Sports Governance Bill need of the hour and a step in the right direction: NSFs
The Bill, which is set to become a law after being passed in both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, aims to revamp and standardise India's sports administration, creating a clear framework for good governance in the National Sports Federations (NSFs) and the Indian Olympic Association (IOA).
India will thus join countries like the USA, UK, China, and Japan in having formal laws for streamlined sports administration.
'It's certainly good since it will make things pretty straight forward in the sense that there will be no ambiguity now. The same set of rules and regulations will have to be followed by everyone. No different rules for different people as was the case before," All India Tennis Association (AITA) interim secretary Sunder Iyer told PTI.
Iyer though felt that limiting the seats on the Executive Committee is not an ideal situation.
'India is a big country, so restricting the EC to 15 members will be tough to follow. At least 4-5 seats will go to sportspersons of extraordinary merit and members of the athletes' commission, so practically out of 36 states, you can have only 10-11 in EC. It is quite tough, this should have been looked into, the number should have been more," he added.
Usha, who is also a nominated member of the Rajya Sabha, offered her unequivocal support, saying that it will end decades of 'stagnant status quo" to usher in 'transparency, and accountability" in the country's sports administration.
'Today is a day of immense personal and national significance. I have long awaited this moment," Usha, who sat alongside another nominated member Sudha Murthy, said in her address to the House.
'This bill will usher in transparency, accountability, and gender parity. It will empower athletes and build confidence among sponsors and federations. It is about justice and fair-play," she added.
Usha said the bill's thrust on creating a structured administrative set-up will be helpful for India's 2036 Olympics bid.
'This legislation comes at a time when India is dreaming big, dreaming for its rightful share in global sporting fraternity by hosting the 2036 Olympics," she said.
A key provision in the Bill is establishment of a National Sports Tribunal, which will have the powers of a civil court to decide disputes ranging from selections to elections involving federations and athletes. Once constituted, the Tribunal's decisions can only be challenged in the Supreme Court.
'It is a great Bill, in line with the PM's vision for the 2036 Olympics. 'It will reduce the number of legal cases in federations and allow sports to prosper. It will also save needless expenditure on prolonged court battles," said Indian Weightlifting Federation President Sahdev Yadav.
Athletics Federation of India spokesperson Adille Sumariwalla called the policy 'the need of the hour." 'This will bring better governance to NSFs. Almost all the NSFs are affected by court cases. Elections are challenged in every second court of law. Many courts have little idea (about sports). Different courts have given different judgments in the same matter, which makes things even more complex. One judgment for BCCI, one for IOA, one for AIFF.
'I believe, with all these court cases, the federations would have to be shut down soon. All this will hopefully end as the decision of the National Sports Tribunal can be challenged only before the Supreme Court. There would have been a disaster for Indian sport if this Bill did not come.
'But at the end of the day, a policy or legislation will serve the purpose only if there is proper implementation. Only good intention is not enough, implementation is the key. Today, people are manipulating the system because it was a Sports Code and not a Bill/Act," he said.
Badminton Association of India secretary Sanjay Mishra lauded the Bill's transparency.
'It is a progressive step toward aligning India's sporting framework with global best practices. Its focus on transparency, athlete welfare, and accountable governance not only strengthens our domestic ecosystem but also prepares us for responsibilities and opportunities that come with hosting major international events in future, including a potential Olympics bid," Mishra said.
top videos
View all
Swimming Federation of India secretary Monal Chokshi said, 'This is a step in creating proper policy because, until now, the National Sports Code 2011 and subsequent court judgments left a lot of grey areas. Various courts had passed contradictory orders. Everything is now in black and white." Hockey India president Dilip Tirkey called the bill's passage a watershed moment.
