Sri Lanka Rugby (SLR) finds itself mired in yet another administrative turmoil, a crisis emblematic of the wider governance issues plaguing sports in the country.

As the Inter-Club Rugby League Championship nears the completion of its first round, the on-field action provides a stark contrast to the administrative chaos off the field. Despite the promising prospects of a crucial Top Five qualifying match against Malaysia in April and an upcoming New Zealand Under-85kg tour in May, SLR remains entangled in legal disputes, delaying much-needed governance reforms. With a court hearing scheduled for March 25 and the Annual General Meeting (AGM) originally set for January 21 indefinitely postponed, SLR finds itself in an administrative deadlock.

Director General (DG) of the Department of Sports Development and Competent Authority for Sri Lanka Rugby, Shemal Fernando, has pointed to a broader crisis in sports administration where power struggles overshadow the sport itself. Fernando, also the Competent Authority for Sri Lanka Rugby, has found himself at the centre of a storm. While tasked with stabilising the sport after the suspension of the previous administration, Fernando’s leadership has been met with resistance.

“The focus should be on player development and strengthening the league, but unfortunately, the conversations are dominated by boardroom conflicts and legal battles,” he remarked. 

“We need a clear, structured approach to governance – one that serves the players and the sport, not personal agendas,” Fernando pointed out. The postponement of the AGM due to complaints from Asia Rugby and local stakeholders has only exacerbated the situation. While an interim committee could be a potential solution, it carries the significant risk of triggering further sanctions from World Rugby, which already suspended Sri Lanka in May 2024.

Fernando highlights the recurring pattern of provincial unions resorting to legal interventions at every impasse, effectively stalling progress. Despite a settlement reached between both factions, a letter from Asia Rugby President Qais Abdullah Al Dhalai on January 8 contesting the nomination of Rizly Illyas as SLR President reignited disputes. These persistent legal and administrative roadblocks make it nearly impossible for SLR to move forward, ultimately putting its international aspirations in jeopardy. Minister of Sports Anura Kumara Gamage faces increasing pressure to intervene decisively.

The failure to appoint a full National Sports Council, leaving only Chairman Priyantha Ekanayake in place, raises concerns over the government’s commitment to resolving the crisis. While Fernando has attempted mediation by engaging with provincial unions, their continued defiance – evidenced by the Febuary 28 court filing – calls into question the effectiveness of his approach. The issues within SLR are not isolated; they are symptomatic of a larger malaise affecting sports governance in the country. Other national sports bodies have faced similar crises, characterised by mismanagement, lack of accountability, and persistent political meddling.

From cricket to athletics, the struggle for control often takes precedence over the actual development of the sport. “We’ve seen this pattern repeat itself across multiple sports such as netball, automobile, cycling, handball, gymnastics and hockey,” Fernando noted. “Whenever there is a leadership transition, it is marred by infighting and legal battles rather than a smooth handover with a focus on continuity.” 

These power struggles are not about the sport – they are about influence and control. Until we prioritise the athletes and the game itself, we will continue to face these setbacks.

One of the proposed solutions involves direct government intervention to appoint an interim committee to oversee Sri Lanka Rugby. However, as Fernando himself notes, the challenge lies in assembling a neutral committee that will not immediately become the target of political and factional attacks. With the minister balancing between legal constraints, international scrutiny, and domestic political interests, the risk of inaction outweighs the risk of controversy. World Rugby and Asia Rugby have made it clear that their patience is wearing thin.

The organisations have already extended deadlines to accommodate Sri Lanka’s internal conflicts, but their ultimate goal remains enforcing a constitutionally sound and transparent governance structure. The delay in implementing the new constitution, coupled with continued infighting, makes SLR an increasingly unreliable member of the global rugby community. The repercussions of continued dysfunction extend beyond governance. Without proper administration, Sri Lanka’s national team selections, training programmes, and sponsorship deals are all at risk. Winning against Malaysia and securing a Top Five spot would be a significant milestone for Sri Lankan rugby, yet the real battle appears to be taking place in courtrooms and boardrooms rather than on the field. This trend has significantly impacted Sri Lanka’s international sporting performance.

Poor planning, inconsistent policies, and administrative instability have led to declining standards in many disciplines. The absence of long-term vision and investment in grassroots development continues to hinder the emergence of world-class athletes.

The underlying issue in Sri Lankan sports governance is the relentless struggle for power. Administrators, often driven by personal ambitions rather than sporting interests, engage in prolonged battles for control. This has resulted in constant disruptions, with governing bodies frequently being suspended, reinstated, or replaced by interim committees. “These power struggles are not about the sport – they are about influence and control,” Fernando said. “Until we prioritise the athletes and the game itself, we will continue to face these setbacks.

” The need for reform has never been more urgent. Experts have long called for a depoliticised and professionally managed sports administration system, underscoring merit-based appointments and structured long-term planning. However, meaningful change remains elusive due to entrenched interests and resistance to transparency. The crisis within Sri Lanka Rugby serves as a microcosm of the larger dysfunction within Sri Lankan sports administration. The tendency of officials to cling to power at the expense of the sport’s growth is not unique to rugby but is particularly damaging in a discipline that requires stability and long-term planning.

For Sri Lanka Rugby, and sports governance in general, a structured, accountable, and player-centric approach is crucial. Establishing independent oversight mechanisms, ensuring financial transparency, and promoting a culture of professionalism within sports administrations are necessary steps. Shemal Fernando remains optimistic but pragmatic. “If we can move beyond these boardroom disputes and focus on the game, Sri Lanka has the talent to excel on the international stage. But it requires collective effort and a genuine commitment to progress.” 

The Competent Authority’s call for unity is both timely and necessary. Provincial unions must recognise that their legal manoeuvres do little to serve the sport and instead threaten its very survival. If a resolution is not reached soon, Sri Lanka Rugby risks further isolation from the international rugby community, undoing decades of progress. Whether Sri Lanka Rugby – and the broader sporting community – can overcome these challenges remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: without a fundamental shift in governance and priorities, the cycle of crises will continue to repeat itself. The time for decisive leadership is now.

The Minister of Sports must take a firm stance to break this cycle of stagnation, ensuring that Sri Lanka Rugby’s future is determined by the players on the field rather than by lawyers in courtrooms. Failure to act decisively will not only prolong the crisis but may permanently damage Sri Lanka’s rugby ambitions on the world stage. 

By: Allaam Ousman