"Public–private partnerships in hosting mega sporting events create grey zones of accountability." Analyse with recent examples.

To host mega sporting events, governments increasingly use public–private partnerships (PPPs). The State provides land, approvals, security and funds, while private sponsors bring capital and marketing. When these roles blur, no single actor is clearly answerable. That creates grey zones of accountability, as Keralam's 2026 Messi-event case shows.

Why PPPs are adopted

• They reduce the fiscal burden, bring event-management expertise, and promote tourism and State branding.

Anatomy of the grey zones

• Hybrid institutions: organising bodies sit between public and private law. The Shunglu Committee found the CWG 2010 Organising Committee had less accountability than even the IOA. The CAG's audit flagged lapses in governance, planning and financial management [2].
• Ministerial discretion without contractual discipline: a Special Investigation Team (SIT) alleged that former Sports Minister V. Abdurahiman misused his position to give undue financial benefits to sponsor Reporter Broadcasting Company for the proposed Argentina team visit [1].
• Diffused responsibility: the SIT named five accused: the Minister's private secretary, the Kerala State Sports Council president, the sponsor firm and its owner [1]. This points to a political–bureaucratic–private nexus.
• Audit blind spots: private funds lie outside the reach of the CAG and RTI. In the Hyderabad Formula E race, payments to a foreign promoter later became a corruption probe against a former minister.
• Legal hurdles: under Sections 17A and 19 of the PC Act, police need prior approval before probing a public servant's official decisions, and courts need sanction before taking up the case. This also covers former officials [3]. The sanction deadline carries no penalty for delay [4], and the Supreme Court gave a split verdict on whether Section 17A is valid (Jan 2026) [5].
• Politicised enforcement: accountability often begins only after a change of government, which invites charges of political vendetta.

Central idea

• PPPs do not cause the grey zones by themselves. The real problem is that officials use discretion upfront, while accountability comes later and depends on politics.

Way forward

• Standardised event-PPP contracts with open bidding; escrow accounts audited by the CAG.
• Bring organising committees under RTI, following the principles of the National Sports Governance Act, 2025.
• Make sanction independent: Justice Viswanathan proposed that the Lokpal/Lokayukta decide on approval [5].

PPPs can bring global sport to Indian audiences, but only if transparency is built into contracts rather than added later through prosecutions. This would advance SDG 16 (accountable institutions) and constitutional probity.