A rethink of India’s funding strategy for high-performance sport is necessary in the wake of the 2026 Asian Games. That does not yet appear on the horizon of the sports ecosystem perhaps because it goes against the grain of the narrative that is being sold to the leadership that India is well on the way to becoming a sporting superpower.
Of course, the Ministry held a review meeting in New Delhi last week but, by all accounts, that was more by way of ticking a box rather than set off on an introspective journey on what can be done better to improve India’s returns in terms of medals. Some consoled themselves by saying that all nations, barring Japan, had fewer medals than in 2022 Asian Games.
The question that needs to be considered is if Ministry must allocate resources to those who do not make the grade for the Asian Games. Should Target Olympic Podium Scheme (TOPS) and Target Asian Games Group (TAGG) favour a few athletes because they have won medals in the last edition of the Asian Games? Or should it support more athletes who are in the running?
If the lessons from Aichi-Nagoya 2026 Asian Games are lost on us – and there is a good chance that some will hope that the disappointments will be papered over by the rich haul in the Asian Para Games – India will find itself with a dream to achieve excellence but not getting off the treadmill that it has been running on.
And one place to start a sincere review would be the Target Olympic Podium Scheme (Core and Development groups) and the Target Asian Games Group. Instead of citing the amounts of funding and correlating it with sparse medal returns, the Ministry must study some critical facts and draw learnings so that all investment is made wisely rather than on whim.
Some facts are there for everyone to see.
First and foremost, as many as 140 athletes from a third of the 36 disciplines in which India competed in the Aichi-Nagoya 2026 Asian Games did not receive any financial support from either TOPS or TAGG. These disciplines had 77 medal events in which India won eight medals, including four gold and four bronze.
Clearly, not all athletes on the TOPS and TAGG lists made it to the Asian Games. Of the 289 TOPS beneficiaries (125 in Core Group and 164 in Development Group) in 12 disciplines, only 143 competed in the Asian Games. And of the 80 sportspersons identified for support under TAGG, only 44 were part of the Indian contingent in the Asian Games.
Any honest introspection may reveal that at least 25 athletes, who received in excess of Rs 25 lakh financial support ahead of the Asian Games, missed the bus for reasons other than illness or injury. Of course, the nature of sport is such that athletes who are identified as having the potential to podium in the Asian Games can lose their spots to their competitors.
Yet, when we look at the percentage of the TOPS (Core and Development) athletes in the Asian Games, Hockey (40 in Core) stands out with 100 per cent of their players on the TOPS list making it to Aichi-Nagoya. Though as many as 18 of the 22 members in the Rowing squad listed in TOPS (Development), only four received any support from TOPS before the Games.
At least 60 per cent of athletes in the Wrestling, Boxing and Badminton teams were part of TOPS while only half the Shooting and Table Tennis squads were beneficiaries of TOPS. The five other disciplines – Squash, Athletics, Archery, Weightlifting and Swimming – saw a majority of athletes find other funding routes when earning tickets to the Asian Games.
Many athletes appear to have been included in the TOPS/TAGG lists only after they made their way into the Asian Games squads of their respective disciplines. This is reflected by the fact that at least 30 Asian Games-bound athletes on these lists may not have got any financial support until August 2026.
There has to be a different approach for the Asian Games since selection of the teams is usually delayed until a few weeks before the start of the competition. By supporting some athletes and making others find their own resources, the Ministry comes across as promoting a sharp divide between the haves and the have-nots.
This situation does not arise in the Olympic Games where most slots in most disciplines are filled only by qualification and there is a competition only for those berths where quotas are won for Nations by individuals. None of this matches the scramble for Asian Games berths. And until the time the Olympic Council of Asia introduces qualifying standards, this will be a situation that India will have to deal with.
Would it not be apt, therefore, for the National Sports Federations to be given both the right and the responsibility for use of such public funds? Given that the National Sports Governance (National Sports Bodies) Rules 2026 is in force, it should be possible for Ministry to keep a close watch on whether the funds are being used appropriately.
If India sincerely aims to get more Olympic Games medals, its sports ecosystem must find ways to keep the athletes eager and hungry. It must not leave them satisfied and satiated after the Asian Games – let alone in the run up to the Asian Games. It is time to raise the bar, since India aspires to be in the top in the Olympic Games in 2036 and top 5 in 2048.
