The P.T. Usha story: An IOA president under siege in a divided house

To call the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) a divided house would be, under the current circumstances, an understatement.

It’s boiled down to a frank war between sprint legend P.T. Usha, its president, and virtually the entire top brass in the Executive Council, all over a number of festering issues — the biggest headline-grabber being the appointment of CEO Raghuram Iyer.   

Every other day, charges are being traded between both parties thick and fast, while Big Brother — the International Olympic Committee (IOC) — waits and watches. The disturbing developments are not really doing India any favours in its bid to be seen as an emerging sporting superpower — or its claims to hosting the 2036 Summer Olympics.

The past week or so has seen the crisis reach a flashpoint per a leaked video of an EC meeting that shows IOA treasurer Sahdev Yadav launching into a verbal tirade against Usha in the chair (after the president rejected their appeal to remove Iyer as CEO).

The dissenting group in the EC feel that the IOA should re-advertise for the CEO’s position, as the present incumbent draws an exorbitant salary (a consolidated package of approximately Rs 20 lakh per month), while Usha’s argument is the appointment was done with due diligence and hence irreversible.

Escalation to the IOC

A dissenting group of 12 EC members, the entire top brass — including distinguished Olympians such as shooter Gagan Narang, archer Dola Banerjee, wrestler Yogeshwar Dutt, AIFF president Kalyan Chaubey (a joint secretary who had filled in as interim CEO last year) — having dashed off a mail to senior IOC official Jerome Polvey, accusing Usha of running the IOA in an ‘autocratic’ manner.

The letter was duly shared with the media; but the IOC, replying to a query from the Hindustan Times, lobbed the ball firmly back into the IOA’s court, simply calling on it resolve its internal differences at the soonest.

In the latest round of emails that has followed, Usha has alleged that the EC members have failed to take a call on the felicitation of the medal-winners from the Paris Olympics and the Paralympics. The athletes were also supposed to be handed their cash awards as this ceremony, per the IOA's commitments.

Treasurer Yadav replied to the charges on Tuesday, 1 October, saying that the president had been spreading “blatant lies” to project other IOA members in a poor light.

While the ongoing fiasco may provide juicy fodder for the media, it has left the athletes in a limbo. The felicitation, according to insiders of the IOA, is a significant duty to be discharged by the parent body as the prize money is of immense importance to some of the athletes — especially on the Paralympics side — besides being part of its obligations to commercial partners.

What has been particularly embarrassing for the IOA is that the ministry of sports and youth affairs and the Reliance Group, as sponsor, have already done their bit.

The narrative of Usha — beyond doubt the greatest female athlete the country has ever produced — being cornered in a fight with the top brass is certainly unfortunate. However, it is fast turning into a he said/she said.

While the appointment of Iyer as CEO last January proved to be a tipping point, there had already been instances in the past when Usha and Chaubey (then the interim CEO) were not in  sync on a number of key decisions.

While the IOA president was against sending the national football team to the Hangzhou Asian Games last year, as they did not meet the selection criterion, Choubey lobbied hard to send Sunil Chettri & Co. at the last minute — ostensibly to score brownie points in his fraternity. An ill-prepared, hastily cobbled-together Indian team failed to acquit itself favourably there, despite making it to the second round.

The spat between the IOA president and the then interim CEO was out in the open by the time the appointment of a full-time CEO became the next bone of contention. Informed sources in the IOA confide that the nomination committee — which includes Usha, Nita Ambani (the IOC member from India) and EC member Mary Kom — was part of the board that selected Iyer after two rounds of interviews and a hard negotiation on remuneration.

Yet now there are rumours that Iyer, a seasoned name in sports governance and a former CEO of an IPL franchise, is yet to receive his salary for the last few months.

Meanwhile, if cash flow is an issue, the day-to-day operations of the IOA can be expected to hit further roadblocks ahead, as it needs to start planning for the 2026 Asian Games and Los Angeles 2028 as well.

As things stand now, the mutual distrust and acrimony has reached the point where it may be untenable for Usha to continue as its president.

However, as a democratically elected candidate — with full support from the BJP government — Usha still has more than two years of her tenure left, on paper. As a Rajya Sabha MP nominated by the BJP, she also has the collective ear of the powers-that-be.

Then again, any interference from an outside body — including the government of India — can only be counterproductive of her image and the IOA‘s, as far as the IOC is concerned.

Pardon the cliché, but better sense has to prevail sooner than later. It will be interesting to see who blinks first!