AIFF Rejects ISL Ownership Bid, Upholding Sports Governance Principles

Answer: B

Statement 1 is incorrect. The news explicitly states that AIFF rejected owning ISL to avoid conflict of interest, aligning with FIFA/AFC guidelines, which is contrary to being mandated to own commercial leagues. Statement 2 is correct, as per the news summary and general principles of sports governance. Statement 3 is incorrect. The National Sports Code of India extensively deals with the governance structure, elections, age and tenure limits, and financial transparency of National Sports Federations, not just infrastructure.

Answer: B

The news summary clearly states that the AIFF's decision was to 'avoid potential conflicts of interest' and aligns with guidelines advocating for national federations to 'regulate and sanction football activities rather than directly operate commercial ventures'. This directly points to avoiding conflicts of interest (2) and maintaining regulatory independence and impartiality (4). Ensuring financial viability (1) might be an indirect outcome of good governance but was not the primary stated reason for rejecting ownership. Promoting grassroots football development directly through commercial profits (3) is also not the primary reason for *rejecting ownership*; rather, it's about how the federation *should* operate to ensure overall development, which is best done by regulating fairly, not owning.

Answer: C

Statement A is correct. AIFF is indeed the national governing body. Statement B is correct, as FSDL is the commercial partner of ISL. Statement D is correct, as the executive committee is the decision-making body. Statement C is NOT correct. The National Sports Code of India aims to ensure autonomy, transparency, and democratic functioning of National Sports Federations, but it does not mandate them to be government departments. Rather, it provides guidelines for their functioning as autonomous bodies, often criticizing excessive government interference.