The Paradox of Prosperity: Why Indian Football’s Budget Surplus Masks a Grassroots Crisis

In the same financial year that Indian football federation reported one of its largest-ever surpluses ₹18.45 crore the sport’s most critical foundation, grassroots development, saw its funding slashed by 78%.

The All India Football Federation (AIFF)’s 2024–25 budget, approved earlier this year, paints a picture of financial contradiction rising international income from FIFA and the AFC, but a simultaneous retreat from the very programs meant to sustain the sport’s future. For the current fiscal year, the AIFF increased its international grant revenue substantially FIFA funds rose from ₹16.21 crore to ₹21.16 crore, and AFC grants from ₹9.10 crore to ₹10.91 crore. Together, that’s a ₹6.76 crore jump in international income.

Yet, the grassroots and coaching course allocation was cut from ₹1.00 crore to ₹0.22 crore a reduction of nearly ₹78 lakh, or 78%.

If that sounds counterintuitive, it is. The federation received more money than ever from its global governing bodies, but chose to spend far less on the base of its player pyramid. The math reveals a policy choice — not a financial necessity.

The Surplus Paradox: Cutting to Save

At the heart of this paradox lies a simple, uncomfortable truth: the AIFF’s budgetary restraint was not born of financial distress, but of institutional mismanagement and misplaced priorities. The federation ended the year with a reported surplus of ₹18.45 crore, even as it reduced or froze spending across nearly every development vertical from youth competitions to women’s football.

The federation’s leadership justified these reductions as “necessary for financial sustainability.” But as one senior sports economist observed, “True fiscal discipline is not about cutting the most essential expenses it’s about optimizing them.” By underspending on programs that feed talent into the professional system, the AIFF risks hollowing out the very ecosystem that sustains the sport in the long term.

A Pattern of Decline

The budget cuts don’t exist in isolation. They are part of a wider pattern of contraction across AIFF’s development and competition portfolios.

Key reductions in 2024–25 include:

• I-League First Division: –₹4.02 crore
• I-League Second Division: Major reduction
• Youth Teams (Men’s and Women’s): Sharp cuts to camp and exposure budgets
• International Friendlies and Development Teams: Lower operational funding
• Women’s Team Staff and Support: Budget reduced

Together, these reductions created a cascading effect, a federation appearing more fiscally stable on paper but operationally stagnant on the ground.

The Utilization Problem: When Money Goes Unspent

The AIFF’s defense has often been the declining support from India’s Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports. Indeed, government grants have fallen steadily from ₹30 crore in FY 2022–23 (a year that included U-17 Women’s World Cup preparations) to ₹14 crore in FY 2023–24, and down to ₹8.78 crore this year.

But even that limited funding wasn’t fully used.

The federation spent only ₹4.38 crore of the ₹8.78 crore allocated a 51% utilization rate. Nearly half the government’s money earmarked for development went untouched. That underutilization, analysts argue, is not due to lack of intent but a lack of administrative capacity.

“If an organization can’t spend half of its development grant, it’s not facing a funding crisis it’s facing a governance crisis,” said a former AIFF official familiar with the budgeting process. The problem is structural. Running grassroots programs across India’s 37 state associations requires a high degree of coordination, planning, and financial oversight all of which the AIFF’s administrative machinery has consistently failed to deliver.

Why the Cuts Make Bureaucratic Sense

Ironically, the decision to slash the grassroots budget to ₹22 lakh may have been an administrative survival tactic rather than a purely financial one. By reducing allocations to the point of minimal activity, the federation limits its exposure to audit criticism for unspent funds. In other words, it cut the program to avoid being called out for inefficiency.

This creates a vicious cycle fewer funds lead to fewer activities, which leads to fewer measurable outcomes, which then justify future cuts.

The grassroots program becomes symbolic a checkbox exercise rather than a developmental engine.

