Indian football stands at one of the most critical junctions in its professional history.
With the Indian Super League (ISL) caught in a web of legal uncertainty following the expiry of the Master Rights Agreement (MRA) and ongoing judicial scrutiny, the All India Football Federation (AIFF) has been forced to reimagine how the country’s top-tier competition should function going forward. What has emerged are two sharply contrasting proposals each reflecting a different philosophy about what Indian football needs right now: short-term stability or long-term legitimacy .
Since its launch in 2013, the ISL has operated under a unique franchise-driven, commercially led model. That structure was underpinned by the 15-year MRA between AIFF and Football Sports Development Limited (FSDL), which allowed the league to grow rapidly but also delayed its integration into a fully open football pyramid. With the MRA now expired and its renewal stalled by Supreme Court directives, the league has been left in limbo, prompting the AIFF to explore alternative competition formats that can keep the game alive while remaining legally compliant.
At the heart of the discussion are two proposals.
Proposal 1: The East–West Conference Model (84 matches)
The first option is a centralized, cost-controlled model built around two conferences—East and West—with 14 teams split evenly. Each conference would follow a double round-robin format, producing a total of 84 matches, all played at two centralized venues. This approach is rooted in operational pragmatism.
From a logistical standpoint, the benefits are clear. Centralized venues significantly reduce travel costs, stadium rentals, staffing expenses, and broadcast logistics. In a period where the ISL has no confirmed commercial partner or broadcast deal, this cost containment is not trivial it may be the difference between staging a league and shelving it altogether. Centralization also simplifies medical oversight, a factor that has gained importance amid concerns over player welfare and disease surveillance in contact sports.
Read Articles Without Ads On Your IndiaSportsHub App. Download Now And Stay Updated
However, the drawbacks are equally substantial. By removing home matches from 12 of the 14 club cities, the league risks eroding local fan engagement arguably the weakest yet most essential pillar of Indian football. Clubs depend on physical presence to build identity, loyalty, and regional relevance. A prolonged centralized season could permanently weaken matchday culture, sponsorship activation, and grassroots interest.
There is also a competitive concern. Conference-based systems can create imbalances, where one group may be significantly stronger than the other, leading to questions of fairness an issue seen repeatedly in conference-driven leagues like Major League Soccer.
Proposal 2: The Traditional League Model (91 matches)
The second proposal represents a philosophical shift toward football orthodoxy. A single round-robin league of 14 teams, producing 91 matches, played in a home-and-away format, with the team finishing top of the table crowned champions. Crucially, this model seeks to resolve the long-standing “Shield vs Cup” confusion that has defined the ISL era.
Read Articles Without Ads On Your IndiaSportsHub App. Download Now And Stay Updated
Under this structure, consistency becomes king. Every match carries equal weight, and there is no safety net of playoffs to mask underwhelming league campaigns. This aligns the ISL with global best practices and simplifies continental qualification, especially important after India’s downgrade to the AFC Champions League 2 pathway .
From a fan and economic perspective, Proposal 2 offers far greater upside. Home matches drive local economies, strengthen club identities, and allow sponsors to activate across multiple markets. The emotional connect of home stadiums sights, sounds, and rivalries is irreplaceable in building a sustainable football culture.
That said, this model is also the most demanding. Operational costs rise sharply with 14 venues, varied infrastructure standards, and nationwide travel. Without a stable broadcast and commercial partner, the financial burden on both AIFF and clubs could be severe. In the current climate, this makes Proposal 2 aspirational but risky.
Governance and the Open Pyramid Reality
Both proposals exist within a broader structural shift: the ISL’s transition from a closed franchise system to an open pyramid with promotion and relegation. The promotion of clubs like Inter Kashi and Mohammedan SC has already introduced legal and administrative complexity, as seen in recent I-League disputes that required appeals reaching the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
Read Articles Without Ads On Your IndiaSportsHub App. Download Now And Stay Updated
This new reality demands stronger governance, clearer regulations, and formats that can withstand legal scrutiny. In this context, Proposal 2’s simplicity a single table, single champion may actually be easier to defend than a multi-stage or conference-based system riddled with tie-breakers and exceptions.
So, What Should the ISL Choose?
In essence, Proposal 1 is about survival. It acknowledges the present chaos and offers a controlled environment to keep professional football running until commercial clarity returns. Proposal 2 is about credibility. It seeks to complete the ISL’s evolution into a legitimate national league aligned with global norms. The decision ultimately hinges on timing. If the AIFF believes the commercial deadlock will persist, the centralized model may be a necessary compromise.
But if Indian football is serious about long-term growth, fan trust, and global respect, the traditional league format with a clear champion and true home-and-away identity remains the gold standard.
What is undeniable is this: the format chosen now will shape not just the next season, but the next decade of Indian football. The ISL is no longer just choosing how to play it is choosing what it wants to be.
