New Delhi: The cabinet has not cleared the new Sports Bill, which is meant to increase considerably the transparency of all sports bodies, including the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI). Sports Minister Ajay Maken has been asked to revise the bill.
At least five of the ministers present at the cabinet review today have a conflict of interest because they head sports bodies. They include Vilasrao Deshmukh, Sharad Pawar, Praful Patel, Farooq Abdullah, and CP Joshi. Concerns voiced reportedly centred upon whether the Bill would impinge too far upon the autonomy of sports bodies.
Sharad Pawar, a former president of the BCCI and the present International Cricket Council (ICC) chief admitted to the conflict of interest and questioned government interference. Infact, Mr Pawar reportedly threatened to take the matter up with UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi, if the cabinet approved the bill.
Virbhadra Singh objected to 70 year age limit of sports heads. Farooq Abdullah, who is also the Jammu and Kashmir Cricket Association chief, also objected to age limit for federation heads, and said, "By this yardstick, I shouldn't be a Cabinet Minister."
Union Minister of Rural Development and head of the Rajasthan Cricket Association, CP Joshi questioned the election process for sports body heads.
Objections from a purely political standpoint were raised by Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee and Telecom Minister Kapil Sibal, who said it's not the right time for the Bill, while Urban Development Minister Kamal Nath questioned how the government will monitor so many sports federations.
The bill's headline lay its attempt to increase the financial accountability of the BCCI, one of the richest sports organizations in the world. To enable that, the Sports Ministry wanted the Right to Information (RTI) Act to apply to the BCCI, allowing the public to request financial and other details of the cricket board.
This morning, Mr Maken said he wanted the National Sports Development Bill 2011 to be introduced in Parliament during this current session which ends on September 8. That is no longer possible. "We need reforms in sports, which we hope the National Sports Bill will bring. I am hopeful that the Parliament will be unanimous on this Bill," he had said.
In addition to its firm stand on the BCCI, the bill wanted administrators of all sports bodies to be 70 or younger; it introduced a limit of two terms for all sports administrators. Features like these have met with stiff resistance in the past by sports federations who are often headed by politicians cutting across party lines. More than 50% of the country's cricket associations are led by politicians.
India has close to 40 sports federations like the Athletic Federation of India and All India Football Federation, as well as the Indian Olympic Association and the BCCI. While the BCCI is an autonomous body, the IOA is the body responsible for selecting athletes to represent India at the Olympic Games, Asian Games and other international athletic meets and for managing the Indian teams at the events.
The BCCI has objected in the past to regulation on the grounds that it is not funded by the government. However, various aspects of the T20 domestic IPL tournament, organised by the BCCI, are being investigated for violations of foreign exchange laws and for tax evasion. A parliamentary committee is also reviewing the IPL's books.
The need for better scrutiny of sports bodies was highlighted rather unsubtly by the graft-drenched Commonwealth Games, organized by a committee headed by Congress MP Suresh Kalmadi. He is now in jail, along with some key aides. Mr Kalmadi and others have been accused of signing up companies who provided the most expensive quotes for their services, rather than the cheapest ones. Massive kickbacks were allegedly involved.
At least five of the ministers present at the cabinet review today have a conflict of interest because they head sports bodies. They include Vilasrao Deshmukh, Sharad Pawar, Praful Patel, Farooq Abdullah, and CP Joshi. Concerns voiced reportedly centred upon whether the Bill would impinge too far upon the autonomy of sports bodies.
Sharad Pawar, a former president of the BCCI and the present International Cricket Council (ICC) chief admitted to the conflict of interest and questioned government interference. Infact, Mr Pawar reportedly threatened to take the matter up with UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi, if the cabinet approved the bill.
Virbhadra Singh objected to 70 year age limit of sports heads. Farooq Abdullah, who is also the Jammu and Kashmir Cricket Association chief, also objected to age limit for federation heads, and said, "By this yardstick, I shouldn't be a Cabinet Minister."
Union Minister of Rural Development and head of the Rajasthan Cricket Association, CP Joshi questioned the election process for sports body heads.
Objections from a purely political standpoint were raised by Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee and Telecom Minister Kapil Sibal, who said it's not the right time for the Bill, while Urban Development Minister Kamal Nath questioned how the government will monitor so many sports federations.
The bill's headline lay its attempt to increase the financial accountability of the BCCI, one of the richest sports organizations in the world. To enable that, the Sports Ministry wanted the Right to Information (RTI) Act to apply to the BCCI, allowing the public to request financial and other details of the cricket board.
This morning, Mr Maken said he wanted the National Sports Development Bill 2011 to be introduced in Parliament during this current session which ends on September 8. That is no longer possible. "We need reforms in sports, which we hope the National Sports Bill will bring. I am hopeful that the Parliament will be unanimous on this Bill," he had said.
In addition to its firm stand on the BCCI, the bill wanted administrators of all sports bodies to be 70 or younger; it introduced a limit of two terms for all sports administrators. Features like these have met with stiff resistance in the past by sports federations who are often headed by politicians cutting across party lines. More than 50% of the country's cricket associations are led by politicians.
India has close to 40 sports federations like the Athletic Federation of India and All India Football Federation, as well as the Indian Olympic Association and the BCCI. While the BCCI is an autonomous body, the IOA is the body responsible for selecting athletes to represent India at the Olympic Games, Asian Games and other international athletic meets and for managing the Indian teams at the events.
The BCCI has objected in the past to regulation on the grounds that it is not funded by the government. However, various aspects of the T20 domestic IPL tournament, organised by the BCCI, are being investigated for violations of foreign exchange laws and for tax evasion. A parliamentary committee is also reviewing the IPL's books.
The need for better scrutiny of sports bodies was highlighted rather unsubtly by the graft-drenched Commonwealth Games, organized by a committee headed by Congress MP Suresh Kalmadi. He is now in jail, along with some key aides. Mr Kalmadi and others have been accused of signing up companies who provided the most expensive quotes for their services, rather than the cheapest ones. Massive kickbacks were allegedly involved.
No comments:
Post a Comment