The International Disconnect: FIFA Forward, Domestic Backward

Much of the confusion around AIFF’s finances stems from the restricted nature of international funding. Under FIFA Forward 3.0 (the 2023–26 funding cycle), member associations can access up to $8 million (approx. ₹66 crore) over four years. But the money is split into rigid categories:

• Operational support: Up to $1.25 million annually
• Tailored projects (infrastructure/development): Up to $3 million
• National team participation: Up to $1.2 million

These funds are not flexible they must be used for pre-approved objectives like national team travel or major infrastructure projects.

The AIFF’s increase in FIFA and AFC grants about ₹6.76 crore is likely absorbed in three areas:

1. Administrative costs: Replacing lost government grant support and keeping the federation’s day-to-day operations functional.
2. Infrastructure projects: Like the new AIFF-FIFA Talent Academy, which consumes large, ring-fenced capital.
3. National team commitments: Travel, accommodation, and participation in FIFA/AFC tournaments.

The result: while India’s international representation remains funded, grassroots development gets no trickle-down support from these international inflows.

The consequences of this strategic approach are severe. Cutting grassroots programs severs the pipeline that feeds both the national teams and domestic leagues.

When foundational structures, youth competitions, scouting, and coaching courses, collapse, it creates a lag effect that may take five to seven years to correct.

This pattern is not new to Indian football. The U-17 team that captured national attention in 2017 came from years of structured development camps, exposure tours, and AIFF-backed scouting programs all of which have since been scaled back or discontinued.

“We’re now living off the legacy of the 2017 investment,” one youth coach observed. “If this continues, by 2030 we’ll have no ready pipeline of players.”

Comparing India’s Budget Reality

The AIFF’s annual operating scale remains far below its Asian peers:

Even within this limited scale, India’s football administration struggles to utilize what it has — a problem that is as governance-related as it is financial.

The Core Findings: Where the AIFF Went Wrong

1. Deliberate Budget Cuts Despite Increased Revenue: The 78% reduction in grassroots funding was not a forced austerity move, but a conscious decision to preserve cash. The ₹0.78 crore “saving” occurred even as the federation gained nearly ₹6.76 crore in new international funds.
2. Underutilization of Government Grants: Spending only half of its government allocation (₹4.38 crore of ₹8.78 crore) highlights deep administrative inefficiency.
3. Financial Surplus Over Sporting Investment: Reporting a surplus of ₹18.45 crore while cutting core programs shows a focus on capital preservation over developmental responsibility.
4. Restricted Use of International Funds: FIFA/AFC grants, though higher, are tightly bound to project-specific expenditures leaving the federation unable (or unwilling) to cross-subsidize grassroots initiatives.

The Long-Term Consequences

By scaling back grassroots programs, the AIFF risks:

• Erosion of the youth talent pipeline feeding national and club football.
• Increased dependence on private academies and franchise-based scouting systems.
• Loss of institutional credibility with both government and international partners.
• Reduced inclusivity, as rural and Tier-2 players lose access to AIFF-backed training structures.

In essence, India’s football future is being mortgaged for the illusion of short-term fiscal discipline.

The Road Ahead: What Must Change

Experts suggest three urgent reforms to reverse this trajectory:

1. Mandatory Development Allocation: A fixed percentage (at least 10–15% of annual revenue) must be ring-fenced for grassroots and coaching programs non-negotiable, irrespective of other budgetary pressures.
2. Utilization Accountability: Quarterly audits should track grant-specific utilization rates, with performance-linked reviews for administrative staff. Persistent underutilization must trigger restructuring or disciplinary action.
3. Transparency in Grant Spending: The AIFF must publicly report how FIFA and AFC funds are used clearly differentiating between administrative, national team, infrastructure, and grassroots expenditure.
4. A Crisis of Governance, Not Just Money: The story of AIFF’s 2024–25 budget is not one of poverty but of prioritization failure. The federation had the funds both domestic and international but lacked the competence, will, or strategic clarity to deploy them effectively.

As one veteran administrator bluntly summarized:

“The AIFF doesn’t have a money problem. It has a management problem.”

Until that changes, India’s football dream will remain where it has too often been well-funded on paper, and underdeveloped on the ground.