New Delhi: The Indian Olympic Association’s (IOA) controversial sponsorship agreement with Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) termed ‘faulty’ and called out for handing ‘undue favours’ to the RIL by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), has become a major bone of contention between president PT Usha and the IOA Executive Council members.
A CAG report of September 12 observed that IOA’s sponsorship agreement with RIL has caused IOA a loss to the tune of ₹24 crore by giving additional rights of four more Games (Winter Olympics 2026, 2030 and Youth Olympic Games 2026, 2030) at the same cost.
As per the initial agreement, RIL was made principal partner till 2028 for ₹35 crore– for Asian Games (2022, 2026), Commonwealth Games (2024, 2028) and Olympics (2024 Paris and 2028 Los Angeles). Hindustan Times first reported about the adverse observations made in the CAG report.
As per the deal, RIL was to construct, showcase ‘India House’ – hospitality lounge – during these Games – which was done with much fanfare in Paris.
IOA treasurer Sahdev Yadav on Friday said that Executive Council members believe that the “potential value of such a deal would be considerably higher than what was proposed and agreed upon in the renegotiated agreement with RIL.”
“India has pitched to host the 2030 Youth Olympic Games, the sponsorship rights of which were given free to RIL by IOA, leading to a potential loss worth more than ₹100 crore, “ Yadav wrote to Usha.
“EC does not agree with the arm-twisting acts of Reliance i.e. to reduce the sponsorship amount,” Yadav further added.
Usha has said that EC members were part of the discussion while the deal was being renegotiated with RIL due to a issue with the ‘naming rights’
“The tenure of agreement was also extended from 2028 to 2030 without additional consideration to IOA.”
“The entire process of renegotiation having financial implications on IOA for a period till 2030 has never been discussed or put before EC members for their opinion or consent,” he said.
However, Yadav said even EC member and sponsorship committee chairman Rohit Rajpal had not given his consent as president Usha had said.
Usha fires back
An IOA statement, also released on Friday, held IOA treasurer Yadav responsible for IOC not releasing financial grants (Solidarity fund). However, Yadav said the financial reports are meant to be signed by the president, CEO and treasurer.
“How can I sign on reports when the appointment of CEO is not ratified? That would have meant going against the mandate of the executive council,” Yadav said.
Usha said the IOC executive board during its meeting on Oct 8, 2024 expressed grave concerns over the ongoing internal governance issues within the IOA. The IOC EB specifically noted the persistent obstruction to the ratification of the CEO’s appointment which has hindered IOA’s ability to function effectively.
