Indian sports stands at a decisive inflection point, where long-standing governance structures are being tested against modern economic realities.
The ongoing friction between the All India Football Federation (AIFF) and the Indian Super League (ISL) is not an isolated dispute over commercial rights or calendar control. It is a broader “BAR” test Bottlenecks, Accountability, and Regulation that will determine whether Indian sport can transition from federation-dominated administration to a professional, investment-friendly ecosystem.
At the heart of the current crisis lies a structural contradiction. National Sports Federations (NSFs) in India traditionally function as both regulators of the sport and operators of its commercial leagues. This concentration of power has increasingly proven incompatible with the scale, speed, and capital demands of modern professional sport. The failure of Indian football’s commercial renewal in 2025 illustrates this with unusual clarity.
The ISL Rights Collapse and a Market Verdict
The crisis escalated in late 2025 with the expiration of the 15-year Master Rights Agreement (MRA) between the AIFF and Football Sports Development Limited (FSDL). Since 2016, the deal had guaranteed the federation ₹50 crore annually, forming the backbone of its finances. When the agreement ended on December 8, 2025, Indian football lost its primary revenue engine overnight.
Following Supreme Court directions, the AIFF issued a fresh Request for Proposal for a new 15-year commercial partner, lowering the minimum guarantee to ₹37.5 crore per year. Yet when the deadline arrived in November 2025, not a single bid was submitted. This market silence was not accidental. It reflected a lack of confidence in a system where investors bear financial risk without meaningful operational autonomy.
The implications were immediate. ISL clubs began freezing spending, delaying salaries, and pausing first-team planning as early as July 2025. What emerged was a stark message: private capital will not commit long-term funds to a league where governance uncertainty and federation vetoes dominate decision-making.
Read Articles Without Ads On Your IndiaSportsHub App. Download Now And Stay Updated
In response, ISL clubs proposed a radical restructuring creation of a club-owned “League Company” with perpetual operational and commercial rights. Under this model, clubs would control broadcasting, sponsorship, and league management, while the AIFF would act strictly as a regulator responsible for rules, licensing, refereeing, and national teams.
To safeguard sporting integrity, the clubs proposed that the AIFF hold a “special share”, allowing veto power only on issues affecting competition integrity or statutory compliance. The proposal also included a ₹10 crore annual grant to the federation from 2026–27 onwards, ensuring continued funding for grassroots and administrative functions.
However, the AIFF rejected the proposal at its December 2025 AGM, citing its constitution, which mandates federation ownership of the top-tier league. Instead, the federation opted for a “do-it-yourself” approach, even contemplating dipping into fixed deposits to keep the league alive. This decision epitomized the bottleneck problem where administrative control is prioritized over commercial viability.
The National Sports Governance Act 2025: A Structural Reset
This standoff is unfolding alongside the enactment of the National Sports Governance Act (NSGA) 2025, which fundamentally reshapes Indian sports administration. By replacing the executive-driven 2011 Sports Code with a statutory framework, the Act seeks to professionalise governance, enforce accountability, and attract private investment.
The NSGA establishes the National Sports Board (NSB) as an apex regulator with the power to grant or withdraw federation recognition. Access to government funding is now tied directly to compliance with governance norms, including transparency, term limits, athlete representation, and safe-sport policies. The Act also mandates executive committees capped at 15 members, with at least four women and two athletes of outstanding merit.
Significantly, the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports has deferred all NSF elections until December 31, 2026, providing a transition window for federations to align with the new law. While some fear this could invite scrutiny from international bodies over government interference, the intent is clear: structural reform before democratic renewal.
Lessons from Cricket and Global Models
Indian sport has seen this reform logic before. The Lodha Committee’s overhaul of the BCCI demonstrated the value of separating governance from day-to-day management. By professionalising operations and limiting administrator dominance, cricket unlocked unprecedented commercial growth while retaining regulatory oversight.
Globally, similar thinking underpins the UK’s Independent Football Regulator, introduced in 2025. The regulator oversees financial sustainability and ownership integrity, while leaving commercial innovation to leagues and clubs. The principle is consistent: regulators set the rules; markets build the product.
The AIFF–ISL impasse is not just football’s problem. It is a warning for all Indian sports navigating professionalisation. Private capital demands predictability, autonomy, and credible regulation not overlapping authority and institutional rigidity.
The “BAR” test now confronting Indian sport will determine whether federations evolve into custodians of integrity or remain gatekeepers of commerce. With the NSGA 2025 providing statutory backing, the momentum is shifting toward regulatory decoupling separating rule-making from revenue generation.
If Indian sport is to scale, attract investment, and compete globally, this separation is no longer optional. It is inevitable.
