board (“NSB” or “Board”) consisting of a chairperson and other members. The NSB will be a body corporate headquartered in Delhi. The functions of the NSB will include granting recognition to sports organizations, maintaining records, conducting inquiries, constituting ad-hoc bodies (where any National Sports Body loses an international recognition), issuing guidelines for formulation of codes of ethics by the National Sports Bodies, framing safe sports policies, maintaining election panel rosters, and collaborating with international and national sports bodies for the development of sports and the welfare of athletes. NSB recognition to sports organizations as National Sports Bodies will be subject to such organizations being (i) a registered society, (ii) a not-for-profit company incorporated under Section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013, (iii) a trust created under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 or an equivalent state legislation, or (iv) compliant with such other criteria and conditions as may be specified, including having the sole object of sports development.
National Sports Tribunal: The Act aims to create speedy and cost-effective disposals of sports-related disputes by establishing a dedicated National Sports Tribunal (“NST”). The NST will not have jurisdiction over specified disputes, such as those: (i) arising during games/events organized by international federations, (ii) disputes falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of internal dispute resolution committees of a National Sports Body, any other tribunal or court, any international federation, or the Court of Arbitration for Sports, and (iii) doping disputes under the National Anti-Doping Act, 2022. Pending cases will be transferred to the NST and continue from the stage at which they were pending. For matters falling within the NST’s jurisdiction, there will be a bar on the jurisdiction of civil courts. A decision of the NST can be appealed before the Supreme Court of India.
National Sports Election Panel: The Government will notify a National Sports Election Panel consisting of specified personnel with adequate experience of conduct of elections under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 to oversee election processes and ensure free and fair elections with respect to the executive committees and athlete committees of National Sports Bodies.
Right to Information Act, 2005: Recognized sports organizations that receive financial assistance from the Government or state government(s) will be considered a “public authority” under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“RTI Act”). All recognized sports organizations are required to comply with applicable international charters and statutes.
Safe Sports Policy: The NSB will frame a safe sports policy to ensure the protection and safety of women, minor athletes, and such other persons as may be prescribed at all activities, events, operations and proceedings conducted by the National Sports Bodies.
Code of Ethics: National Sports Bodies are required to formulate a code of ethics for all their committees, employees, staff, sponsors, coaches, athletes, officials, members and affiliates to ensure ethical conduct. Such codes of ethics must provide for the protection of vulnerable persons against abuse by persons in positions of trust and authority.
National Names and Insignia: A no-objection certificate (“NOC”) from the Government will be required by any sports organization to use words like “India” and “National”, or national insignia, symbols, etc.
National Sports Board Fund: A dedicated National Sports Board Fund will be established to which all grants, fees, and charges will be received; such funds shall be applied for meeting salaries and allowances to the Chairperson and members of the NSB and administrative expenses of the NSB.
Accounts and Audit: The NSB must maintain proper accounts and annual statements, and get such accounts periodically audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India (CAG).
Promotion and Development of Sports: The Government may take measures to promote the welfare and protect the privacy of sportspersons and use appropriate technology in the field of sports.
Conflict between Domestic Law and International Obligations: In case of a conflict between domestic law and international obligations, the Government (in consultation with the NSB) will issue clarifications to resolve such inconsistencies.
Exemptions: Pursuant to consultations with the NSB and international organizations, the Government may (in consultation with the NSB and the relevant international sports body) exempt any National Sports Body from the application of any or all provisions of the Act if the Government considers it to be in the public interest.
DISPUTE RESOLUTION MECHANISM UNDER THE ACT
Section 17 of the Act empowers the NST to formulate its own procedures for conducting its business, including with respect to setting timelines for case disposals. However, unlike other sector-specific statutes and tribunals, the Act does not prescribe a specific timeline (e.g., within three or six months). Given the existing backlog of sports-related disputes before courts and central tribunals, a fixed resolution time would have been helpful.
