IOC stops funding due to IOA’s internal feud

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has stopped the Olympic Solidarity grants to the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) due to the ongoing power tussle within the Indian body.

James Macleod, NOC Relations and Olympic Solidarity Director, in an email correspondence has communicated that the funds — which are roughly Rs 8.5 crore annually — are being withheld.

“…We have carefully reviewed again the situation as presented to us. There are obvious ongoing internal disputes and governance issues facing the IOA, including a number of reciprocal allegations which have been raised with the executive council. This situation creates a lot of uncertainty and needs clarification and therefore, until further notice, the IOC and Olympic Solidarity will not make any payments to the IOA, except for direct payments to athletes benefiting from Olympic scholarships,” Macleod wrote on Friday.

“Once again, we urge all concerned parties to act quickly and responsibly to remedy all outstanding governance issues in accordance with the IOA Constitution and the Olympic Charter,” he added.

It has been widely reported that 12 executive board members have been opposing IOA chief PT Usha over the appointment of Raghuram Iyer as the body’s CEO. Now they want to bring a No Confidence Motion against her during the Special General Meeting (SGM), which is to be held on October 25.

Usha, through a statement, has put the blame for this latest fiasco on treasurer Sahdev Yadav.

“The Indian Olympic Association (IOA) is deeply concerned over the severe financial repercussions caused by the failure of the IOA Treasurer to file necessary annual financial reports, despite repeated reminders from the International Olympic Committee (IOC). This negligence will result in the IOA losing out critical Olympic Solidarity grants for the past few years, dealing a major blow to the IOA’s efforts to support Indian athletes,” the IOA said in a statement.

Yadav, though, has countered her saying that Usha is wrong to blame him in this issue. “The report had to be signed by three persons — the president, the treasurer and the CEO. When I saw the CEO’s (Iyer’s) signature there, I refused to sign it,” Yadav told The Tribune.

“When we are all opposing him as the CEO, there was no way I would sign the report as it would mean that the EC has ratified Iyer as the CEO. She is wrong to put the blame on me,” he added.