The real reason Haryana wants its state-employed sportspersons to part with their pro fees

Editor’s note: Since the time this article was published, the Haryana government has put the order on hold.

The Haryana government sprung a surprise by issuing an order – which was revealed on Friday – asking those players employed with them or any state-controlled organisation to pay one-third of their income from professional sports or commercial endorsements to the State Sports Council for the development of the sport in the state.

The reactions from sportspersons were on expected lines with many criticising the government for bringing in such a rule. Some even went to the extent of saying that this will end the development of sport in the state.

Then, there were experts who described this as a tax on sportspersons by the state and that it would not stand the scrutiny of law.

(UPDATE: The notification has since been put on hold after expected criticism, but there is a good reason why this wasn’t as outrageous a decision as it was made to seem.)

But first, let’s understand the technicalities.

1. The gazetted circular is applicable for only those sportspersons who are employed with the state government or in organisations/corporations run by the state government.
2. Only if the player does not take leave then he/she will have to pay 100% of the money received. And this money is to be paid only if the earning is from professional events and commercial endorsements, and not from the earnings while representing the country.

Such a decision may not stand the popular scrutiny, but in the corporate world these rules are regularly implemented and followed. One needs to understand that the service rules of the government do not allow any person to engage in any commercial activity or take up another job.

And such clauses exist even in private organisations and international universities.

For example, if any scholar employed with a university undertakes any consultancy or goes for a lecture then he/she has to pay a certain amount of their earnings to the parent organisation.

Even in government organisations, when a person is deputed to another section or sent to work with the Union government, he/she can get only one salary.

In corporate organisations, one would not be allowed to undertake any work that will earn a second income for the employee, or the employer would have such clauses in the contract. In fact, there are such clauses even in media houses.

Pro leagues the reason?

So what has forced the Haryana government to come up with such a circular against popular thinking?

There is a general feeling in government departments across state and even Public Sector Undertakings that the sportspersons hardly respect the service rules and take benefit of their popularity to bend the rules to their benefit.

While other employees have to adhere to service rules and not undertake any other employment or contractual work, the emergence of professional leagues in India has meant that these players are currently holding dual jobs.

Haryana first faced this problem when Beijing Olympics bronze medallist Vijender Singh was issued a notice by Punjab and Haryana High Court asking him whether he had taken government’s permission before turning pro.

It was not a problem in the past where the players were only representing their employers or the country. But with the emergence of professional leagues, there are many legal issues that may crop up.

The interesting part is that most of these professional leagues, starting with the Indian Premier League, have their players’ contracts based on the National Basketball Association league system in the USA, where the player is an employee of the franchise. These contracts even have a clause that the players cannot take up any other employment or work without the permission of their franchise.

It was because of such a clause that the Services and Railways had objected to sending their players to the Pro Kabaddi in the first season as many players did not even take the permission of their employers before committing to the league.

It is learnt that even the PSUs who employ a lot of badminton, kabaddi and volleyball players have been seeking legal opinion on bringing in such clauses since the players do very little to promote their company while playing and their service rules do not permit them to participate in such leagues.

Not just that, most of the players have now started quitting soon after the end of their playing careers. Players often find opening coaching academies more lucrative than working for their employer, as they are anyway assured of retirement benefits by then.

Even the state governments, who ended up giving Class I jobs to sportspersons as part of their public relation exercise, have started facing problems from other employees who feel that the sportpersons get undue leeway as they can have multiple incomes without contributing to their respective departments in any way or form.

There have even been complaints about how sportspersons are running private academies during their work hours, while other employees have to cover from them.

If one was to jog their memories back to the start of the Mittal Champions Trust, which kick-started the private support to top Indian athletes back in 2005, there was a clause that asked the athletes to pay 15% of their endorsement earnings throughout their professional sporting career.

Many players had objected to the clause, which was ultimately removed but squash player Joshna Chinappa’s father Anjan had this to say to a DNA reporter then. “I see nothing wrong with it. How much do Joshna and Pankaj [Advani] earn in the form of endorsements? Even if Joshna has to keep paying 15% for the extent of her career, I don’t see her losing too much money. But at least we do not have to worry about getting her the right training.”

The government also provides this basic security to all the sportspersons and there is nothing wrong in the top athletes contributing back to the system.

In India, our sportspersons want the government to support all their training and other expenses like the Chinese model. But we tend to forget that in the Chinese system, the sports council almost takes half the prize money, and the commercial contracts are also dictated by the government.

A report in the New York Times in 2011 even explained how Li Na, who had quit the system and was playing on her own, had to pay 12% of her winnings to the Chinese government instead of the 65% normally required for those training and playing under the system.

While the draconian methods of the Chinese are pretty well known, sportspersons in India need to understand that being a professional athlete is like running a private business. If they want the benefits and security of the government job, then they should be contributing to the development of the system too.

Or, as one of the decision makers said, “They are always free to quit the job and keep all the money they earn.”