Not so long ago, had a leading Indian singles player and a leading Indian doubles player taken the All India Tennis Association (AITA) to court there would have been reports, discussions, follow-ups. In 2024, barely a blip on the radar.
The first hearing at the Delhi high court a couple of weeks back passed without notice: AITA handed over a sealed envelope with its election results, asking for it to be opened which the court denied. Both sides will have to file affidavits regarding the matter now; the case will be heard next on November 25.
Given the fact that Indian tennis has been reduced to a sporting sideshow, ignoring the case is easy. Except even with the wrestlers’ protests in the background, it is highly uncommon for Indian athletes, current or former, to take their federation to court over wider governance issues – like, as in the case of AITA, violations of the National Sports Code.
This is the third time in the last 35 years that players have taken on AITA. In 1992-93 after beating France in France on clay in the Davis Cup quarters, the players’ demand rose from unfair playing fees, leading AITA to call Ramesh Krishnan and Leander Paes “mercenaries”. In January 2013, 11 players boycotted a Davis Cup tie versus South Korea asking for better management of the team, inclusion of a physiotherapist and a coach, a revised prize money agreement and a say over venues and surfaces for home ties. The players were compared to ‘students complaining against their teachers’ and were told they would have to sign off on a ‘disciplinary code’. On both occasions AITA gave in but only after spectacular displays of organisational myopia.
This 2024 pushback by two Davis Cuppers, former Asian Games singles champion Somdev Devvarman and ATP doubles title winner Purav Raja is far more elemental. It goes straight to the point – AITA’s modus operandi, its possessiveness over power which has led to what is called Indian tennis’ ‘cancer’: random selections and appointments around office-bearers, committee members, selectors, travelling support staff for teams.
It was commonplace but ignored at the junior levels. The domino effect of such executive choices found their way to the top of the Indian game last month. With the chaos and ignominy of an away Davis Cup tie in Sweden where India failed to win a single set.
There is no doubt that no matter how many hundred junior events are being held in India, our standing in global tennis has shrunk into irrelevance. From the only Asian nation to make three Davis Cup finals to postscripts, most joy derived from doubles success.
As Vijay Amritraj said, “no kids picked up a tennis racket to play doubles, you play for singles”. At the moment India has one player in the top 250 in the ATP singles rankings (Sumit Nagal, 84), and our highest-ranked women’s singles player is Sahaja Yamalapalli at 284. This backsliding in an era where Indian athletes across other sports have made historic strides with funding and global expertise available from a variety of sources.
Whenever any sporting federation is questioned about its functioning, journalists are accused of “taking the players’ side”. A reminder: without players, there is no sport, no federation, no officials. God knows, Indian tennis boasts a basketful of divas but without them, there is no history, heritage or heart-stopping drama. No one ever switched on the TV to catch a glimpse of an AITA (or any other sports federation) official sitting on a sofa. Ignoring the players’ protests/complaints/concerns in order to protect federation feelings does the sport itself no favours. What sports bosses today struggle to accept is that exercising power through this ‘honorary’ business is increasingly untenable. The future will demand they establish a healthy partnership with their most valuable stakeholders.
For a while rumours were made to circulate that Devvarman and Raja would withdraw their case as a compromise had been reached. Indian tennis’ previous two player rebellions were focussed on the Davis Cup team. This one is the broadsword: about what AITA is meant to do with its resources and what it actually does.
AITA tried to delay proceedings over its election results suggesting the court take a decision only after waiting for the ‘new bill to come onto play’. That is particularly comic and not just the delaying tactic. If the new National Sports Governance Bill 2024 – currently only a draft – does ‘come into play’ AITA’s entire structure could be overturned.
The draft bill recommends four representatives elected by a mandatory Athletes Commission, which it is hoped at some point will not resemble IOA’s current dummy. It has a mandatory female vice-president amongst the office-bearers and 30 percent female representation on their Executive Committees. Plus a “salaried management professional with related experience” as CEO and hopefully not your third cousin’s interior decorator.
The Sports Governance 2024 bill also creates an independent Sports Regulatory Board of India (like SEBI is meant to be for the stock exchange), an Ethics Commission and an Appellate Sports Tribunal (AST) to fill the gap of a grievance redressal mechanism in Indian sport. The AST will have the powers of a civil court and transfer and divest the case load around federation governance away from the legal courts.
Had this structure been in place already, it is where Devvarman and Raja would have made their case. But before that, it is hoped the Sports Regulator could have ruled over whether allegations that AITA’s adherence to regulations is like most Indian sports federations – fast and loose.
The call for comments/suggestions from stakeholders and the public over the draft of the Sports Governance Bill closed on October 25. There is no telling in what form the Bill may emerge eventually. Age and tenure restrictions and composition of electoral colleges will no doubt be fought over. Whether BCCI gets included in the Bill, given that cricket returns to the Olympics in LA 2028, will be a sticking point.
The November 25 AITA hearing is a few days before the winter session of Parliament – where the draft Bill will be discussed – is scheduled to open. Whether the sealed envelope with AITA election results will be open in court or not is secondary. It is AITA’s functioning that should generate the most topical discussion over the next few months. Goodbye, blip on radar.
