Indian football finds itself at a critical crossroads as all Indian Super League (ISL) clubs except East Bengal have formally responded to the All India Football Federation (AIFF), asserting that any discussion on jointly hosting the league is futile unless the federation first removes key constitutional barriers.
Their firm stance, communicated in a letter sent Thursday, underscores a deepening governance crisis that threatens the commercial and operational continuity of India’s top-tier football league.
The response came a day after AIFF Deputy Secretary General M. Satyanarayan wrote to clubs proposing a call to “explore the possibility of jointly hosting the league.” However, the clubs rejected the premise outright, stating the proposal “deflects responsibility onto the clubs while simultaneously citing constitutional restrictions as justification for the Federation’s inaction.”
At the centre of the conflict are Articles 1.21, 1.54, and 63 of the AIFF Constitution provisions the clubs deem “commercially restrictive” and incompatible with modern league governance.
Why the Clubs Are Taking a Hard Line
The ISL ecosystem is in a state of acute commercial uncertainty. The 15-year Marketing Rights Agreement (MRA) between AIFF and FSDL expired on December 8, 2025, abruptly ending the commercial framework that had underpinned the league since 2014. This sudden vacuum eliminated central revenue streams, putting several clubs on the brink of operational breakdown.
Attempts to find a new commercial partner have failed—the tender attracted no bidders, a devastating confirmation of what clubs have long argued: under the current constitutional structure, the league is commercially unviable. Articles restricting commercial freedom, league ownership, and operational control have created governance conditions too rigid for investors to accept.
Against this backdrop, the clubs’ unified response signed by Mohun Bagan Super Giant director Vinay Chopra on behalf of all clubs except East Bengal lays out their stance unequivocally:
“Clubs remain open and committed to working with the AIFF towards a club-led model. However, for such a model to be financially and operationally viable, clubs must have commercial flexibility including the ability to attract sponsors, investors and long-term partners. This is not possible until the commercially restrictive clauses in the AIFF Constitution are amended or removed.”
The Problematic Articles: What They Restrict
Article 1.21, which defines the federation’s financial year (April 1 – March 31), appears technical but severely limits the flexibility required for league-wide commercial contracts. ISL seasons and sponsorship cycles rarely align neatly within those boundaries.
Read Articles Without Ads On Your IndiaSportsHub App. Download Now And Stay Updated
Article 1.54 is more definitive and more damaging. It states that the top division league must be “owned, operated and recognized” by the AIFF. For clubs seeking autonomy akin to global football structures (Premier League, Bundesliga), this clause makes commercial independence legally impossible.
Article 63, which governs delegation of powers, allows the AIFF to retain authority over vaguely defined “Essential Aspects”. The ambiguity has enabled the federation to intervene or override commercial decisions, deterring potential investors who expect operational certainty. Even Justice L. Nageswara Rao, in a Supreme Court–mandated review, acknowledged that the article must be interpreted to exclude commercial and day-to-day league management from AIFF control.
The Two Options the Clubs Have Presented
In their letter, clubs outlined two pathways to salvage the league:
- AIFF must explicitly support or itself undertake amendments to Articles 1.21, 1.54, and 63 at the upcoming AGM on December 20, 2025.
Once amended, the federation and clubs with government involvement can jointly identify a new commercial partner through a transparent process. - If the AIFF considers the above institutionally difficult, it should after removing constitutional impediments
transfer long-term league rights to the clubs, who are prepared to operate, commercialise, and develop the league independently, consistent with global best practices.
This second option reflects a growing international trend where leagues are run by clubs while federations retain regulatory oversight.
AIFF’s Position: Deferral and Legal Constraints
In its reply, the AIFF maintained that its choices are limited because the matter is sub-judice before the Supreme Court, with Justice L. N. Rao’s report already submitted. The federation proposed two approaches:
- Await final Supreme Court directions, or
- Explore an “amicable alternative solution.”
However, clubs argue that the AIFF does not need judicial direction to amend its constitution, calling its continued posture a political choice rather than a legal compulsion. The AIFF added that any proposal will need approval from the Executive Committee and the General Body during the December 20 AGM.
A Crisis That Extends Beyond Governance
The constitutional conflict is now directly impacting club operations. Some clubs have temporarily suspended first-team activities due to the total collapse of central revenue. With sponsorships being withdrawn and no commercial certainty, the risk of salary delays and potential shutdowns looms across the league. The broader fear is existential: without immediate structural reform, the ISL may not remain financially viable in its current form.
Read Articles Without Ads On Your IndiaSportsHub App. Download Now And Stay Updated
The December 20 AGM is shaping into one of the most consequential meetings in Indian football history. Clubs insist that any meeting prior must have a “clear, pre-circulated agenda” aimed at time-bound decisions not another restatement of constraints.
The AIFF’s ability or willingness to amend the constitution remains uncertain. State associations, which dominate the voting body, may be reluctant to dilute federation power. If the AGM fails to act, decisive intervention from the Supreme Court guided by Justice Rao’s recommendations may be required to resolve the structural deadlock. Indian football stands at a pivotal moment. The ISL’s commercial collapse, combined with constitutional rigidity and governance friction, has brought the sport to a breaking point. The clubs’ united stand reflects both desperation and resolve: without structural freedom, there can be no sustainable league.
The next 10 days will determine whether the sport steps into a new era of professional, club-driven governance or continues in a cycle of uncertainty with potentially irreversible consequences.