While the NST is expected to resolve ‘sports-related disputes’, the Act does not clarify the ambit of such term. Potential disputes could range from elections of office-bearers, selection of sportspersons, and disciplinary proceedings to allegations of human rights violations. However, the Act expressly excludes certain matters from the NST’s jurisdiction. One notable exclusion is disputes falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the internal dispute resolution committees of NSFs and other sports bodies. The Act requires all such bodies to establish internal dispute committees. In practice, most recognized NSFs already have grievance redressal mechanisms under their constitutional documents and codes of ethics, in line with the National Sports Development Code of India, 2011. These mechanisms typically deal with grievances against the federation, disputes between players, affiliates, members, office bearers, coaches, and arbiters, and provide for an internal appeals process. Furthermore, several NSF constitutions explicitly prohibit recourse to ordinary courts. In light of the above, disputes within the scope of NSF grievance mechanisms may not reach either the NST or ordinary courts. NSFs may need to review their internal dispute committees for consistency with provisions of the Act.
STATUS OF THE BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA
One significant issue in Indian sports has been whether the Board of Control for Cricket in India (“BCCI”) should be brought under Government control as a ‘public authority’. Previously, in Zee Telefilms Ltd v. Union of India,1 the Supreme Court had clarified that the BCCI is not ‘state’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Indian Constitution, and accordingly, the relief sought against the BCCI was found to be not available.
Subsequently, pursuant to an order dated April 21, 2010, the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports (“MYAS”) had declared that all NSFs which receive grants of INR 1 million or more are public authorities under the RTI Act. Since the BCCI does not receive funding from the government, the MYAS order did not apply to the BCCI. Thereafter, in its 275th Report (2018), the Law Commission of India (“Law Commission”) recommended that the BCCI be considered as an ‘instrumentality of state’ under Article 12 of the Constitution. The Law Commission’s report had also highlighted that the BCCI receives indirect funding in the form of tax concessions, duties, subsidies, concessional allotments of land, and other benefits. Moreover, since it functions like an NSF and uses national names and insignia, the Law Commission argued that the BCCI should be recognized as a public authority. In the same year, the Central Information Commission (“CIC”) declared the BCCI’s status as a public authority under the RTI Act and directed it to establish a mechanism under the RTI Act. However, the BCCI successfully challenged the CIC’s order before the Madras High Court, where the CIC’s decision was stayed.
While earlier drafts of the Act had classified all recognized sports organizations as public authorities, in the final version passed by Parliament, only those recognized sports organizations receiving direct financial assistance from the Government or state government(s) were included. According to Section 14 of the Act, only recognized sports organizations will be eligible to receive grants or any other financial assistance from the Government. Further, as mentioned above, all recognized sports organizations which receive grants or any other financial assistance from either the Government or a state government will be considered a public authority under the RTI Act with respect to the utilization of such grants or financial assistance.
All sports organizations recognized as National Sports Bodies by the Government before the commencement of the Act will be deemed to have NSB recognition, and the Act’s provisions will apply to them mutatis mutandis. While the MYAS’s 2024 records do not show the BCCI as a recognized sports federation, any sports organization which wishes to obtain recognition as a National Sports Body may apply to the NSB pursuant to the provisions of the Act and regulations framed thereunder.
Accordingly, if the BCCI requires an NOC from the NSB, unless specifically exempted by the NSB, the BCCI may be classified as a “public authority” under the RTI Act and may be subject to the provisions of the RTI Act.
KEY TAKEAWAYS: BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES
Structural reform
Historically, sports governance in India has often been characterized by opaque structures, internal disputes, inconsistent leadership elections, and a lack of enforceable accountability. Such legacy features discouraged private investment, particularly in federations and governing bodies, where issues of recognition, dispute resolution, and commercial credibility were persistently uncertain.
The National Sports Policy 2025 (‘Khelo Bharat Niti – 2025’) (“NSP 2025”), as approved by the Union Cabinet on July 1, 2025, aims to promote the establishment of competitive leagues and competitions and develop sports infrastructure; build world-class systems for training, coaching and holistic athlete support; enhance the capacity and governance of NSFs; encourage the adoption of sports science, medicine and technology to boost athletic performance; and train sports personnel, including coaches, technical officials and support staff.
