Indian football’s ongoing structural churn took another decisive turn this week as the All India Football Federation (AIFF) rejected Sporting Club Bengaluru’s request to participate in the 2025–26 I-League season.
The decision, taken during the Executive Committee meeting on February 12, reinforces the federation’s firm stance on enforcing promotion and relegation even at the cost of losing a potentially transformative international investment. According to the federation’s official note , the AIFF upheld the relegation of Sporting Club Bengaluru (SCB) and Delhi FC, reiterating that competitive integrity and constitutional mandates cannot be bypassed through administrative appeals.
Watch Indian Live Scores and Play Quiz – Download IndiaSportsHub App
Sporting Club Bengaluru had sought to remain in the I-League after finishing in the bottom two during the 2024–25 campaign. Their appeal was based on procedural disputes and an unresolved disciplinary matter involving another club during the season.
However, the AIFF Executive Committee chose regulatory consistency over accommodation. The message was clear: no exemptions, no ad-hoc inclusions, and no dilution of the promotion-relegation system.
This stance is rooted in the federation’s newly ratified constitution, which emphasizes the sanctity of the league pyramid. After years of criticism for inconsistent enforcement and perceived administrative flexibility, the AIFF appears determined to signal a new era of rule-based governance.
Yet, the rigidity of this position has sparked debate across Indian football circles especially given what was at stake.
What makes this rejection particularly significant is that Sporting Club Bengaluru were reportedly close to securing major international investment from an Italian Serie A club.
The proposed partnership was expected to bring:
- Technical collaboration
- Player exchange programmes
- Advanced sports science integration
- European performance frameworks
For a relatively young club founded in 2022, this represented a rare opportunity to embed global best practices into India’s second tier. SCB management had expressed willingness to fulfil all financial obligations, including the participation fee, despite operating in an uncertain administrative environment.
From a purely commercial standpoint, allowing a professionally backed, internationally aligned club into the I-League could have strengthened the competition’s credibility. Instead, the AIFF chose structural discipline over short-term opportunity.
The Broader Context: Indian Football’s Reset
The decision cannot be viewed in isolation. It comes amid a sweeping transformation in Indian football governance. The Master Rights Agreement with Football Sports Development Limited (FSDL) expired in 2025, ending a 15-year era of private operational dominance. The AIFF has since taken direct control of league management.
Simultaneously, the I-League has been rebranded as the Indian Football League (IFL), with a revised governance model that gives participating clubs greater structural say. The 2025–26 season will also operate in a truncated two-stage format to meet AFC compliance deadlines. In this climate of institutional rebuilding, the federation appears unwilling to make exceptions that might weaken its regulatory authority.
From the AIFF’s perspective, consistency today may prevent chaos tomorrow. Yet the fallout is tangible.
Watch Indian Live Scores and Play Quiz – Download IndiaSportsHub App
Sporting Club Bengaluru had built a strong local identity in a city already home to Bengaluru FC. Their rise from the BDFA Super Division to I-League 2 champions within two seasons showcased ambition and administrative clarity. A Bengaluru derby at the national level was slowly becoming a realistic commercial proposition.
Now, SCB return to the third tier a significant competitive and financial setback. For potential investors, the episode also raises questions about risk exposure in Indian football. If regulatory frameworks can override strategic commercial interests without transitional safeguards, foreign capital may tread cautiously.
At its core, this is a philosophical debate.
Should federations prioritise absolute regulatory consistency, or should there be flexibility to protect projects that can elevate the ecosystem? The AIFF’s answer, for now, is unequivocal: merit first.
In doing so, the federation has reinforced the idea that no club regardless of financial backing or international ties can bypass the pyramid. However, Indian football’s long-term health depends not only on sporting integrity but also on sustainable investment, professional infrastructure, and global integration.
The challenge for the AIFF moving forward will be to create a system where both can coexist.
Sporting Club Bengaluru must now rebuild through the third tier pathway. Their ability to retain investor confidence, maintain squad stability, and navigate licensing requirements will determine whether this setback becomes a pause or a derailment. For Indian football, the episode serves as a litmus test of the new governance era. The federation has chosen discipline over discretion.
Whether that decision strengthens the pyramid or stifles its growth will become clear in the seasons ahead.
