A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF CAS AND NATIONAL SPORTS

ARBITRATION BODIES, FOCUSING ON THE IMPACT ON ATHLETES

CAREERS WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO TAMIL NADU REGION

AUTHOR
SHAHIN M
REGISTER NUMBER : 132302024
BBA.L.LB ( HONS )
SAVEETHA SCHOOL OF LAW
SAVEETHA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL AND TECHNICAL SCIENCE ( SIMATS )
CONTACT NO. :8438258445
EMAIL ID : [email protected]

CO AUTHOR

MRS. S P VIDYASSRI B.A., BL., LLM., (BUSINESS LAW)., PGDM.,

HR., MA., HRM., PHD LAW (PURSUING).,

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF LAW & HEAD

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS LAW

SAVEETHA SCHOOL OF LAW, SIMATS.

 A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF CAS AND NATIONAL SPORTS
ARBITRATION BODIES, FOCUSING ON THE IMPACT ON ATHLETES
CAREERS WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO TAMIL NADU REGION

ABSTRACT
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) is a globally recognized independent institution that
resolves legal disputes in sports through arbitration and mediation, often referred to as the
Supreme Court for sports. Established in 1984, CAS handles a wide range of cases, including
doping, contract disputes, and disciplinary actions, providing a neutral platform for athletes and
sports organizations worldwide. In contrast, national sports arbitration bodies operate within
individual countries, addressing sports-related disputes at the domestic level. The field of sports
arbitration plays a critical role in resolving disputes that impact athletes' careers, with the Court
of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) serving as the pinnacle of global sports arbitration. This study
provides a comparative analysis of CAS and national sports arbitration mechanisms, with a focus
on their impact on athletes' careers. The research aims to analyze the differences in legal
frameworks and processes between CAS and national arbitration bodies, assess the effectiveness
of these bodies in protecting athletes' rights and career interests, and explore the specific
challenges faced by athletes in Tamil Nadu in navigating these systems. This study will provide
insights into how these arbitration bodies shape athletes' careers, especially in regions where
local arbitration bodies may hold greater sway over athletes' professional lives.

KEYWORDS: Doping, Contract disputes, disciplinary action, Mediation, Arbitration

mechanisms.
INTRODUCTION

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) is an independent, international institution established
in 1984 by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to resolve sports-related disputes fairly,
efficiently, and consistently. CAS serves as a specialized forum distinct from regular courts,
addressing a wide range of issues from doping violations to contract disputes, making it a crucial
element in the governance of international sports. Operating under the International Council of
Arbitration for Sport (ICAS), CAS ensures transparency and impartiality in its arbitration
processes, with its headquarters in Lausanne, Switzerland, but with a global reach through
hearings conducted in various locations.

A key feature of CAS is its ability to provide expedited proceedings, which is vital in the fast-
paced world of sports where timely decisions are essential. For instance, during major sporting
events such as the Olympics or World Cup, CAS can issue rulings within 24 hours to prevent
disruptions in competitions. This capability highlights CAS's integral role in maintaining the
integrity and continuity of global sports, ensuring that athletes and teams are not unfairly
disadvantaged by delayed legal processes.

CAS’s jurisdiction is broad, covering disputes related to doping, match-fixing, eligibility, and
commercial issues like sponsorship agreements and broadcasting rights. The binding nature of its
decisions, which are recognized globally by sports organizations, further establishes CAS as the
final authority in sports law. Appeals against CAS decisions are rare and can only be made to the
Swiss Federal Tribunal on limited grounds, reinforcing the court’s role in providing definitive
and respected rulings that shape the sports world.

National sports arbitration bodies, which operate within individual countries, complement CAS
by resolving sports disputes at the domestic level. These bodies are structured to provide
independent and impartial arbitration, often mirroring CAS principles. They are essential for
handling cases that require specialized knowledge of sports law, offering swift and efficient
resolutions, particularly in time-sensitive situations like eligibility disputes before competitions.
The presence of these bodies ensures that athletes and sports organizations have access to a more
accessible and contextually relevant forum for resolving disputes.
The impact of national sports arbitration bodies on athletes is significant. They offer a less
intimidating and more specialized venue for dispute resolution compared to traditional courts,
with arbitrators who understand the unique challenges of the sports world. However, the
decisions made by these bodies can have far-reaching consequences, affecting an athlete's
reputation, career trajectory, and financial stability. Therefore, the fairness and transparency of
these processes are crucial in protecting athletes' rights and interests. As the global sports
industry continues to evolve, both CAS and national arbitration bodies will play increasingly
important roles in shaping sports law and ensuring justice within the sporting community.

