Earlier this month, the Athletic Federation of India (AFI) notified its athletes that any commercial agreements they wish to enter must first be approved by the federation. This directive also extended to organizations that support and sponsor Indian sportsmen, including Reliance Foundation Youth Sports, JSW Sports, ONGC Sports, GoSports Foundation, and OGQ.
This new regulation has raised concerns regarding the support framework available to athletes. Both the athletes and the organizations managing their careers have expressed skepticism toward the AFI’s oversight.
However, the situation is more complex than it appears. While it may seem that the federation is attempting to exert control over the athletes, it is essential to recognize the necessity of establishing a more organized system.
Recently, there has been intense competition among private sponsors to secure contracts with athletes. Coaches and agents have frequently acted as intermediaries in forging these personal agreements. There have been cases where athletes found themselves entangled in intricate contracts lacking exit clauses. Moreover, some athletes have faced accusations of making abrupt changes in sponsorships and not fulfilling their commercial obligations.
The AFI has stated that their intention is to prioritize the welfare of the athletes and that they do not wish to hinder their earning potential. Manisha Malhotra, president of the JSW-backed Inspire Institute of Sport, commented that there might have been more collaborative methods to address these issues rather than issuing a mandate.
“The AFI could have engaged in dialogue with the athletes and other stakeholders. They cannot impose such requirements since they do not employ these athletes. Each federation in India seeks some degree of leverage and control over their athletes,” she remarked.
Nonetheless, the AFI has its justifications for implementing this change. Adille Sumariwalla, vice-president of World Athletics and spokesperson for the federation, explained that the vetting of contracts aims to protect both the athletes and the sponsors involved.
“A significant number of Indian athletes lack the ability to comprehend contracts fully. Our goal is to safeguard their interests. We’ve seen instances where athletes are bound by contracts that do not allow for an exit, while sponsors have that option,” Sumariwalla noted.
He further elaborated that sponsors have expressed concerns about athletes being poached by competing brands.
“These athletes often switch from one sponsor to another without fulfilling a complete season. Some coaches and individuals posing as agents are encouraging these moves to gain a share of the sponsorship fees. These so-called agents are not recognized by World Athletics. If athletes change sponsors every few months, it creates problems for private sponsors,” he explained.
Another contentious issue involves stipends being discontinued when an athlete suffers an injury, according to Sumariwalla.
“If an athlete brings us a contract that states their stipend will cease in the event of an injury or if they fail to perform, our legal team can clarify the implications of such agreements. If the athlete still wishes to proceed with the signing, that is their choice,” he added.
Malhotra acknowledged that the competition to sign athletes is a widespread issue, not limited to athletics alone.
“This is a significant challenge across all sports. It resembles a bidding war. If there were an adequate number of high-caliber athletes available, this situation would not arise. There are, for instance, only a couple of top-tier athletes,” she stated.
She also criticized the athletes for their tendency to frequently change sponsors.
“They often prioritize financial incentives over their development or well-being. The bidding war has devolved into negotiations over trivial matters, such as whether their personal coach or family member can accompany them, rather than focusing on performance,” she remarked.
