IOC withholds Olympic Solidarity fund intended for IOA due to internal dispute | More sports news

NEW DELHI: Infighting within the IOA has prompted the International Olympic Committee to retain the share of the Indian body in Olympic Solidarity Grants aimed at athlete development programs, sparking a new war of words between its embattled president PT Usha and its treasurer Sahdev Yadav.
The IOC took the decision at its executive board meeting on October 8 and communicated it to the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) in a letter on Friday.
“There are clear internal conflicts and governance issues facing the IOA, including a number of reciprocal allegations that have been raised within the executive council,” said the letter sent to Usha and council members executive by James MacLeod, Director of Relations with the NOCs and Olympic Solidarity. .
“This situation creates a lot of uncertainty and requires clarification and this is why, until further notice, the IOC and Olympic Solidarity will not make any payments to the IOA, with the exception of direct payments to athletes benefiting of Olympic scholarships.”
Olympic Solidarity provides all National Olympic Committees (NOCs) with a share of the Olympic Games broadcast rights to be used for athlete development programs.
Thanks to Olympic Solidarity, athletes can benefit from scholarships, which provide subsidies, allowing them to train and qualify for the Olympic Games.
The IOC said it had taken note of the latest communication sent to it by various parties regarding the “unfortunate situation” within the IOA.
“As you know, the IOC has made intense efforts over the past few months to help you collectively find constructive solutions to address the day-to-day running of the IOA and work together as a team but, unfortunately, these numerous attempts have failed. ‘now failed.
“Once again, we urge all parties involved to act quickly and responsibly to address all outstanding governance issues, in accordance with the IOA Constitution and the Olympic Charter.”
The IOA issued a press release blaming Sahdev Yadav for the IOC’s decision, accusing him of failing to submit necessary annual financial reports to the international governing body.
“The IOA is deeply concerned about the serious 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 significant Olympic Solidarity grants over the past few years, dealing a major blow to the IOA’s efforts to support Indian athletes.
“This disruption will have a significant impact on 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 peak sports body has received Rs 8.50 crore annually for the last four years from the Olympic Solidarity fund.
“For the next two years, we have to first submit the annual financial reports to the IOC and then see whether we get the funds or not,” the official told PTI.
The IOA press release also states that the IOC Executive Board “specifically noted the continued obstruction of the ratification of the CEO nomination, an action that has hampered the IOA’s ability to operate effectively.”
The ongoing internal feud between Usha and 12 members of the Executive Council over the appointment of Raghuram Iyer as CEO has led to the convening of a special meeting of the general body 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 also refuted Yadav’s claims in a CAG report that a flawed sponsorship deal with Reliance India Limited (RIL) had resulted in a loss of Rs 24 crore for the IOA.
Usha had said that due process was followed while redrafting the agreement with RIL and the negotiation proposal was circulated to all EC members.
In a rebuttal sent to Usha on Thursday, Yadav claimed that “the President sold the assets of IOA, i.e. rights, without exploring any alternative or discussing with the EC, a situation which can be considered as a compromise between the President’s office and the European Commission.
“…you have chosen to singularly and personally accept the terms of the amended agreement and put your signature before the approval of the Executive Council, as required by the IOA Constitution,” Sahdev wrote.