PT Usha’s Leadership Helps Reliance Gain at the Expense of the Government
PT Usha, an iconic Indian athlete and now the President of the Indian Olympic Association (IOA), finds herself embroiled in a major controversy. The recent Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) report highlighted a startling issue – an alleged loss of Rs. 24 crore to the IOA due to undue favors extended to the corporate giant Reliance Industries Limited (RIL). Instead of addressing the concerns over the IOA’s financial mismanagement, Usha has come to the defense of Reliance, raising questions about her priorities and motives.
This article dives deep into the controversy, criticizing PT Usha for acting more like a spokesperson for Mukesh and Nita Ambani, rather than a leader representing India’s sportspersons and Olympic athletes.
The CAG Report: An Alleged Rs. 24 Crore Loss
On September 12, 2024, the CAG released an audit report that painted a troubling picture. The report pointed out that the IOA, under a “faulty sponsorship agreement” with RIL, incurred an undue financial loss of Rs. 24 crore. The crux of the issue was the flawed Request for Proposal (RFP) issued by the previous IOA management, which granted RIL the naming rights for a National Olympic Committee (NOC) House during the 2024 Paris Olympics.
This seemingly simple arrangement spiraled into a bigger problem when the International Olympic Committee (IOC) released guidelines in June 2023 that prohibited sponsors from acquiring naming rights for NOC Houses. The IOA, bound by its agreement with RIL, was left scrambling. Usha now defends this agreement, explaining that the renegotiation with Reliance was inevitable to avoid further financial losses. However, the real question is: why was the IOA so quick to side with Reliance, and at whose expense?
PT Usha: The Spokesperson for Reliance?
Usha’s detailed response to the CAG report raises several eyebrows. In her letter, she emphasized that there was no financial loss to the IOA, claiming that the renegotiation with Reliance was necessary to “protect the original rights fee” of Rs. 35 crores for six major events. She argued that terminating the agreement would have resulted in a loss of Rs. 21 crore and no NOC House for India at the Paris Olympics.
However, Usha’s statements sound more like corporate defense than a genuine effort to protect the interests of Indian sportspersons or the government exchequer. By her own admission, the IOA had to accept a reduced rights fee of Rs. 17.5 crore from Reliance – clearly demonstrating that Reliance managed to pay less while still reaping the benefits of sponsorship. This raises the question: why was the IOA so accommodating toward Reliance?
Defending Reliance, Ignoring Sportspersons?
The most glaring aspect of Usha’s response is her repeated defense of Reliance. She carefully lays out how the flawed RFP from 2022 and the subsequent IOC guidelines left the IOA with no choice but to renegotiate terms with Reliance. Yet, there is no mention of how this controversy or the financial losses affect Indian athletes.
Throughout her career as an athlete, PT Usha has been hailed as a champion of Indian sports. But her role as IOA President seems to be shifting away from advocating for athletes and focusing more on protecting the interests of corporate sponsors. In her letter, Usha defends the renegotiated agreement by arguing that Reliance was granted additional events with less visibility (such as the Winter Olympics and Youth Olympic Games). This sounds like a justification aimed at securing profits for Reliance while ignoring the broader implications for the IOA and Indian athletes.
Allegations of Acting Without Knowledge of the IOA Executive Council
One of the key points in the CAG report comes from IOA Treasurer Sahdev Yadav, who alleged that PT Usha acted without the knowledge of the IOA Executive Council. This is a serious accusation, suggesting that Usha, instead of taking her fellow council members into confidence, acted unilaterally to protect Reliance’s interests.
In her defense, Usha claims that the renegotiation proposal was circulated among Executive Council members in September 2023 and forwarded by the acting CEO in October 2023. She also mentions that the addendum to the agreement was drafted under the guidance of sports lawyer Nandan Kamath. However, if Usha was truly transparent, why are key members like the treasurer raising concerns about a lack of consultation? It appears there is more to the story, and Usha’s actions may not have been as transparent as she claims.
The Curious Case of Nandan Kamath’s Termination
Usha’s letter further reveals that Nandan Kamath, a prominent sports lawyer, was involved in drafting the revised agreement with Reliance. However, shortly after this, the IOA’s finance committee and treasurer decided to terminate Kamath’s services. The timing of Kamath’s termination raises several questions. Why would the IOA suddenly terminate the services of a legal advisor right after a sensitive renegotiation with Reliance?
The timing seems suspicious, and it only adds to the narrative that Usha’s leadership is more concerned with corporate interests than ensuring a fair and transparent process within the IOA.
A Pattern of Corporate Favoritism
This controversy isn’t the first time PT Usha’s leadership has shown corporate favoritism. Since taking office, her actions have consistently aligned with the interests of powerful sponsors, particularly Reliance, while remaining silent on issues concerning Indian athletes. Whether it was her silence on the financial struggles of sportspersons or her defense of corporate deals, Usha has demonstrated a pattern of behavior that seems to favor Reliance and its wealthy owners, Mukesh and Nita Ambani.
In this instance, instead of standing up for the integrity of the IOA or the well-being of Indian athletes, Usha has been quick to justify the sponsorship deal with Reliance. It is clear that Reliance has managed to secure significant profits at the expense of the IOA and the government, thanks to Usha’s accommodating leadership.
Whose Interests Does PT Usha Represent?
The current controversy surrounding the CAG report and the Rs. 24 crore loss to the IOA has exposed PT Usha’s questionable priorities as IOA President. Instead of defending the interests of Indian athletes or ensuring transparency in IOA operations, she has acted as a spokesperson for Reliance, justifying a flawed sponsorship deal that directly benefited the Ambanis at the expense of public money.
It is high time that PT Usha, a sports legend who once inspired millions, takes a step back and rethinks her role as IOA President. Her leadership should focus on advancing Indian sports, not safeguarding corporate profits. If she continues down this path, her legacy may be tarnished, not as an advocate for sportspersons, but as a defender of corporate interests.