'This is a historic day. India's sporting world is anchored by a clear, athlete-centred, and transparent legal framework. This reform will inspire new confidence among athletes and all stakeholders, creating a governance model aligned with global standards." Table Tennis Federation of India secretary general Kamlesh Mehta called the move 'a big step in the right direction." 'This shows the government's intent to take Indian sport to the next level. The bill covers all aspects, including dispute resolution, which is important because differences are inevitable in any organisation. Now, these differences can be settled faster." PTI APA AT BS PDS ATK SSC AM APA AM AM
(This story has not been edited by News18 staff and is published from a syndicated news agency feed - PTI) view comments
First Published:
August 12, 2025, 18:00 IST
News agency-feeds Sports Governance Bill need of the hour and a step in the right direction: NSFs
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Wire
20 minutes ago
- The Wire
The Liberal International Order: From Wilsonian Internationalist Racism to Trump's Anti-Globalist Racism
Inderjeet Parmar By framing globalisation as detrimental to American workers, Trump cynically exploits domestic workers' discontent while preserving the core of U.S. elite power. US President Donald Trump speaks with reporters in the James Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House on Monday, Aug. 11, 2025, in Washington. Photo: AP/PTI There is a widespread feeling and even considered view that US President Donald Trump is an aberration, an outlier, possibly crazy. He is seen by many as outside the American tradition, an exception within an exceptional national. But appearances are deceptive. The roots of Trumpism lie in the very American system and international order – rooted in the presidency of the liberal Woodrow Wilson in World War I – he claims to abhor. That's why under Trump, America is only recalibrating its attitude to that order, not rejecting it, and preparing to coercively confront the tides of change wherever they arise. There's a particularly moving scene in the movie Gandhi (1982). In it, an American journalist who witnesses British colonial violence against peaceful protestors, breathlessly phoned in to his news desk that, 'Whatever moral ascendancy the West once held was lost here today. India is free, for she has taken all that steel and cruelty can give and she has neither cringed nor retreated.' That West has changed in many ways – its stewardship passed from Britain to the United States. It evolved from direct colonialism to imperialism by another name (a liberal international order). But it remains violent and hierarchical. However, the liberal international order (LIO) and Western moral authority are (once again) withering away before the world's eyes. Nowhere more is this evident than in backing Israel's illegal war of genocidal terror in Gaza. But it is hardly the first time that the most modern weapons known to humankind have been turned onto peoples of the Global South. History is littered with millions of black and brown bodies. Despite that, the LIO is often heralded as a rules-based system promoting democracy, free markets, and global cooperation. But in practice it is, and always was, a widely contested construct – at home and internationally – rooted in the interplay of ideology, power, hierarchy and exclusion. Wilsonianism and Trumpism are but two complementary faces of American power that still leads the international system. Roots of Trumpism at the creation Its origins lie in the early 20th century, particularly in the vision of US President Woodrow Wilson, whose internationalism was deeply imbued with class and racial hierarchies. Wilson was considered a progressive intellectual. He went on to become President of Princeton University, elected Governor of New Jersey, before entering the White House in 1913 and serving two consecutive terms. A progressive liberal, Wilson carried out a sustained policy of racial re-segregation of the federal government. His administration demoted or fired thousands of Black federal workers. It racially segregated offices, restrooms, entrances to buildings, setting back Black rights and reversing gains after the American civil war (1861-65). Wilson's tenure could hardly have been otherwise given the founding principles of the United States, and the reconstruction of de facto and de jure racial hierarchies after the civil war. By 1896, the US Supreme Court had sealed the deal with its 'separate but equal' ruling in Plessey vs Ferguson that cemented the constitutionality of racial segregation that lasted for over six decades. Today, this hierarchical order is sustained, albeit in a transformed guise, through the anti-globalist rhetoric and policies of Trumpism. The liberal international order, built on Wilsonian racist internationalism, has been reconfigured by Trumpist anti-globalism which reinforces American hegemony through white-superiority driven nationalism and selective global engagement. The conclusion from this is bleak: the United States