More Funds, Fewer Tournaments: The Broken Math of Nowshera’s Sports System
Musarrat Ullah Jan, KikxNow , Digital Creator
The latest figures from the District Sports Office Nowshera
are not just numbers. They expose a deeper structural problem. The question is
simple, but uncomfortable: why did more money produce less activity?
In 2023–24, Rs 9.1 million was spent and 38 tournaments were
organized. In 2024–25, funding increased to Rs 12.7 million, yet the number of
tournaments dropped to 28.
This is not a minor fluctuation. It is a contradiction. And
it does not look accidental.
Basic logic says that when resources increase, output should
also increase. Here, the opposite has happened. That points to either flawed
planning, shifting priorities without transparency, or misuse of funds that is
not being properly disclosed.
The real issue is not the reduction of 10 tournaments. The
real issue is this: what did the additional Rs 3.6 million achieve?
If the argument is that quality improved, where is the
evidence?
How many athletes progressed to higher levels?
How many national-level players emerged?
How many clubs were formed or registered?
When these questions were asked, the response from the
District Sports Office was: “This is not our domain, ask the associations.”
That is not just evasive. It is a clear abdication of
responsibility.
If you control the funds and organize the tournaments, you
are accountable for the outcomes. You cannot separate spending from results.
That is not how public institutions are supposed to function.
The confusion deepens when it comes to sports associations.
Officials stated that only football and volleyball associations exist at the
district level, while all other sports operate at a regional level.
This raises critical questions:
Under whose authority were the other tournaments conducted?
Who selected the players?
On what basis were funds allocated?
If there is no structured, district-level framework, then
the entire system is operating informally. And informal systems are where
transparency breaks down first.
Another red flag is the delay in providing this data. These
figures were not shared in real time but surfaced at least two years later.
That delay is not a minor administrative lapse. It signals
either poor record management or deliberate withholding of information. Both
scenarios are problematic.
If records were available, why were they not disclosed
earlier?
If they were not, then on what basis were decisions being
made over the past two years?
What emerges here is a pattern often seen in public sports
systems: what can be called “event culture.”
Organize tournaments. Take photos. File reports. Close the
file.
But sport is not about events alone. Real development is
measured by what happens after the events:
Talent identification
Player progression
Strong club structures
Continuous training pathways
If none of these exist, then tournaments are just numbers,
not impact.
Some may argue that rising costs or inflation reduced the
number of events. That is partially valid, but it does not justify such a sharp
drop despite a significant increase in funding.
Others might claim improved quality. Again, without
measurable indicators, that claim does not hold.
There is no data showing better competition standards,
higher participation levels, or stronger athlete outcomes. Without that,
“quality improvement” is just a convenient explanation.
Local athletes and residents in Nowshera are the most
credible sources to verify these claims. They know how many tournaments
actually took place, how competitive they were, and whether they had any real
value.
Official reports often tell one story. Ground reality often
tells another.
This is not just a Nowshera problem. It reflects a broader
issue in the sports governance system, where there is no clear link between
funding, activity, and outcomes.
As long as funding is not tied to measurable results, the
pattern will continue:
more money, less impact.
The fixes are not complicated, but they require intent.
First, every rupee spent must be linked to a clear output.
It is not enough to say a tournament was held. The outcome must be documented.
Second, all data should be publicly available. Details of
tournaments, participation, and results should be transparent and accessible.
Third, associations must be properly registered and
structured at the district level. Without that, accountability will always be
blurred.
Fourth, audits must go beyond finances. Performance audits
are essential to measure actual impact.
Finally, athletes must be part of the feedback loop. Real
insight comes from the field, not from paperwork.
At its core, this is not a numbers issue. It is a system and
accountability issue.
When an institution says it manages funds and events but not
outcomes, it is effectively admitting that it operates without responsibility
for results.
That is the real problem.
Until that changes, the system will continue to produce the
same flawed equation:
more funding, fewer results.
Comments
Post a Comment