Earlier this month, the Athletic Federation of India (AFI) informed its players that they could no longer sign any commercial contract without them vetting the terms and conditions. Reliance Foundation Youth Sports, JSW Sports, ONGC Sports, GoSports Foundation and OGQ — entities that support and sponsor Indian athletes — were also made aware of the new order.
This development would rock the boat with regards to the support system availed by these sportspersons. The athletes and the institutes that manage their affairs are sceptical about the AFI’s intervention.
But there is more to the story. While on the face of it, this seems like a case of the federation trying to control its athletes, what cannot be overlooked was the need to streamline the system.
Of late, there has been a bidding war between private sponsors to sign up athletes. Coaches and agents have also often acted as mediators to strike personal deals. There have been instances of athletes getting stuck in complicated contracts with no exit clause. But even athletes face allegations of switching alliances on a whim and failing to honour commercial commitments.
While the AFI has clarified that they are “mindful of athletes’ welfare” and “does not want to come in the way of them making money”, Manisha Malhotra, president of the JSW-promoted Inspire Institute of Sport, says “there could have been a better way than putting out a diktat”.
“They (AFI) could have worked together with the athletes and the stakeholders. You cannot dictate terms like this because they (AFI) don’t employ these athletes. Athletes are not contracted with the AFI. Every federation in India wants leverage and control over athletes,” she said.
However, the AFI has its reasons to bring about the change. World Athletics vice-president and Federation spokesperson Adille Sumariwalla said the objective of vetting the contracts was to protect athletes as well as private sponsors.
“Ninety percent of Indian athletes don’t know how to read contracts. We are trying to safeguard athletes. There are cases of athletes not having an exit clause in the contract, while the sponsor had one,” Sumariwalla said.
He goes on to add that private sponsors have complained about their athletes being stolen by their rivals.
“These athletes move from one private sponsor to another too soon. Some coaches and those posing as agents are asking athletes to move because they want a cut from the sponsor. These people are sub-agents not recognised by World Athletics. If athletes move every three months… not even spending a whole season with a sponsor, private sponsors have a problem,” he says.
Another point of friction between athletes and private sponsors is stipends being suspended if an athlete is injured, according to Sumariwalla.
“If an athlete comes to us with a contract that states their stipend will stop in case of injury or that if you don’t perform you don’t get anything, our legal team can make the athlete understand what they are getting into. If the athlete still wants to go and sign, it’s okay,” he said.
Malhotra acknowledged that there is a race to sign up athletes.
“That is a definite problem across the board and not just in athletics. It’s like a bidding war. If there were enough high-quality athletes for everybody to support, this wouldn’t happen. There are, say, just two athletes of quality,” she says.
She also pinned the blame on athletes for frequently switching private sponsors.
“They do not necessarily go for a situation where their development or their well-being is really looked after. It has become monetary. The bidding war is like… ‘listen, will you allow my home coach to travel or will you allow my dad to travel with me?’ It has nothing to do with performance.”