has turned its back on racial and gender equality, civil and workers' rights as it dismantles federal programmes. And it is evident that the US and its Western allies are not ready to accept that the world is moving towards multipolarity, and are willing to fight to maintain their dominance in world politics. Hence, western militarisation is intensifying in an era the US has declared as one marked by the 'return of geopolitical competition'. Prior to that era, the West had the field pretty much to themselves. That's called order. This is not history repeating itself first as tragedy and later as farce; it remains tragic, dangerous and deadly. It may be withering but the liberal international order and its American guarantor are far from dead. Wilsonian internationalism and its racial underpinnings Woodrow Wilson's vision for a new world order, articulated during and after World War I, laid the ideological and institutional foundations for the liberal international order. His 'Fourteen Points' and advocacy for the League of Nations promised self-determination, collective security, and global governance. However, Wilson's internationalism was not a universalist project but one steeped in classist (anti-communist), racial and civilizational hierarchies. Wilson's belief in Anglo-Saxon superiority and domestic policies – such as the resegregation of federal offices – reflected a worldview that prioritized white, Western dominance. Wilson's internationalism was inherently exclusionary. His concept of self-determination was selectively applied, largely reserved for European nations while denying colonised peoples in Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean the same rights. The League of Nations, while ostensibly a global institution, was dominated by Western powers, with non-white nations marginalised or excluded. Japan's attempts to insert a racial equality clause into the League's charter was rejected, Pan-Africanists and other anti-colonialists, ignored. Wilson's vision aligned with the broader imperialist framework of the time, where the United States, as an emerging power, sought to reshape the world in its image – white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant, capitalist. This racialised internationalism was not an aberration but a foundational feature of the liberal international order, embedding hierarchies of race and power into its institutions and norms. It continues to this day. The liberal international order, as it evolved through the 20th century, reflected and institutionalised these hierarchies. The creation of the United Nations, the Bretton Woods system (the IMF and World Bank), and NATO reflected American leadership but also perpetuated a system where Western dominance was normalised. These institutions, while promoting liberal values like free trade and 'democracy', served American strategic and economic interests, marginalising non-Western voices and reinforcing global inequalities. The Wilsonian legacy, therefore, was not merely the spread of liberal ideals but the construction of a global order that upheld American hegemony under the guise of universalism. Trumpism and the anti-globalist turn The election of Donald Trump in 2016 marked a seeming rupture in the liberal international order. Trump's 'America First' doctrine, with its rejection of multilateralism, disdain for international institutions, and emphasis on national sovereignty, appeared to challenge the very foundations of the order Wilson helped establish. His withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement, the Iran nuclear deal, and his criticism of NATO and the World Trade Organisation signalled a retreat from global leadership. Yet, a closer examination reveals that Trumpist anti-globalism does not dismantle the liberal international order but reconfigures it to serve American interests in a new geopolitical and geoeconomic context. Trump's anti-globalism is less a rejection of American hegemony than a reassertion of it through nationalist means. His policies have imposed tariffs on China, the EU, UK, Israel, among others, and weaponised all aspects of US power. They reflect a desire to maintain American economic dominance in an era of multiple rising and competing powers, not just China. By framing globalisation as detrimental to American workers, Trump cynically exploits domestic workers' discontent while preserving the core of U.S. elite power: its ability to shape and profit from global economic and security arrangements. His administration's focus on 'fair trade' and 'energy dominance' ensures that the United States remains a central player in global markets, even as it eschews multilateral frameworks. Moreover, Trump's foreign policy retains key elements of the liberal international order, particularly its militarised and hierarchical nature. His administrations increased defence spending, strengthened alliances with authoritarian regimes like Saudi Arabia, and maintained U.S. military presence in strategic regions. The 'Indo-Pacific strategy' aimed at countering China's rise is a continuation of (Obama-era) efforts to contain rival powers, a hallmark of the liberal international order since its inception. Thus, Trumpism's anti-globalist rhetoric masks a deeper continuity: the preservation of American primacy through selective weaponised engagement with the world. The paradox of continuity and change The transition from Wilsonian internationalism to Trumpist anti-globalism reveals a paradoxical dynamic, maybe even a secret, at the heart of the liberal international order: its adaptability to different ideological guises while maintaining American dominance. Wilson's vision, rooted in racial hierarchies, established a system where liberal ideals were selectively applied to serve U.S. interests. Trump's anti-globalism, while rhetorically opposed to Wilson's multilateralism, reinforces this system by prioritising American sovereignty and economic power. Recall that it was Wilson who first used 'America First' as his clarion call in World War I. Both Wilson's and Trump's approaches, though seemingly divergent, share a common thread: the use of ideology to legitimise American hegemony. America First, Forever. This continuity is evident in the role of elites in shaping both eras. Wilson's internationalism was driven by a cosmopolitan elite—academics, policymakers, and business leaders—who saw American leadership as essential to global stability. Trump's anti-globalism, while populist in tone, was similarly supported by a coalition of corporate elites, military-industrial interests, and nationalist ideologues who benefited from tax cuts and deregulation. My own research on American power emphasises the role of elite networks in sustaining hegemony, and Trump's era is no exception. The liberal international order, whether under Wilson's idealist garb or Trump's shrill nationalism, remains a project of elite power, adapting to domestic and global shifts while preserving U.S. dominance. Conclusion: A resilient but contested order The liberal international order, built on Wilson's (and the West's) racially-charged internationalism, has proven remarkably resilient, adapting to the challenges of Trumpist anti-globalism. While Wilson's vision embedded racial and civilisational hierarchies into the global system, Trump's policies have reoriented it toward overt nationalism without dismantling its core structures. Both approaches, in their own way, uphold American hegemony, revealing the order's flexibility in accommodating ideological shifts while maintaining power hierarchies. Yet, this resilience comes at a cost. The liberal international order faces growing challenges from rising powers, domestic discontent, and demands for greater inclusivity. The racial underpinnings of Wilson's vision continue to haunt the order, as marginalised nations and peoples question its legitimacy. Similarly, Trump's anti-globalism, while appealing to some domestic audiences, risks alienating allies and undermining the multilateral frameworks that have sustained American power. Understanding the liberal international order requires recognising its contradictions: a system that promotes universal values while perpetuating exclusion and domination. Its future depends not on ideological purity but on its ability to navigate the tensions between global ambition, nationalist retrenchment, domestic resistance, and increasing multipolarity in world politics and economy—challenges that Wilson's heirs and Trump's successors must confront. And they believe in and are preparing for massive and sustained coercive confrontation, everywhere. Inderjeet Parmar is a professor of international politics and associate dean of research in the School of Policy and Global Affairs at City St George's, University of London, a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences, and a columnist at The Wire. He is an International Fellow at the ROADS Initiative think tank, Islamabad, and author of several books including Foundations of the American Century. He is currently writing a book on the history, politics, and powers of the US foreign policy establishment. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments. Advertisement
India Today
22 minutes ago
- India Today
Badminton: Tough draws for PV Sindhu, fellow Indians at World Championships 2025
PV Sindhu set to face 2nd seed Wang Zhi Yi of China as early as the third round (PTI Photo) India have won a medal in all editions of the world meet since 2011 Lakshya Sen meets world No.1 Shi Yuqi in a challenging first round The World Championships will be held form August 25 to 31 in Paris India's hopes of maintaining their streak of winning at least one medal at the World Championships since 2011 may take a hit this year, as several star players have been handed challenging draws at the world meet. The doubles pair and former World No. 1 combination of Satwiksairaj Rankireddy and Chirag Shetty carry much of the nation's hopes for success at the prestigious event, which will be held from 25 to 31 August at the Adidas Arena in Paris. Former bronze medallist Lakshya Sen faces the No. 1 seed Shi Yuqi in one of the most anticipated