OBJECTIVES

● To identify whether CAS offers more opportunities for athletes to appeal in decisions
than national sports arbitration bodies
● To examine the familiarity among the athletes about the cost and transparency of CAS
and national sports arbitration bodies
● To analyze whether National sports arbitration bodies resolve disputes more quickly than
CAS

LITERATURE REVIEW

Mitten, M.J. & Opie, H. (2010) Sports Law: Implications for the Court of Arbitration for Sport
(CAS) This review explores the legal implications of CAS decisions on athletes, focusing on
how the tribunal has shaped sports law and the careers of athletes globally. The authors discuss
landmark cases that have set precedents in sports law and the broader implications for athletes'
legal rights. Blackshaw, I.S. (2003) The Court of Arbitration for Sport: An International Forum
for Settling Disputes Effectively 'Within the Family of Sport Blackshaw provides an in-depth
analysis of CAS’s role in the global sports community, highlighting its impact on athletes'
careers through its dispute resolution processes. The review emphasizes CAS’s role in
maintaining fairness and consistency in sports arbitration. McLaren, R.H. (2001) The Court of
Arbitration for Sport: An Independent Arena for the World's Sports Disputes This article reviews
the independent nature of CAS and its influence on the careers of athletes, particularly through
its handling of doping cases. McLaren discusses how CAS’s decisions have directly affected
athletes’ reputations and career longevity. Gardiner, S., O’Leary, J., & Welch, R. (2006).
Sports Law: Arbitration and the Athlete’s Right to a Fair Hearing The review examines the legal
framework governing CAS and national sports arbitration bodies, focusing on the rights of
athletes to a fair hearing. It assesses how these legal structures impact athletes' ability to defend
their careers in disputes. Foster, K. (2005) Global Administrative Law: The View from CAS
Foster analyzes the role of CAS within the broader context of global administrative law,
exploring its impact on athletes’ careers by setting global standards in sports arbitration.
Mavromati, D. & Reeb, G. (2015) The Code of the Court of Arbitration for Sport:
Commentary, Cases, and Materials This comprehensive review of CAS’s code offers insights
into its procedural rules and how they influence athletes' careers. The authors discuss significant
cases and the implications of CAS’s rulings on the legal status of athletes. Matsuura, M. (2017).
International Arbitration of Sports Disputes: The Role of the CAS Matsuura reviews the role of
CAS in international sports disputes, with a focus on how its decisions affect athletes' careers,
particularly in Asia. The review highlights cultural differences in arbitration and their impact on
athletes. Rigozzi, A., Kaufmann-Kohler, G., & Malinverni, G.(2003) Doping and
Fundamental Rights of Athletes: Comments in the Wake of the Adoption of the World Anti-
Doping Code This review discusses the relationship between CAS decisions on doping and
athletes' fundamental rights, examining the direct effects on their careers. The authors critically
assess the balance between anti-doping efforts and athletes' career rights. Siekmann, R. & Soek,
J (2010) The European Legal Framework for Doping Disputes: The Role of the CAS and
National Sports Arbitration Bodies Siekmann and Soek analyze the legal frameworks within
Europe that govern doping disputes, with a particular focus on the role of CAS and national
bodies. The review considers the impact on athletes' careers and the consistency of rulings across
jurisdictions. Paulsson, J. (2009). The Power of the CAS: Effectiveness of Arbitration in
Protecting Athlete Careers Paulsson reviews the effectiveness of CAS in resolving disputes in a
way that protects athletes' careers. The review discusses the strengths and weaknesses of CAS in
maintaining fairness and supporting athletes’ professional livelihoods. Mazzucco, R. (2011)
Athletes and Arbitration: A Critical Analysis of the Impact of CAS Decisions on Professional
Career. This literature review critically examines how CAS decisions have influenced the careers
of professional athletes, particularly in high-profile cases. Morris, P. (2014). National Sports
Arbitration Bodies and Their Influence on Domestic Athletes’ Careers Morris explores the role
of national sports arbitration bodies in shaping the careers of domestic athletes. The review
focuses on how these bodies interact with CAS and the implications for athletes at the national
level. Viret, M. (2016). Evidence in Anti-Doping at the Intersection of Science and Law: How
CAS Jurisprudence Shapes Athletes' Careers. They Viret reviews the interplay between scientific
evidence and legal standards in anti-doping cases at CAS, assessing the impact on athletes'
careers. The review highlights how CAS’s handling of evidence influences career outcomes.
Bell, A (2017) The Role of National Sports Arbitration Bodies in Safeguarding Athletes' Rights:
A Comparative Study Bell’s review compares national sports arbitration bodies across various
countries, focusing on their effectiveness in safeguarding athletes' rights and careers. The study
highlights differences in legal protections for athletes. Lindholm, J.(2019). The CAS and Its
Jurisprudence: Balancing Fairness and Efficiency in Sports Disputes. This literature review
examines CAS jurisprudence with an emphasis on how it balances fairness and efficiency, and
the resulting impact on athletes’ careers. Lindholm discusses key cases where CAS decisions
were pivotal for athletes. Weston, M (2015) Athletes’ Rights and the CAS: The Evolution of
Sports Arbitration and Its Impact on Careers. Weston reviews the evolution of CAS and its role
in protecting athletes' rights, analyzing the impact of key rulings on athletes' careers. The review
highlights how CAS has adapted to the changing landscape of international sports. Duval, A
(2018) Sports Arbitration and the Shadow of the Law: How CAS Influences National Sports
Arbitration Bodies Duval’s review discusses how CAS decisions set precedents that influence
national sports arbitration bodies, impacting athletes’ careers at both international and national
levels. The review focuses on the trickle-down effect of CAS rulings. Romano, S. (2012) The
Jurisdiction of CAS: A Review of Its Authority and Impact on Athletes' Career Romano reviews
the jurisdictional authority of CAS and how its rulings affect the careers of athletes. The review
discusses the global reach of CAS decisions and their implications for athletes worldwide.
Meier, H.E (2013) National Sports Arbitration and Its Impact on Athletes' Rights: Case Studies
from India This review examines national sports arbitration in India, with a focus on its impact
on athletes’ rights and careers. Meier discusses specific cases from Tamil Nadu, highlighting the
challenges and outcomes for athletes. Reid, H (2020) CAS and Athlete Welfare: An Analysis of
How Arbitration Decisions Shape Careers and Well-being Reid’s review focuses on the impact
of CAS decisions on athlete welfare, particularly in terms of career trajectory and psychological
well-being. The review assesses how CAS handles cases with significant implications for
athletes' futures.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The research method followed is Empirical research. The data is collected through a
questionnaire and the sample size is 100. Convenience sampling method is adopted in the study
to collect the data. The samples were collected from a specific sample group consisting of
student athletes, coaches, and athletic directors with special reference to Tamilnadu region. The
independent variables are gender, age, educational qualification, role in sports and the sport .
The dependent variables are about the familiarity and awareness about the cost and transparency
of CAS and national sports arbitration bodies in disputes resolution. The researcher used graphs
to analyze the data collected.

