ISL Clubs Challenge AIFF's Financial Practices Amid Controversy
Concerns Raised by ISL Clubs
New Delhi: On Friday, twelve clubs from the Indian Super League (ISL) addressed a letter to the All India Football Federation (AIFF), claiming that the federation is set to gain a surplus exceeding Rs 3.4 crore from the current season, despite previously assuring the Sports Ministry that it would not profit from the league this year.
The clubs expressed their concerns in a strongly worded five-page letter directed to the AIFF's deputy secretary general, highlighting that the federation retains 40% of the central revenue while the teams shoulder the entire operational costs and the majority of the league's financial risks.
The letter pointed out that the revised financial model for the 2025-26 season indicates that the AIFF's contributions and operational share are both zero, with all funding being provided by the clubs.
According to the letter, the league is expected to generate Rs 8.62 crore from its streaming partner, FanCode, with the AIFF set to keep 40% of this amount, which translates to approximately Rs 3.448 crore.
The clubs emphasized that despite the extraordinary circumstances, the federation stands to profit while the clubs endure significant financial strain.
They argued that if the AIFF considers the ISL as its own league, it should also bear the financial responsibilities. Conversely, if it views the league as a partnership, then both economic and decision-making responsibilities should be shared.
The clubs confirmed their intention to pay the first installment of Rs 30 lakh required by the federation, emphasizing that this payment is made in good faith to support the continuity of Indian football, but does not imply acceptance of unilateral governance by the AIFF.
The letter was signed by notable clubs including Mohun Bagan Super Giant, East Bengal FC, and Kerala Blasters FC, among others, who also expressed their discontent with what they perceive as unilateral decision-making by the federation.
They criticized the AIFF for publishing a long-term Request for Qualification document regarding the league's future commercial structure without prior consultation with the clubs.
The clubs insisted that decisions regarding the league's long-term commercial framework, including revenue distribution and governance, should involve the teams that are financially supporting the competition.
Concerns were also raised about the potential for relegation during what they described as an irregular season, citing issues such as unequal home-and-away match distribution and financial disparities.
The clubs argued that relegation under these conditions would not reflect a fair sporting outcome but rather a structural elimination.
They urged the federation to recognize the current season as interim or to suspend relegation for this cycle.
Additionally, the clubs objected to the AIFF's enforcement provisions, which include daily fines and the risk of disqualification, labeling the language as coercive and inconsistent with a collaborative partnership approach.
The truncated ISL finally commenced on February 14 after months of uncertainty due to delays related to commercial and administrative challenges, having originally been scheduled to start in September.