first-round clashes. Lakshya holds a 1–3 head-to-head record against the Chinese top seed. The two last met at the Indonesia Open in June, where Lakshya lost a hard-fought encounter 21–11, 20–22, 15–21. Should Lakshya overcome the tough Chinese challenge in the opening round, he is likely to meet 10th seed Christo Popov in the third round. Meanwhile, 2023 bronze medallist HS Prannoy will begin his campaign against Finland's Joakim Oldorff. The World No. 34 has endured a difficult season, often failing to progress beyond the second round in most tournaments. Neither Lakshya nor Prannoy has been seeded this time, with PV Sindhu the only Indian singles player to secure a seeding. PV SINDHU SET FOR TOUGH TEST The 2019 champion will open her campaign against Bulgaria's Kaloyana Nalbantova in what is expected to be a one-sided affair. The 15th seed is projected to face second seed Wang Zhi Yi of China as early as the third round. Sindhu, renowned for raising her game in major tournaments, has amassed five World Championships medals and is aiming for another strong showing. However, she faces a stern challenge against Wang, whom she has not beaten since 2022. Wang arrives in Paris in fine form, having won the China Open Super 1000 in July. In men's doubles, Satwik and Chirag, seeded ninth, have received a first-round bye. However, they could encounter a stiff test against China's Liang Wei Kang and Wang Chang as early as the third round, with a potential quarter-final meeting against second seeds Aaron Chia and Soh Wooi Yik looming. It was in Paris last year that Satwik and Chirag suffered one of their biggest heartbreaks, losing the Olympic quarter-final to Aaron and Soh. The Malaysian pair have long been a stumbling block for the Indians, winning 11 of their 14 encounters on tour. India will also be represented in men's doubles by Hariharan Amsakarunan and Rethinasabapathi, who will face Satwik and Chirag if they win their opening match against Taipei's Liu Kuang Heng and Yang Po Han. In a significant blow to India's medal prospects, the nation's top women's doubles pairing of Gayatri Gopichand and Treesa Jolly has withdrawn from the event. World No. 39 Priya Konjengbam and Shruti Mishra, along with Rutaparna Panda and Swetaparna Panda, will fly the flag in women's doubles. Priya and Shruti open against France's Margot Lambert and Camille Pognante, while World No. 38 Rutaparna and Swetaparna will face Bulgaria's Gabriela Stoeva and Stefani Stoeva in the first round. In mixed doubles, India will field two pairs. World No. 17 Dhruv Kapila and Tanisha Crasto have received a first-round bye. The 16th seeds could meet sixth seeds Tang Chun Man and Tse Ying Suet of Hong Kong as early as the third round. Rohan Kapoor and Ruthvika Shivani Gadde will also compete in mixed doubles. Previous Indian medallists at the World Championships: Prakash Padukone – Bronze – Men's Singles – 1983 Jwala Gutta / Ashwini Ponnappa – Bronze – Women's Doubles – 2011 PV Sindhu – Bronze – Women's Singles – 2013 PV Sindhu – Bronze – Women's Singles – 2014 Saina Nehwal – Silver – Women's Singles – 2015 Saina Nehwal – Bronze – Women's Singles – 2017 PV Sindhu – Silver – Women's Singles – 2017 PV Sindhu – Silver – Women's Singles – 2018 PV Sindhu – Gold – Women's Singles – 2019 B Sai Praneeth – Bronze – Men's Singles – 2019 Kidambi Srikanth – Silver – Men's Singles – 2021 Lakshya Sen – Bronze – Men's Singles – 2021 Chirag Shetty / Satwiksairaj Rankireddy – Bronze – Men's Doubles – 2022 HS Prannoy – Bronze – Men's Singles – 2023 India's hopes of maintaining their streak of winning at least one medal at the World Championships since 2011 may take a hit this year, as several star players have been handed challenging draws at the world meet. The doubles pair and former World No. 1 combination of Satwiksairaj Rankireddy and Chirag Shetty carry much of the nation's hopes for success at the prestigious event, which will be held from 25 to 31 August at the Adidas Arena in Paris. Former bronze medallist Lakshya Sen faces the No. 1 seed Shi Yuqi in one of the most anticipated first-round clashes. Lakshya holds a 1–3 head-to-head record against the Chinese top seed. The two last met at the Indonesia Open in June, where Lakshya lost a hard-fought encounter 21–11, 20–22, 15–21. Should Lakshya overcome the tough Chinese challenge in the opening round, he is likely to meet 10th seed Christo Popov in the third round. Meanwhile, 2023 bronze medallist HS Prannoy will begin his campaign against Finland's Joakim Oldorff. The World No. 34 has endured a difficult season, often failing to progress beyond the second round in most tournaments. Neither Lakshya nor Prannoy has been seeded this time, with PV Sindhu the only Indian singles player to secure a seeding. PV SINDHU SET FOR TOUGH TEST The 2019 champion will open her campaign against Bulgaria's Kaloyana Nalbantova in what is expected to be a one-sided affair. The 15th seed is projected to face second seed Wang Zhi Yi of China as early as the third round. Sindhu, renowned for raising her game in major tournaments, has amassed five