The kick of money

'Unified' first division football league plan is flawed

Aizawl Football Club’s delirious celebrations for its heroic achievement of topping the I-League championship last week were marred by sobering news that it would be relegated to the second division from the 2017-18 season. This is a uniquely bizarre development in the global footballing firmament and does little to enhance India's reputation for sports management, serial contretemps over the Commonwealth Games and the IPL being unedifying examples. Aizawl FC’s prospective relegation — which catapults its gallant footballers into an uncertain future — has much to do with the brash display of money power in cooperation with the All India Football Federation (AIFF), headed by former aviation minister Praful Patel. This is the result of a proposal for a “unified” first division league from November which will include — by default -- the eight teams that compete in the three-year-old Indian Super League (ISL) promoted by a consortium of IMG, the American sports management conglomerate, and Reliance Industries, India’s largest private-sector company by market capitalisation. The AIFF is also in discussions with three “popular” I-League teams — Mohun Bagan, East Bengal and Bengaluru FC — to join this “first” division. This means that the 21-year-old I-League, which is the national, FIFA-recognised tournament, will cease to exist.

Prima facie, this looks like a healthy development. The ISL is by far the more heavily marketed competition, with superstar club promoters, foreign stars (mostly former ones) and coaches and well-paid players. Last year, it boasted a TV viewership of 216 million, up from 205 million in 2015. The I-League is a much poorer relation — since 2007, several teams such as JCT and Mahindra have been disbanded for lack of traction. Truth be told, minus the glamour and in terms of footballing quality, ISL’s standards are far from global, but they are indubitably superior to the fare on offer in the I-League, so the exposure would do footballers in smaller clubs a world of good. 

But here’s the rub. Were the new format to emulate European club football, standard relegation rules would apply. Typically, the three teams that figure at the bottom of the top division at the end of the season would be relegated, and the three teams that top the division immediately below get promoted. This would create an open market for footballing talent and a healthy eco-system for the sport. Instead, because of an absurd seven-year no-relegation agreement signed by ISL teams and IMG-Reliance, this basic competitive dynamic will not apply. 

This means teams like Aizawl, Churchill Brothers and Minerva Punjab will be condemned to the second division for at least seven years. Why are they, too, not co-opted into this “unified first division”? That is because participation in the ISL requires Rs 15 crore as franchise fee — in addition to all the other expenses associated with maintaining a football team. Most I-League teams function on budgets of less than a tenth of that amount (it is significant that the three “invitee” teams have requested a waiver of this entry fee). 

The decidedly weird nature of this arrangement, in which monetary prowess takes precedence over sporting talent, is enhanced by the fact that the ISL is not officially recognised by the FIFA. In its trademark opaque style, however, the world governing body has granted it “accreditation”. The AIFF has argued that the ISL was introduced to help upgrade footballing facilities ahead of the 2017 Under-17 World Cup, due later this year.

But India won that bid in 2013, two years before the ISL began. If it is argued that the country lacked adequate infrastructure to host this tournament, then on what grounds did the AIFF apply and the FIFA award the bid? And if this hermetically sealed divisional structure receives FIFA approval, I-League clubs are fully entitled to question the integrity of the deal.