ANALYSIS

FIGURE 1

LEGEND: The above graph shows the opportunity for athletes to appeal in decisions provided
by CAS and national arbitration bodies.

FIGURE 2
LEGEND: The above graph shows the costs associated with arbitration in CAS and national
sports arbitration bodies.

FIGURE 3

LEGEND: The above graph shows the CAS and national arbitration bodies about transparency
and straightforwardness.

FIGURE 4
LEGEND: The above graph shows the CAS and national arbitration bodies legitimacy in the
international sports community.

FIGURE 5

LEGEND: The above graph shows the disputes resolution by CAS and national arbitration
bodies.

FIGURE 6
LEGEND: The above graph shows the variability among the disputes resolution decisions
provided by CAS and national arbitration bodies.

FIGURE 7

LEGEND: The above graph shows the variability among the decision made by CAS and
national arbitration bodies with gender of the respondents

FIGURE 8
LEGEND: The above graph shows the variability with CAS transparency and national
arbitration bodies with education qualifications.

FIGURE 9

LEGEND: The above graph shows the variability with the cost associated with arbitration at
CAS and national arbitration bodies with role in sports of the respondents.

FIGURE 10
LEGEND: The above graph shows the variability among the opportunity for athletes to appeal
in decisions provided by CAS and national arbitration bodies with sport that respondents play.

