PT Usha, the president of the Indian Olympic Association (IOA), has refuted claims made by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India that accused her of showing favoritism towards Reliance Industries Limited (RIL). She rejected these allegations, asserting that her decisions were made with full transparency and integrity. In a detailed 61-page reply dated October 8, Usha responded to the CAG’s claim that the IOA suffered a loss of Rs 24 crore due to a faulty agreement with RIL, which allegedly gave the company undue benefits. The controversy surrounds a Rs 35 crore contract signed between the IOA and RIL to set up a hospitality lounge for the upcoming Paris Olympics.
Usha, a renowned athlete, rejected the CAG’s conclusions, stating that the assumptions made by the auditors’ assumptions were incorrect. She further pointed out that the issues resulted from decisions made by the previous IOA administration, which she described as flawed. She has urged the auditors to resolve the matter amicably.
Her reply includes a copy of the original contract signed in 2022, as well as internal communications between the International Olympic Committee (IOC), the IOA, and RIL regarding the renegotiation of the deal.
Inside the India House Deal
In July 2022, the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) opened bidding to create a special hospitality lounge, called India House, for the Paris Games. This lounge aimed to serve as a platform to promote India’s bid for hosting the 2036 Olympics. According to documents shared by Usha in her response, the contract was awarded to Reliance Industries.
The agreement, finalized in July 2022 and signed by then-Secretary General Rajiv Mehta, outlined that Reliance would invest ₹35 crore over six years (2022–2028) in installments. In exchange, Reliance received exclusive naming rights to India House and was designated as the IOA’s principal sponsor for the duration of the contract.
The IOC’s Perspective
In June 2023, Usha referenced an email stating, “No NOC (National Olympic Committee) sponsor branding can be visible from the outside of your NOC House.” She included this communication as evidence in her response. The IOC’s rule conflicted with the agreement granting Reliance exclusive naming rights for India House.
As a result, on September 7, 2023, Siddharth Shanker, Vice-President of Reliance Foundation Sports, suggested amending the deal. In an email, he proposed cutting the total rights fee by 50%, reducing the contract’s value from ₹35 crore to ₹17.5 crore. Additionally, Shanker recommended revising the revenue-sharing model for India House and including the 2026 and 2030 Summer Youth Olympic Games in the agreement, positioning Reliance as a Principal Partner during these events.
The email further highlighted that additional sponsors for India House would automatically gain the title of “Associate Sponsor of IOA” in addition to their India House sponsorship benefits. Essentially, companies sponsoring India House would also become official IOA Associate Sponsors.
Usha expressed serious concern over these proposed renegotiation terms by Reliance. She convened a meeting on September 20, 2023, involving Reliance representatives and Rohit Rajpal, Chairman of the IOA’s Sponsorship Committee, at Olympic Bhavan in New Delhi.
Negotiations ensued over the next month, and according to an email exchange, by October 20, 2023, it was agreed that there would be no reduction in the rights fee. This allowed the IOA to maintain the contract’s value. Usha confirmed that the deal was preserved under these revised terms.
Per the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) documents, the sponsorship agreement was updated to make Reliance the IOA’s principal partner for the 2026 and 2030 Youth and Winter Olympics. The amended contract was officially signed in December 2023.
Audit Report Concerns
On September 12, 2024, the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) issued a memo to the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) highlighting concerns over alleged undue advantages extended to Reliance Industries Limited (RIL).
The audit flagged potential financial losses, estimating that the IOA missed out on ₹24 crore. This figure was derived based on an expected revenue of ₹6 crore per event, which included sponsorships for youth and winter games, alongside major global events like the Commonwealth Games, Asian Games, and Olympics in Paris and Los Angeles.
Additionally, the CAG raised concerns about the revenue-sharing agreement in the amended deal. Reliance pledged to share any extra income generated from the India House project but only after recovering its investment in constructing the hospitality lounge.
The auditors posed specific questions to Usha, requesting details about the involvement of companies in the 2024 Olympics through additional rights revenue managed by Reliance Industries Limited (RIL). They asked for copies of agreements signed between RIL and these companies to assess the financial transactions.
Additionally, the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) sought related documentation, including relevant files and a copy of RIL’s financial accounts. This was intended to ensure transparency and evaluate compliance with the terms of the sponsorship agreements.
Usha’s Justification
In her response dated October 8, Usha presented her perspective, emphasizing that the Youth and Winter Olympics, unlike the Commonwealth Games (CWG), Asian Games, and Olympics, do not garner significant public or media attention. She highlighted that these events also feature smaller contingents and lower chances of medal wins compared to larger international competitions.
Usha pointed out that the CAG’s calculations, assuming each of the six events would generate a uniform Rs 6 crore revenue for the IOA, were flawed. She explained that this assumption did not align with the reality of interest and engagement levels for these events.
Usha also pointed out the flaws in the previous administration’s handling of the India House tender process, criticizing their lack of clarity and oversight. She argued that this mismanagement impacted the agreements that followed. She described it as flawed for not clarifying that naming rights granted to a sponsor would need to comply with International Olympic Committee (IOC) guidelines. This omission, she argued, created complications in the contract’s execution.Her Concluding Remarks: “In light of the above explanation, I request the closure of the half margin matter.”