World Championships medals and is aiming for another strong showing. However, she faces a stern challenge against Wang, whom she has not beaten since 2022. Wang arrives in Paris in fine form, having won the China Open Super 1000 in July. In men's doubles, Satwik and Chirag, seeded ninth, have received a first-round bye. However, they could encounter a stiff test against China's Liang Wei Kang and Wang Chang as early as the third round, with a potential quarter-final meeting against second seeds Aaron Chia and Soh Wooi Yik looming. It was in Paris last year that Satwik and Chirag suffered one of their biggest heartbreaks, losing the Olympic quarter-final to Aaron and Soh. The Malaysian pair have long been a stumbling block for the Indians, winning 11 of their 14 encounters on tour. India will also be represented in men's doubles by Hariharan Amsakarunan and Rethinasabapathi, who will face Satwik and Chirag if they win their opening match against Taipei's Liu Kuang Heng and Yang Po Han. In a significant blow to India's medal prospects, the nation's top women's doubles pairing of Gayatri Gopichand and Treesa Jolly has withdrawn from the event. World No. 39 Priya Konjengbam and Shruti Mishra, along with Rutaparna Panda and Swetaparna Panda, will fly the flag in women's doubles. Priya and Shruti open against France's Margot Lambert and Camille Pognante, while World No. 38 Rutaparna and Swetaparna will face Bulgaria's Gabriela Stoeva and Stefani Stoeva in the first round. In mixed doubles, India will field two pairs. World No. 17 Dhruv Kapila and Tanisha Crasto have received a first-round bye. The 16th seeds could meet sixth seeds Tang Chun Man and Tse Ying Suet of Hong Kong as early as the third round. Rohan Kapoor and Ruthvika Shivani Gadde will also compete in mixed doubles. Previous Indian medallists at the World Championships: Prakash Padukone – Bronze – Men's Singles – 1983 Jwala Gutta / Ashwini Ponnappa – Bronze – Women's Doubles – 2011 PV Sindhu – Bronze – Women's Singles – 2013 PV Sindhu – Bronze – Women's Singles – 2014 Saina Nehwal – Silver – Women's Singles – 2015 Saina Nehwal – Bronze – Women's Singles – 2017 PV Sindhu – Silver – Women's Singles – 2017 PV Sindhu – Silver – Women's Singles – 2018 PV Sindhu – Gold – Women's Singles – 2019 B Sai Praneeth – Bronze – Men's Singles – 2019 Kidambi Srikanth – Silver – Men's Singles – 2021 Lakshya Sen – Bronze – Men's Singles – 2021 Chirag Shetty / Satwiksairaj Rankireddy – Bronze – Men's Doubles – 2022 HS Prannoy – Bronze – Men's Singles – 2023 Join our WhatsApp Channel
Mint
22 minutes ago
- Mint
All countries need not play Tests, scarcity is Test crickets friend: Greenberg
Melbourne, Aug 13 (PTI) Cricket Australia CEO Todd Greenberg feels not all nations need to aspire to play Tests, given the financial burden it places on some of the weaker boards and said while there is no definitive number of Test-playing countries, "scarcity in Test cricket is our friend, not our foe." Australia, which hosted a record-breaking Border-Gavaskar Trophy in the 2024-25 season, is set to welcome England for the Ashes later this year. Earlier this month, India and England concluded a highly competitive five-Test series, while Australia and New Zealand recorded lopsided victories against the West Indies and Zimbabwe respectively — outcomes that have reignited debate about the global structure of red-ball cricket. "I don't think there is a right number (of Test playing nations) … but I think in the future scarcity in Test cricket is our friend, not our foe,' Greenberg told reporters. "What I mean by that is, I don't think everyone in world cricket needs to aspire to play Test cricket and that might be OK. "A lot of traditionalists might not like that (and) I'm not suggesting I know the number that will play, but literally we're trying to send countries bankrupt if we force them to play Test cricket." Emphasising the need for meaningful competition, he said: "We need to make sure we invest in the right spaces, play Test cricket where it means something and has jeopardy. "That's why the Ashes will be as enormous and as profitable as it is because it means something … it means something to every player. "We've got to make sure when we play Test cricket that's at the top of our mind.' The International Cricket Council (ICC) recently formed a working group to examine the Test format, and Greenberg expressed his willingness to consider new models, including a two-tier system. "I've got an open mind to that question because I don't know the details to what a two-tiered structure would look like,' he said. "Test cricket needs an injection of capital and an injection of resources because it can't just be about Australia, India and England – it needs to be bigger than that. "Red-ball cricket in this country, and in England and in India, is unbelievably successful but it's not like that in all parts of the world. "It's incumbent on us to make sure we play our part to help, so the concept of tiers I think needs to be explored. I'm not prepared to say we're against something until we see all the details," he noted.
