India’s top football clubs have collectively asked the All India Football Federation (AIFF) to define a coherent future for the Indian Super League (ISL), stressing that interim solutions alone cannot sustain the country’s flagship domestic competition. The 2025-26 season, paused midway through 2025 due to unresolved contractual differences, remains a symbol of administrative uncertainty that has impacted sporting continuity, commercial momentum, and long-term player development pathways.
The disagreement stemmed from the expiry of the Master Rights Agreement (MRA) between AIFF and its former commercial partner, Football Sports Development Limited (FSDL), leaving operational control, revenue frameworks, and ownership models unsettled. A Supreme Court-monitored tender process to auction ISL’s commercial rights also failed to draw bidders, signalling market hesitation amid governance ambiguity.
Club leadership believes clarity on both the federation’s immediate strategy and its long-term competition blueprint is critical to restore confidence among broadcasters, sponsors, investors, and supporters. The clubs have reiterated that short-term participation remains a possibility, but only if aligned with a defined future vision rather than being implemented as a standalone experiment.
Season paused, confidence bruised
The decision to halt the 2025-26 season in July followed months of friction between the federation and the league’s previous organisers, triggered by the approaching expiration of the MRA in December 2025. The breakdown in negotiations resulted in a legal deadlock, forcing the Supreme Court to step in and appoint an oversight committee to supervise key decisions. While the court’s involvement ensured procedural legitimacy, the absence of commercial interest in the tender process revealed deeper concerns among market stakeholders, who remained unconvinced about investing in an asset without a clearly articulated governance structure.
Also Read
Club executives have expressed that uncertainty around operational ownership has diluted the ISL’s momentum. Internally, clubs feel the pause has disrupted competitive rhythm and affected planning cycles for squad building, marketing commitments, and cost forecasting. Several club owners believe that football’s growth curve, which surged when the league first launched in 2014, is now at a critical inflection point, where administrative clarity will directly influence its next decade of progress.
Perpetual ownership pitch stalls, but belief stays
Earlier this month, 10 clubs submitted a proposal seeking indefinite operational and commercial control of the league, an attempt framed by them as a sustainable ownership structure that could provide long-term stability. However, the AIFF General Body withheld approval, opting instead to form a committee to reassess competition models and commercial frameworks. The clubs maintain internally that the proposal was driven not by power consolidation, but by a desire to ensure continuity, predictable revenue models, and unified stakeholder governance.
Club leaders feel the idea still holds merit and should remain a reference point in the AIFF’s long-term planning. They have conveyed indirectly that their proposal offers a financially sustainable ecosystem, built to grow Indian football without creating structural conflicts. While disappointed by the outcome, club CEOs still see space for collaboration if discussions remain open, structured, and driven by shared ambition rather than distrust.
Short-term plan useful, but incomplete without alignment
In internal meetings held earlier this month, clubs found the AIFF’s interim league proposal encouraging in principle, but insufficient in detail. Executives want to understand how money will flow, who pays for what, and how the competition will be delivered to audiences. Their key areas of concern include the federation’s revenue-sharing formula, the projected broadcasting strategy, and a full breakdown of short-term league costs, including hosting, logistics, production, staffing, and match delivery expenses.
Clubs have expressed indirectly that without transparency on cost allocation, it is difficult to assess financial feasibility or gain internal board approvals. The lack of clarity has delayed decisions on player contracts, season budgeting, and commercial commitments. Several CEOs have conveyed that short-term participation is not off the table, but alignment with a long-term competition strategy must be guaranteed to avoid repeated disruptions.
December 22–29 talks underway, but clubs want a bigger picture first
A federation-appointed panel has begun consultations with five clubs—Chennaiyin FC, Mumbai City FC, Delhi Sporting Club, NorthEast United FC, and Mohun Bagan Super Giant—over the final week of December. While clubs respect the process, their broader sentiment remains that discussions should begin with a clear articulation of the AIFF’s long-range competition model before diving into interim mechanics.
Internally, clubs feel that roadmaps must precede revenue charts, and structure must come before cost splits. They have expressed indirectly that Indian football needs unity of vision, not segmented problem-solving. Several CEOs feel that football fans, sponsors, and young players deserve long-term certainty that protects the sport from administrative turbulence.
 "Mohd Salah")
