The infighting in the IOA has prompted the International Olympic Committee to withhold the Indian body’s share of the Olympic Solidarity grants meant for athlete development programmes, triggering a fresh war of words between its embattled president PT Usha and treasurer Sahdev Yadav.
The IOC took the decision in its Executive Board meeting on October 8 and communicated it to the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) in a letter on Friday.
“There are obvious ongoing internal disputes and governance issues facing the IOA, including a number of reciprocal allegations which have been raised within the Executive Council,” said the letter sent to Usha and Executive Council members by James MacLeod, NOC Relations and Olympic Solidarity Director.
“This situation creates a lot of uncertainty and needs clarification and therefore, until further notice, the IOC and Olympic Solidarity will not make any payments to the IOA, except for direct payments to athletes benefiting from Olympic scholarships.”
Olympic Solidarity provides assistance to all National Olympic Committees (NOCs) a share of the broadcast rights from the Olympic Games which is to be used for athlete development programmes.
Through Olympic Solidarity, athletes can benefit from scholarships, which allocate subsidies, enabling them to train and qualify for the Olympic Games.
The IOC said it has taken note of the latest communication sent to it by various parties relating to the “unfortunate situation” in the IOA.
“As you know, the IOC has deployed intense efforts over the past few months to help you collectively find constructive solutions to address the daily functioning of the IOA and work together as a team but, unfortunately, these numerous attempts have been unsuccessful so far.
“Once again, we urge all concerned parties to act quickly and responsibly to remedy all outstanding governance issues in accordance with the IOA Constitution and the Olympic Charter.”
The IOA issued a press release, laying the blame for the IOC’s decision on Sahdev Yadav, accusing him of failing to file the necessary annual financial reports to the international parent body.
“The IOA is deeply concerned over the severe financial repercussions caused by the failure of the IOA Treasurer to file the necessary annual financial reports, despite repeated reminders from the IOC,” the press release said.
“This negligence will result in the IOA losing out on critical Olympic Solidarity grants for the past few years, dealing a major blow to the IOA’s efforts to support Indian athletes.
“This lapse shall significantly impact the IOA’s ability to provide the necessary financial support to Indian athletes, threatening their preparation and performance for upcoming international competitions,” it added.
According to an IOA official, the national apex sports body got ₹8.50 crore annually in the last four years from the Olympic Solidarity fund.
“For the coming two years, we have to submit the annual financial reports to the IOC first and then see whether we get the funds or not,” the official told PTI.
The IOA press release also said that the IOC Executive Board also “specifically noted the persistent obstruction to the ratification of the CEO’s appointment, an action which has hindered the IOA’s ability to function effectively”.
The ongoing internal feud between Usha and 12 Executive Council members over the appointment of Raghuram Iyer as CEO has led to the summoning of a Special General Body meeting of the IOA on October 25.
Usha had said that Iyer’s appointment was approved by the EC in a meeting on January 5, while his salary was the only issue left to be negotiated. The 12 EC members had refused to ratify Iyer’s appointment as CEO.
Usha had earlier also refuted Yadav’s claims in a CAG report that a faulty sponsorship agreement with Reliance India Limited (RIL) led to a loss of ₹24 crore to the IOA.
Usha had said due process was followed while redrafting the deal with RIL and the negotiation proposal was circulated to all the EC members.
In a rebuttal sent to Usha on Thursday, Yadav alleged that the “president has sold IOA’s assets i.e. Rights, without exploring alternative nor discussing with EC, a situation that can be seen as president’s office has been compromised’.”
“…you chose to singularly and personally agree to the terms of amended agreement and put your signature before the approval of the Executive Council as required under IOA Constitution,” Sahdev wrote.