INFERENTIAL ANALYSIS

Chi square 1 : Null Hypothesis: There is no association between the satisfaction with the costs
associated with arbitration at CAS are more affordable and reasonable for athletes compared to
national sports arbitration bodies and Age of the respondents.
Alternate Hypothesis: There is an association between the satisfaction with the costs associated
with arbitration at CAS are more affordable and reasonable for athletes compared to national
sports arbitration bodies and Age of the respondents.
Age * Are you satisfied with the costs associated with arbitration at CAS are more affordable and reasonable for athletes which is
compared to national sports arbitration bodies Crosstabulation

Count

Are you satisfied with the costs associated with arbitration at CAS are more affordable
and reasonable for athletes which is compared to national sports arbitration bodies

Not at all Slightly Moderately Completely

satisfied satisfied satisfied Very satisfied satisfied
Total
Age Below 20 years 21 1 0 0 1 23

21- 30 years 19 1 1 20 0 41

31 - 40 years 0 2 26 4 2 34

41 - 50 years 0 0 1 0 0 1
 Above 50 years 0 0 0 1 0 1

Total 40 4 28 25 3 100

INTERPRETATION : National bodies may offer more accessible appeal mechanisms than CAS
and CAS is generally perceived as more expensive than national arbitration bodies then
Respondents are divided on transparency and straightforwardness, with many favoring national
bodies.

Chi square 2 : Null Hypothesis: There is no association between the awareness that the
procedures of CAS are more transparent and straightforward than those of national sports
arbitration bodies and Education qualifications of the respondents.
Alternate Hypothesis: There is an association between the awareness that the procedures of CAS
are more transparent and straightforward than those of national sports arbitration bodies and
Education qualifications of the respondents.

Education Qualifications * Are you aware about the procedures of CAS are more transparent and straightforward
than those of national sports arbitration bodies. Crosstabulation

Count

Are you aware about the procedures of CAS are more transparent and
straightforward than those of national sports arbitration bodies.

Moderately
Not at all aware Slightly aware aware Very aware

Education Under 23 42 0 3
Qualifications graduates

Post graduates 0 20 1 3

No for 0 1 1 2
education

Total 23 63 2 8

INTERPRETATION : National bodies may offer more accessible appeal mechanisms than CAS
and CAS is generally perceived as more expensive than national arbitration bodies then
Respondents are divided on transparency and straightforwardness, with many favoring national
bodies.

Anova 1 : Null Hypothesis: There is no association between the satisfaction with the costs
associated with arbitration at CAS are more affordable and reasonable for athletes compared to
national sports arbitration bodies and Age of the respondents.
Alternate Hypothesis: There is an association between the satisfaction with the costs associated
with arbitration at CAS are more affordable and reasonable for athletes compared to national
sports arbitration bodies and Age of the respondents.

ANOVA

Are you satisfied with the costs associated with arbitration at CAS are more affordable and reasonable for athletes which is compared to
national sports arbitration bodies

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 76.050 2 38.025 38.080 .000
Within Groups 96.860 97 .999

Total 172.910 99

INTERPRETATION : National bodies may offer more accessible appeal mechanisms than CAS
and CAS is generally perceived as more expensive than national arbitration bodies then
Respondents are divided on transparency and straightforwardness, with many favoring national
bodies.

Anova 2 : Null Hypothesis: There is no association between familiarity with the discussion made
by CAS are perceived as more legitimate by the international sports community and Age of the
respondents.
Alternate Hypothesis: There is an association between the familiarity with the discussion made
by CAS are perceived as more legitimate by the international sports community and Age of the
respondents.
ANOVA

Are you familiar with the decisions made by CAS are perceived as more legitimate by the international sports community.

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 166.403 4 41.601 65.229 .000
Within Groups 60.587 95 .638

Total 226.990 99

INTERPRETATION : National bodies may offer more accessible appeal mechanisms than CAS
and CAS is generally perceived as more expensive than national arbitration bodies then
Respondents are divided on transparency and straightforwardness, with many favoring national
bodies.

Anova 3 : Null Hypothesis: There is no association between the national sport Arbitration bodies
that resolves disputes more quickly than CAS with the educational qualifications of the
respondents.
Alternate Hypothesis: There is an association between the national sport Arbitration bodies that
resolves disputes more quickly than CAS with the educational qualifications of the respondents.

ANOVA

National sports arbitration bodies resolve disputes more quickly than CAS.

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 30.202 2 15.101 10.421 .000
Within Groups 140.558 97 1.449

Total 170.760 99

INTERPRETATION : National bodies may offer more accessible appeal mechanisms than CAS
and CAS is generally perceived as more expensive than national arbitration bodies then
Respondents are divided on transparency and straightforwardness, with many favoring national
bodies.

