Vinayak Padmadeo Even as the crisis over India hosting the Under-17 Women’s World Cup has been averted, there is trouble brewing for another Indian sports federation in relation to its international federation. Only 10 days ago, the International Hockey Federation (FIH) cleared all doubts about India’s hosting rights for the World Cup, to be held early next year. But now FIH has put a spanner in the works after seeing the draft constitution submitted by the Committee of Administrators (CoA) running Hockey India (HI). FIH CEO Thierry Weil has written a stinging email to HI’s three-member CoA, accusing them of misusing their trust – in other words, an overreach that now threatens to snowball into another embarrassment. Weil has already put in doubt the draw ceremony for the World Cup, which was to be held on September 8. “I have started to look at the attached draft, and I have to admit that I am surprised to see a number of changes you have done in the new constitution. I am not sure how we should take this, given the fact that you clearly committed to only make changes on the 3 points mentioned in the high court decision,” Well said in his mail. “This is clearly, miss using (sic) the trust we put in you during the meeting we had in Delhi, which was leading to a common press release and planning the draw the 8 of September which most probably have to be cancelled. I am not sure if all the changes you did are in accordance with the sports code of India? We urgently need to talk,” he added. The High Court judgment The Delhi High Court had in May this year removed the HI executive, saying some posts including that of Life President – which was ‘used’ by former Indian Olympic Association (IOA) president Narinder Batra to contest elections of IOA and FIH – was unconstitutional. Batra too was removed. The voting right given to HI CEO Elena Norman was also taken away. Subsequently, a CoA was appointed to run HI until fresh elections were held. The CoA – which included Justice (retd) Anil R Dave, former Chief Election Commissioner SY Quraishi and former India captain Zafar Iqbal – was asked to get the HI constitution aligned with the National Sports Development Code of India, and to prepare the electoral college for elections. However, it is understood the CoA has gone beyond the purview of the court ruling that asked it only to “assist in the preparation and adoption of the Constitution of R2 as per the Sports Code and court rulings”. It appears that some recommendations of the Lodha Committee – formed by the Supreme Court to reform the operations of the Indian cricket board (BCCI) – have been included in the draft constitution of HI. Incidentally, this was done by the CoAs for the Archery Association of India (AAI) and All-India Football Federation (AIFF). Quraishi was part of their CoAs as well. The Lodha Committee had brought in a number of changes in the working of the BCCI: one state, one vote; limiting the terms of office-bearers; barring politicians and government servants from the executive committee are some of the significant ones. COA over reach However, the inclusion of such terms the constitutions of other national sports federations — and further additions — is clearly being seen as overreach by the Supreme Court of India, as in the case of AAI. In their May 1, 2019, order, Justice AM Khanwilkar and Ajay Rastogi observed: “…indisputably, the additional amendments incorporated by the administrator have resulted in denial of right to represent in and contest elections of the AAI for existing members. ” The amended constitution had barred AAI’s state and member associations from electing a public servant as an officebearer. It also warranted election of archers to the executive, and directed that at least one among the two vice-presidents “shall be a woman archer”, and one among two joint secretaries and three executive members “would be an archer”. Further, it directed that 33 per cent of the executive committee “shall be archers”. However, the National Sports Development Code of India does not bar public servants from holding office of a sports federation. It also does not extend voting rights to associate members, including the Railways and Services. The May 1, 2019, order set aside the 2018 AAI election that was held as per ‘the Quraishi constitution’, and that had gone a long way in helping former IAS officer BVP Rao’s elevation as the new AAI president. The FIFA ban Now, the FIFA ban on AIFF, overturned on Friday. Football’s world governing body FIFA had objected to the new draft constitution that limited the voting rights of state associations — one vote to a state and one vote to an eminent football player from the state — and wanted immediate transfer of the day-to-day management of the association from CoA back to AIFF. FIFA banned AIFF due to ‘third party interference’ and announced that the country would not host the Women’s U-17 World Cup. The FIFA charter clearly states that member nations have “to manage their affairs independently and ensure that their own affairs are not influenced by any third parties”, and the member nation will also be reprimanded “even if the third-party influence was not the fault of the Member concerned”. Fearing embarrassment, the Sports Ministry filed a review petition with the Supreme Court, raising several objections to the new draft constitution prepared by the CoA. Following this, the Supreme Court modified its earlier order and accommodated all of FIFA’s objections. FIFA has revoked the ban and AIFF has been reinstated as a full member, paving the way for India hosting the U-17 Women’s World Cup. Where they go wrong After the archery association case, the AIFF was the second case in which the CoA saw all its recommendations getting overturned in the court of law that had appointed it in the first place. So where does the fault lie? As far as the cases go, most of the recommendations like the age and tenure limitations are meant to enhance the good governance principle and are not opposed by and large. But a few of the recommendations open a can of worms, like barring public servants or politicians from contesting elections in a sports association. In a democratic set-up, only convicted individuals can be barred from elections. Further, the NSDCI has no such clause. Then there is the contentious issue of ensuring a 2/3rds majority if an incumbent is standing for re-election for the post of president. Critics of this clause point out that even if someone wins by one solitary vote, the election should stand. Money power Sometimes, the stature of a country and its association in world sport and money power also play a role in a federation attracting a ban or a reprieve. The cases of AIFF and HI are perfect examples of world bodies enforcing their clauses in an arbitrary manner. FIFA, which has cash reserves of over $4 billion, banned AIFF as India is a minor player in football and FIFA gains hardly any revenue from India. FIH, on the other hand, despite firing a fresh salvo at HI, has not enforced its clauses in letter and spirit as much of its revenues comes from Indian sponsors. Odisha Tourism is one of the major sponsors of FIH. The state is also hosting its second successive World Cup. It is spending upward of Rs 1,000 crore for the 2023 event, which will be hosted in Rourkela and Bhubaneswar. If FIH enforces its clause that states that its member “must manage its affairs autonomously and without interference from bodies outside the Olympic Movement”, then the appointment of a CoA to run HI is clearly a breach. However, FIH looked the other way because India is a major source of revenues for it. Similarly, the International Cricket Council did not did not bat an eyelid even as a CoA ran BCCI for 33 months – India’s contribution to ICC’s revenues is gigantic. That’s the way the game is played in global sports. .