India's Olympics-sized ambitions need governance, institutional reforms

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has reiterated India’s intent to host the 2036 Olympic Games, building on the decision to stage the 2030 Commonwealth Games and the expansion of domestic platforms such as Khelo India to broaden athlete participation and exposure. The Budget data shows that Khelo India received a record ₹1,000 crore allocation in the 2025-26 Union Budget, as against ₹800 crore the previous year, within an overall ₹3,794.30 crore outlay for the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports. The government data further highlights the establishment of 1,045 Khelo India Centres (KICs) nationwide and structured support for 2,845 athletes through coaching, equipment, medical care, and stipends.

 

However, budgetary allocations alone cannot compensate for persistent institutional weaknesses. A 2025 task force led by India’s first individual Olympic gold medallist, Abhinav Bindra, has highlighted major governance shortcomings across national sports federations. These include poor accountability, staff shortages, and the absence of a trained, professional cadre of sports administrators, resulting in weak institutional continuity. The task force also found that training for sports administrators was fragmented and outdated, with limited emphasis on practical skills or regular upskilling. Programmes on sports education do not adequately prepare graduates for administrative roles or help them understand how bodies — national, state, and institutional — interact. As public investment rises and the scale of sporting activity expands, this gap between ambition and administrative capacity has become increasingly visible. Several sports bodies are also helmed by politicians, which makes little practical sense. 

 

Another critical weakness lies in the lack of structured pathways for athletes to move into governance roles after retirement. Despite their experience, most sportspersons remain unprepared for administrative positions due to the absence of targeted skilling, mentoring, and exposure to governance during their playing careers. This deprives institutions of valuable on-ground insights and weakens athlete-centric decision-making. These problems are further compounded by the limited use of digital tools and data analytics in sports governance and management. Structural imbalances continue to shape outcomes on the ground. Funding and performance remain uneven across states, with medal tallies at the Khelo India Youth Games concentrated among a few better-resourced regions. While the Khelo India centres have expanded geographically, gaps in coaching depth, integrating sports sciences, and comprehensive athlete-management systems persist.

 

Further, India’s own experience of hosting the 2010 Commonwealth Games offers a sobering lesson. Despite a strong haul of 101 medals, in terms of overall preparedness, the event was overshadowed by cost overruns, construction delays, and governance lapses, which damaged institutional credibility. The takeaway was clear: Hosting mega sporting events can boost infrastructure and the public interest, but without adequate institutional preparedness, the benefits are neither efficient nor enduring. As India looks ahead to 2036, the challenge extends beyond securing hosting rights or building world-class venues. Khelo India has succeeded in widening the base, and higher funding signals growing ambition. Translating the ambition into sustained global sporting credibility will require professionalised administration, stronger governance frameworks, clear athlete-to-administrator pathways, and a decisive shift towards data-driven decision-making. Without these reforms, India’s Olympic dream risks resting on fragile foundations rather than lasting institutional strength.