The Goa Cricket Association (GCA) has received an adverse audit opinion after an independent review identified widespread compliance failures, questioned financial practices and flagged transactions valued at nearly ₹49 crore for critical-risk scrutiny.

The audit report, covering the period from April 1, 2024, to December 26, 2025, raises concerns over the association’s financial management, procurement practices, infrastructure expenditure and governance systems. Prepared by a panel of chartered accountants appointed by the Office of the District Registrar (North) and Inspector General of Societies, Government of Goa, the report is dated September 21, 2026.

The auditors concluded that the shortcomings identified were serious enough to cast doubt on the reliability and completeness of the association’s affairs, accounts and financial records. They found that the records and activities examined did not adequately comply with the GCA’s governing rules, constitutional provisions and other applicable requirements.

Among the transactions placed in the critical-risk category were ₹19.10 crore in travel and hotel bookings, ₹5.80 crore for upgrading LED sports floodlights at Porvorim and ₹6 crore for installing LED floodlights at Sanguem.

The report also flagged procurement of physiotherapy equipment worth ₹3.61 crore and gym equipment worth ₹3.44 crore, along with a swimming pool project valued at ₹2.52 crore. Sports supplies purchased from SMG Impex, amounting to ₹2.11 crore, were also included among the transactions requiring scrutiny.

Other entries in the critical-risk category include a ₹1.18 crore memorandum of understanding with Techmindz and a professional engagement involving Dr Satyesh Kamat valued at ₹1.18 crore.

The auditors additionally examined ₹3.19 crore in professional fees and engagements involving coaches and support staff, ₹56.64 lakh spent on the Yashogatha event and ₹21.60 lakh for infrastructure work by Sky Caps Enterprises at Cotarli, Sanguem. Payments relating to travel allowances, daily allowances and honorarium for office bearers, totalling ₹1.64 lakh, were also flagged.

Governance and Financial Procedures Under Question

The concerns extend beyond individual expenditure entries. The report places the GCA’s governance and compliance review, internal financial controls and the handling of Managing Committee minutes and resolutions under the critical-risk category.

The auditors identified recurring weaknesses in procurement and vendor selection, documentation supporting expenditure, oversight of memoranda of understanding, professional appointments and consultancy arrangements. Questions were also raised over employee appointments and removals, as well as the maintenance and custody of fixed-asset and inventory records.

Several other matters were classified as high risk. These included fixed assets that could not be located during physical verification, appointments and engagements described as unauthorised, office renovation expenditure of ₹40.26 lakh and the absence of a properly maintained inventory register. The report also records failures to furnish certain documents and records.

The risk assessment was based on eight parameters, including transaction value, compliance with binding provisions, availability of supporting documentation, validity of approvals, repeated procedural deviations, effectiveness of internal controls, possible conflicts of interest and the potential for financial loss or recovery.

The report states that certain critical-risk issues, particularly those involving breaches of binding rules, missing records or payments and benefits without entitlement, may not be capable of being regularised merely through approval granted after the event.

Adverse Opinion on GCA’s Affairs and Accounts

In its overall assessment, the audit panel said the findings across 23 sections were substantial enough to prevent the association’s affairs, accounts and financial records for the period under review from being considered reliable, complete and auditable. It consequently issued an adverse opinion.

The report, however, makes an important distinction between the value of transactions examined and the actual financial impact of the findings. The amounts listed represent the value of the transactions scrutinised and are not a calculation of losses suffered by the association. Their classification as critical risk does not, on its own, establish that the entire sums were lost or misappropriated.

The audit followed orders issued by the District Registrar and subsequent directions concerning complaints against the association. The detailed findings and accompanying annexures form part of the report supporting the panel’s overall assessment.