However, exclusivity provisions in broadcasting, sponsorship, and franchise agreements must be carefully structured in light of prior interventions made by the Competition Commission of India (“CCI”) in the context of cricket. The CCI may scrutinize exclusive contracts in other sports as well. Excessive territorial restrictions or similar clauses could be challenged.
Recognition
The creation of the NSB is likely to address ambiguities about whether a given body is recognized by the Government and capable of validly awarding rights. A single-window registry of recognized federations may significantly reduce counterparty risks and enable investors to conduct legal due diligence with greater certainty. In addition, the NSB’s powers to withdraw recognition or appoint administrators may create opportunities to professionalize federations further, restructure their commercial arms, and invite private capital into newly created or reorganized entities.
Potential corporatization
The NSP 2025 recognizes the economic potential of sports and seeks to promote sports tourism and attract major international events to India, as well as strengthen the sports manufacturing ecosystem and promote startups and entrepreneurship in such sector. The NSP 2025 also seeks to encourage private sector participation through public-private partnerships (“PPPs”), corporate social responsibility (CSR), and innovative funding initiatives. In this regard, the NSP 2025 aims to develop policies and schemes to encourage extensive and sustainable private sector participation in sports development activities, including pursuant to bespoke incentives with respect to returns on investment.
Given that recognized sports organizations which receive financial assistance from the Government or state governments will be subject to RTI obligations, sports organizations could consider whether commercial activities could be housed in separate corporate entities, leaving governance functions with the NSF (whether it is in the form of a society, a Section 8 company or a trust). Such structural demarcation may ensure role clarity and alleviate disclosure risks. Accordingly, National Sports Bodies may seek to separate their regulatory and commercial functions, including through the involvement of affiliate units/entities which can serve as their commercial arms, into which private investors can acquire equity. While such affiliate units of National Sports Bodies need to be registered with the NSB, subject to prescribed conditions and procedures, they may hold rights relating to broadcasting, merchandising, data licensing, and sponsorship. Meanwhile, the Act’s governance oversight ensures that federations remain credible partners, while investors can avail of the protections of a corporate structure. In such a structure, the sports organizations will need to install structural safeguards to ensure that the governance activities of the sports organizations are not affected or influenced by the non-governance commercial activities of such affiliate units/entities.
While the approach above is not specifically contemplated or restricted under the Act, this approach may be discussed with the NSB and the Government, as it provides a unique opportunity to the sports organizations to encourage participation from the private sector (including foreign investors).
While franchised leagues remain the most visible commercial vehicles in Indian sports, disputes over recognition, exclusivity, and federation control may impact investments. With the Act introducing statutory governance and dispute resolution, investors may enter into franchise acquisitions with greater confidence, along with the creation of new teams and leagues. Enhanced governance is likely to facilitate PE-led acquisitions of league franchises, consolidation of existing regional/state/city teams, and the growth of local clubs within professional ownership and management structures.
Exploring public-private partnerships in sports infrastructure
PPPs in stadiums, multipurpose arenas, premium venues, and high-performance training centers could be viable business opportunities, where investors may structure long-term concession and operations-and-maintenance agreements with stable rights allocations. Infrastructure PPPs, sports technology platforms, and athlete management ventures are likely to present attractive prospects in terms of long-term commercial arrangements. There is also scope for venue ownership platforms that generate diversified revenue streams across sports events, concerts, conferences, and retail. Some of these have also been highlighted as part of the strategic framework in the NSP 2025.
Data monetization
Another significant commercial impact of the Act may be in the broadcasting and data monetization segments. Despite recent growth, sports data, including real-time analytics, remains an underdeveloped asset class in India. Investors can now explore exclusive data collection and distribution rights, subject to athlete consent and compliance with safe sports policies. In this regard, we note that the NSP 2025 contemplates leveraging emerging technologies, including Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) and data analytics, for performance tracking, research, and program implementation.