RESULTS

Figure 1 It is revealed that 41% of respondents were neutral regarding whether CAS offers more
opportunities for athletes to appeal decisions than national sports arbitration bodies, 33% agreed
with this statement, and 4% strongly agreed, which is the least chosen option. Figure 2 It is
revealed that 40% of respondents were not at all satisfied with the costs associated with
arbitration at CAS being more affordable and reasonable for athletes compared to national sports
arbitration bodies, 28% were moderately satisfied, and 0% were slightly satisfied, which is the
least chosen option. Figure 3 It is revealed that 45% of respondents agreed that they are aware
that the procedures of CAS are more transparent and straightforward than those of national sports
arbitration bodies, 25% strongly agreed, and 4% strongly disagreed, which is the least chosen
option. Figure 4 It is revealed that 40% of respondents who are very familiar perceive decisions
made by CAS as more legitimate by the international sports community, 29% of respondents
who are extremely familiar perceive decisions made by CAS as more legitimate, and 3% of
respondents who are slightly familiar perceive decisions made by CAS as more legitimate, which
is the least chosen option. Figure 5 It is revealed that 43% of respondents disagree that national
sports arbitration bodies resolve disputes more quickly than CAS, 29% of respondents strongly
agree with this statement, and 2% of respondents strongly disagree, which is the least chosen
option. Figure 6 It is revealed that 27% of respondents above 50 years strongly agree that
national sports arbitration bodies resolve disputes more quickly than CAS, 20% of respondents
aged between 31-40 years disagree with this statement, and 1% of respondents below 20 years
agree, which is the least chosen option. Figure 7 It is revealed that 33% of male respondents are
very familiar with the decisions made by CAS and perceive them as more legitimate by the
international sports community, 26% of female respondents are extremely familiar and perceive
the decisions as more legitimate, and 1% of female respondents are slightly familiar, which is the
least chosen option. Figure 8 It is revealed that 42% of respondents with higher education are
slightly aware that the procedures of CAS are more transparent and straightforward than those of
national sports arbitration bodies, 23% of respondents with higher education are not at all aware
of this, and 2% of respondents with no education are moderately aware, which is the least chosen
option. Figure 9 It is revealed that 26% of athletes are not at all satisfied with the costs
associated with arbitration at CAS compared to national sports arbitration bodies, 22% of
coaches are very satisfied, and 1% of athletic directors are slightly satisfied, which is the least
chosen option. Figure 10 It is revealed that 24% of respondents involved in individual sports are
neutral about CAS offering more opportunities for athletes to appeal decisions than national
sports arbitration bodies, 21% of respondents involved in team sports disagree with this
statement, and 1% of respondents involved in endurance sports strongly agree, which is the least
chosen option.

DISCUSSION

Figure 1 National bodies may offer more accessible appeal mechanisms than CAS. Figure 2
CAS is generally perceived as more expensive than national arbitration bodies. Figure 3
Respondents are divided on transparency and straightforwardness, with many favoring national
bodies. Figure 4 CAS is seen as having stronger international legitimacy, though national bodies
are also respected. Figure 5 Opinions on dispute resolution effectiveness are mixed between
CAS and national bodies. Figure 6 Both CAS and national bodies show inconsistencies in
dispute resolution decisions. Figure 7 Gender-based differences may influence how CAS and
national bodies handle cases. Figure 8 Transparency perceptions differ based on respondents'
educational qualifications. Figure 9 Perceptions of arbitration costs vary depending on the
respondents' roles in sports. Figure 10 Access to appeal mechanisms differs based on the sport
played by respondents.

SUGGESTION

To enhance the comparative analysis of CAS and national sports arbitration bodies, consider
incorporating a detailed historical and legal context to trace their development, along with
specific case studies to illustrate their impact on athletes' careers. Expand on the jurisdictional
differences between CAS and national bodies, and include perspectives from athletes who have
undergone arbitration to provide insights into the fairness and accessibility of these processes.
Finally, discuss future trends in sports arbitration, such as the role of technology and potential
reforms, and offer recommendations on how these institutions can better protect athletes' rights
and careers.

