Indian football stands at a defining juncture, with competing visions threatening to reshape or further destabilize the domestic game. On December 19, 2025, nine I-League clubs unveiled an ambitious blueprint for a unified top-tier competition titled the Indian Football Premier League (IFPL).
The proposal, however, was swiftly rejected by the All India Football Federation (AIFF), deepening the governance uncertainty surrounding Indian football’s immediate and long-term future.
The IFPL Proposal: An 18-Team Vision for Unity
The nine I-League clubs Aizawl FC, Chanmari FC, Dempo SC, Namdhari FC, Rajasthan United FC, Real Kashmir FC, Shillong Lajong FC, Sreenidi Deccan FC, and Gokulam Kerala FC submitted a detailed plan aimed at consolidating India’s fragmented league system. Central to the proposal was an 18-team top-tier league designed to replace the current bifurcation between the Indian Super League (ISL) and the I-League.
More than a structural realignment, the IFPL was backed by a defined financial commitment. The clubs collectively pledged ₹50 crore to the AIFF over a 15-year period, structured progressively as ₹2.75 crore annually for years 1–5, ₹3.25 crore for years 6–10, and ₹4 crore for years 11–15. This was positioned as a statement of intent rather than symbolic reform.
Governance was another cornerstone. Each club would hold equal ownership and voting rights under a one-club-one-vote model, regardless of market size or legacy. Key decisions on governance, regulatory frameworks, commercial strategy, and expansion would require a two-thirds majority, ensuring checks against unilateral dominance.
Operational Framework and AIFF’s Defined Role
The IFPL proposed an independently operated corporate league entity, separating commercial operations from federation control. Broadcasting, sponsorship, digital, and merchandising rights would be centrally managed for transparency and sustainability. The AIFF would retain full regulatory authority overseeing registrations, transfers, disciplinary matters, competition rules, and FIFA-AFC compliance but would be barred from influencing commercial decisions.
Revenue distribution focused on predictability. After covering league membership costs, 50% of net revenue would be split equally among clubs, 25% allocated based on league performance, 5% set aside in a contingency fund, and the remaining 20% jointly determined by clubs and the AIFF.
The IFPL proposal emerged amid administrative turmoil. The ISL India’s top-tier competition since 2022–23 effectively stalled after the Master Rights Agreement between AIFF and Football Sports Development Limited (FSDL) expired on December 8, 2025. The 2025–26 ISL season, slated for an October start, never commenced. By June 2025, FSDL informed clubs that the season was on hold due to unresolved contractual disputes.
Read Articles Without Ads On Your IndiaSportsHub App. Download Now And Stay Updated
The fallout was severe. Clubs suspended first-team operations, delayed payments, and faced growing financial stress. Compounding the crisis, the Supreme Court of India ruled in September 2025 that the AIFF must be the sole owner and operator of the top-tier league a directive that fundamentally reshaped the governance landscape.
By January 2, 2026, with no clarity in sight, Indian football’s leading players issued an extraordinary joint video appeal to FIFA. Sunil Chhetri, Gurpreet Singh Sandhu, and Sandesh Jhingan, along with foreign professionals such as Hugo Boumous and Carlos Delgado, publicly voiced their desperation.
“It’s January, and we should be on your screens,” Gurpreet said, highlighting the human cost of administrative paralysis. The players accused the AIFF of governance failure, warning of “permanent paralysis” within the system. Chhetri’s closing plea was simple yet powerful: “Players, staff, owners, and fans deserve clarity, protection, and a future. We just want to play football.”
The timing was deliberate; their appeal preceded the AIFF’s January 3 decision and underscored the moral consequences of bureaucratic inertia.
AIFF’s Rejection and Competing Models
The AIFF rejected the IFPL proposal the same day it was submitted. President Kalyan Chaubey reaffirmed that the federation would own and operate the top-tier league, citing the Supreme Court ruling. A separate proposal from ISL clubs suggesting shared governance with AIFF oversight and ₹10 crore annual grants was also turned down, though discussions were deferred to newly formed committees.
The AIFF Framework and January 3 Decision
By late December, the AIFF outlined its preferred 20-year ISL framework, costing ₹96 crore per season. Clubs would pay ₹1 crore annually, with revenue split between the AIFF (10%), clubs (50%), and potential commercial partners (40%). Promotion and relegation were retained to meet AFC and Supreme Court mandates. On January 3, 2026, the AIFF Emergency Committee confirmed it would conduct the ISL 2025–26 season, asserting full control. Thirteen of fourteen ISL clubs conditionally agreed to participate, with Jamshedpur FC remaining outside the consensus.
Despite financial backing and structured governance, the IFPL collided with constitutional realities. Supreme Court directives, strengthened AIFF authority, and fragmented club unity left little room for club-led reform. The proposal’s failure reflects systemic rigidity rather than lack of merit.
The IFPL represented a rare attempt at holistic reform merging tiers, democratizing governance, and ensuring stability. Its rejection confirms that Indian football has chosen consolidation under federation control over integration driven by clubs. As the ISL resumes under AIFF management, unresolved AFC compliance issues and operational capacity concerns linger. Ultimately, beyond structures and statutes, the players’ voices remain the most telling reminder: governance debates matter because they determine whether footballers can simply do what they exist to do play the game.
Whether Indian football’s fragile equilibrium survives the next regulatory test remains the sport’s most pressing unanswered question.