Global best practices
Safe sports policies and codes of ethics could attract international sponsors, particularly global brands that demand strong compliance standards. Investors can explore opportunities in athlete management companies, image-rights SPVs, and multi-sport endorsement platforms. Mandatory safe sports and ethical compliance are likely to present more opportunities for major brands to associate with athletes and teams, reducing reputational risk. Investors can further build value by embedding compliance systems into their acquired assets.
Contractual arrangements
Transaction documents should include covenants requiring maintenance of recognition, adherence to safe sports policies and ethics codes, and compliance with election rules under the Act. Subject to regulatory development pursuant to the Act, contracts could be tailored to designate the NST as the primary dispute resolution forum, while carving out jurisdiction for the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) where required by international federations. With respect to change-in-law protection, contracts should contain provisions that address the possibility of international federation sanctions. Investors must allocate resources to antitrust compliance and structure agreements to withstand regulatory review.
Intersection with the promotion and regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025
By prohibiting real-money games (“RMGs”) and related advertising, the recently passed Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 (“Online Gaming Act”) is likely to lead fantasy sports and online gaming platforms to pivot towards adjacent business models that are legally compliant and commercially scalable. While the Online Gaming Act favors promotion of e-sports and social gaming subject to regulation, early signals suggest that existing/erstwhile RMG businesses are looking to diversify into, among other things, AI-driven sports analytics, fan-engagement technologies, e-sports broadcasting, and immersive digital platforms. The interaction between the two regimes, i.e., the Act and the Online Gaming Act, may prove significant: while the gaming legislation narrows the field of permissible monetization models, the Act enlarges the scope of legitimate opportunities in mainstream sports and e-sports, thereby creating a path for gaming companies to migrate into adjacent business verticals.
For investors, the convergence of the two new laws opens a dual-track opportunity. On the one hand, gaming companies may be encouraged to redeploy capital into non-RMG sports ventures – such as AI-powered scouting, fan-data platforms, or virtual league ecosystems – that fall within permissible limits of the Online Gaming Act’s regulatory framework. On the other hand, sports federations and leagues, pursuant to restructuring under the Act, may be under pressure to professionalize their commercial operations, including with respect to media rights, data licensing, and athlete-fan engagement, all of which can benefit directly from the technological capabilities and user bases that former RMG operators have. Possible outcomes include strategic partnerships, M&A transactions, and joint ventures (“JVs”) between ex-RMG platforms and units/affiliates of sports entities recognized by the Act (in the manner discussed in the section “Potential corporatization” above).
For instance, a JV may involve an ex-RMG operator that contributes AI-based technology, user-engagement platforms, and distribution capability, while a sports federation’s commercial SPV can provide exclusive non-core commercial rights (merchandising, fan engagement, ticketing, non-betting virtual competitions, etc.). As a whole, such JV can operate fan-engagement products, AI-driven analytics services to broadcasters, and non-money fantasy or simulation tournaments (which should be vetted to avoid RMG triggers). As a result of such collaborations, a federation could acquire product and distribution expertise while preserving its statutory/regulatory role, while an ex-RMG operator may redeploy users and technology into bankable commercial channels aligned with the Act.
Further, an ex-RMG platform or an AI SPV could license real-time analytics, player-performance models, and predictive tools to broadcasters, leagues, and clubs under multi-year licensing agreements with a revenue share on monetization (e.g., through advertisements, premium data feeds). In addition, a data-driven SPV may seek to aggregate match/event telemetry, fan engagement logs, and athlete metrics subject to consent. The SPV could then sell such commercially valuable information to sponsors, broadcasters, and analytics houses, along with structured subscription and enterprise licences. Such data aggregation models are likely to create securitizable assets (as well as predictable business-to-business (B2B) revenue) that lenders may be willing to finance and investors willing to support.
1. Zee Telefilms Ltd v. Union of India, (2005) 4 SCC 649.