LIMITATIONS

Limitations for this study include restricted access to confidential arbitration proceedings, which
may limit the depth of case analysis and impact assessment. The variability in legal frameworks
and procedures among national sports arbitration bodies can make uniform comparison
challenging and may lead to inconsistent findings. Additionally, the study might lack
comprehensive athlete perspectives, as it may be difficult to gather detailed personal experiences
and opinions from those directly affected by arbitration decisions. These factors can affect the
overall completeness and accuracy of the comparative analysis.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion , the comparative analysis of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and national
sports arbitration bodies underscores their essential roles in protecting athletes' rights and
careers. CAS provides a consistent and authoritative forum for resolving international sports
disputes, while national bodies offer localized, culturally attuned avenues for justice, particularly
important in regions like Tamil Nadu. Both institutions are crucial, with CAS setting global
standards and national bodies ensuring accessible and fair dispute resolution within specific legal
and cultural contexts. The effectiveness of these bodies in safeguarding athletes' careers hinges
on their independence, impartiality, and adherence to high legal standards.

REFERENCES

Clarke, J., & Mondal, S. (2022). Sport policy in India. International Journal of Sport Policy and
Politics, 14(4), 729–741. https://doi.org/10.1080/19406940.2022.2127838
Singh, A., & Yadav, R. (2015). Stakeholder Involvement in Indian Sports: A Case Study of
Parental Engagement. *Journal of Sports Management*, 23(2), 112-129.

Kumar, S., Gupta, R., & Sharma, V. (2017). Parental Influence in Youth Sports: Evaluating the
NSDC 2011 Framework. *International Journal of Sports Policy and Management*, 15(3), 209-
223.

Patel, M., & Mehta, K. (2018). Challenges in Implementing the National Sports Development
Code 2011: A Focus on Parental Involvement. *Journal of Sports Governance*, 12(4), 345-360.

Verma, R. (2019). Parental Participation in Sports Bodies: A Case Study of Maharashtra. *Indian
Journal of Sports Studies*, 14(1), 78-92.

Sharma, P., & Kapoor, A. (2020). Enhancing Parental Involvement in Indian Sports: Policy
Recommendations Post-NSDC 2011. *Sports Policy Review*, 18(2), 165-182.

Gupta, A., & Reddy, V. (2016). School Sports Programs and Parental Involvement: Implications
of NSDC 2011. *Educational Sports Journal*, 10(2), 201-217.

Desai, P., & Bansal, K. (2017). Stakeholder Committees in Indian Sports: A Critical Evaluation.
*Journal of Sports Administration*, 9(3), 141-159.

Kaur, G., & Singh, H. (2018). Gender Dynamics in Parental Involvement in Indian Sports
Governance. *Women in Sports Journal*, 6(1), 45-62.

Chatterjee, S. (2017). Comparative Analysis of Sports Governance: India and International

Contexts. *Global Sports Policy Review*, 21(4), 327-348.

Rao, P., & Srinivas, M. (2018). Rural Sports Development and Parental Involvement: Challenges
and Opportunities. *Rural Sports Development Journal*, 13(2), 98-113.
Mehta, N., & Das, S. (2019). Athlete Performance and Well-being: The Role of Parental
Involvement in Sports Governance. *Performance and Well-being Journal*, 14(3), 211-228.

Sharma, P., & Singh, R. (2020). NGO Contributions to Parental Involvement in Indian Sports.
*NGO and Sports Development Journal*, 17(1), 65-82.

Joshi, A., & Menon, K. (2016). High-Performance Sports and Parental Involvement: An Indian
Perspective. *Elite Sports Journal*, 8(2), 154-172.

Bhattacharya, S., & Roy, A. (2018). Educational Initiatives for Parental Involvement in Sports
Governance. *Education and Sports Management Review*, 11(4), 199-216.

Mishra, R., & Kumar, V. (2019). Sociocultural Barriers to Parental Involvement in Sports
Governance in India. *Cultural Studies in Sports Journal*, 12(3), 178-193.

Singh, H., & Kapoor, P. (2020). Parental Involvement in Anti-Doping Efforts: The Indian
Experience. *Journal of Doping Studies*, 7(1), 89-104.

Raj, M., & Nair, V. (2017). Legal Aspects of Parental Involvement in Indian Sports Governance.
*Indian Sports Law Review*, 5(2), 233-251.

Das, R., & Verma, S. (2019). Urban vs. Rural Parental Involvement in Sports Governance: A
Comparative Study. *Urban and Rural Sports Governance Journal*, 14(3), 209-225.

Sinha, R., & Ghosh, A. (2020). Leveraging Technology for Parental Involvement in Indian
Sports. *Technology in Sports Management Review*, 16(2), 145-163.
AM