On Wednesday, December 25, 2025, the All India Football Federation’s three-member committee sat down with representatives from five Indian Super League clubs—two attending online—to discuss how to conduct the delayed 2025-26 season. What transpired perfectly encapsulates the crisis engulfing Indian football: the AIFF presented two format proposals while studiously avoiding every substantive question that actually matters.
The federation unveiled Format A, featuring 19 matches per side potentially extending to 21 games with semi-finals and a final, and Format B, proposing single-leg home and away matches totaling 91 games across 14 teams with 13 games per club. Both formats include playoff structures and champion determination mechanisms. What the proposals conspicuously lacked were the essential details that clubs desperately need: confirmed broadcasting arrangements, revenue distribution models, commercial partnership clarity, operational budgets, and realistic timelines for implementation.
At a time when the ISL has no confirmed broadcaster, no central revenue stream, no commercial partner, and clubs are bleeding money while keeping skeletal operations running, the AIFF’s engagement with stakeholders remains limited to formats on paper. As Indian football continues its freefall—with City Football Group exiting Mumbai City FC just hours before this meeting—proposals are being made, but leadership, clarity, and accountability remain conspicuously absent.
This is not a plan to save Indian football. It is a masterclass in administrative theater, where meetings substitute for decisions and format discussions replace the hard financial and commercial conversations that Indian football desperately needs.
The Two Format Proposals: All Structure, Zero Substance
The AIFF’s three-member committee, comprising Kerala FA President Navas Meeran, Goa FA President Caitano Fernandes, and IFA West Bengal Secretary Anirban Datta, presented two distinct operational frameworks for the ISL 2025-26 season.
Format A: The Extended Competition Model
This proposal envisions 19 matches per team as the baseline, structured around traditional league play. The format could extend to 21 total matches through the inclusion of semi-finals and a final—though this expansion remains contingent upon Asian Football Confederation clarification regarding the recognition of Durand Cup and Super Cup matches for AFC licensing purposes..
The AFC recognition question is not trivial. AFC licensing requirements mandate that clubs competing in continental competitions play a minimum number of competitive domestic matches. If Durand Cup and Super Cup matches receive official recognition from the AFC, clubs could satisfy licensing requirements with fewer ISL matches. Without that recognition, the ISL would need to provide the entire competitive match quota, necessitating a longer season.
But here’s the fundamental problem: the AIFF presented this format without confirming whether AFC recognition for those cup competitions even exists or is forthcoming. Clubs are being asked to evaluate a league structure whose actual length—19 games versus 21 games—depends on an external factor that the federation hasn’t resolved.
Format B: The Truncated Single-Leg Model
The alternative proposal features a single-leg home and away format, producing 91 total matches across 14 teams. Each club would play 13 games—significantly fewer than the traditional double round-robin format that typically produces 26 matches per team.
Under this structure, matches would be randomized rather than following a pure home-and-away schedule. Each team would receive either 6 or 7 home matches, with the imbalance presumably determined by draw or some allocation mechanism that the proposal didn’t specify. The champion would be crowned based on total points at the conclusion of the 91-match schedule.
This format dramatically reduces the season’s length, potentially allowing it to be completed within a compressed timeframe—an advantage given the ISL’s December start date impossibility. However, the sporting integrity questions are obvious: how do you justify a championship decided by an unbalanced schedule where some teams play different opponents and fixture difficulties vary significantly? How does this satisfy AFC licensing requirements for competitive matches? What happens to clubs’ commercial commitments to sponsors who expected 13 home matches, not 6?
None of these questions were addressed in the proposal.
What the Proposals Don’t Address: Everything That Matters
While the AIFF diligently outlined match numbers, playoff structures, and championship determination methods, the proposals remained deafeningly silent on every question that clubs actually need answered to make informed decisions.
Broadcasting Arrangements: Total Silence
The ISL currently has no confirmed broadcaster. The ₹50 crore annual deal with Football Sports Development Limited expired, and the AIFF’s commercial tender attracted zero bids. Without a broadcaster, there is no match production, no distribution platform, no viewership data for sponsors, and no broadcast revenue for clubs.
Neither format proposal mentioned broadcasting. Will matches be streamed? If so, on which platform? Who pays for production costs—estimated at several crores for a full season? What is the revenue sharing arrangement? Do clubs receive guaranteed minimums or only a percentage of actual broadcast income?
These aren’t optional details. Broadcasting determines whether matches can be watched, whether sponsors receive visibility for their investments, and whether clubs generate the revenue needed to pay players and staff. Yet the AIFF’s proposals ignored broadcasting entirely.
Commercial Partnerships: No Information
Related to broadcasting but distinct in its implications, the commercial partnership question remains completely unresolved. The AIFF conducted a formal tender process for ISL commercial rights. Zero entities submitted bids. That failure represents a catastrophic vote of no-confidence in Indian football’s commercial viability under the current governance structure.
The format proposals made no reference to commercial arrangements. Will there be a title sponsor? What is the league’s commercial value? How will naming rights, sponsorship revenues, and other commercial income be generated and distributed? What revenue can clubs realistically expect?
Without commercial clarity, clubs cannot budget, cannot plan expenditures, cannot assure sponsors of league continuity, and cannot justify maintaining expensive squad rosters. Yet the AIFF presented formats without any commercial framework.
Financial Details: Absent
Perhaps most remarkably, the proposals contained absolutely no financial information. In a meeting ostensibly designed to help clubs understand how the season would work, money—the most critical question for financially struggling clubs—was never discussed.
Will clubs pay franchise fees for 2025-26? The ISL clubs’ consortium proposal suggested waiving fees this season. Has the AIFF accepted that suggestion? If fees are charged, what is the amount and payment schedule?
What about revenue distribution? The old FSDL model provided clubs with guaranteed minimums plus performance bonuses. What system replaces it? Do clubs receive any guaranteed payments, or do they depend entirely on commercial revenues that currently don’t exist?
Clubs sitting in that meeting had no idea whether participating in either proposed format would cost them money or generate it. That’s not a format proposal. That’s asking clubs to buy lottery tickets without knowing the ticket price.
Operational Timelines: Vague to Non-Existent
The proposals mentioned February 5, 2026 as a potential kickoff date—more than five months after the traditional September start. But they offered no operational roadmap explaining how to reach that date.
When do squads need to be finalized? When does the transfer window open? When must stadiums be secured and prepared? When do clubs need to commit financially? What happens to players currently under contract but unpaid due to season uncertainty?
The AIFF’s approach appears to be: agree to a format first, figure out implementation details later. But clubs need implementation clarity before they can evaluate formats. A 19-match season starting February 5 with proper preparation time is completely different from a 19-match season starting February 5 with 20 days’ notice.
| Critical Missing Information | Why It Matters |
|---|---|
| Broadcasting Arrangements | No broadcast = no visibility, no sponsor value, no fan engagement |
| Commercial Partnerships | Determines league revenue, sponsorship deals, club income |
| Financial Details (Fees, Revenue) | Clubs need to know costs vs. income before committing |
| AFC Licensing Clarity | Affects format viability, continental competition eligibility |
| Operational Timeline | Clubs need prep time for squads, stadiums, logistics |
| Revenue Distribution Model | Determines if clubs can afford to participate |
| Match Production Budget | Someone must pay for broadcast production costs |
The Pattern: Meetings Instead of Decisions
Wednesday’s meeting follows a predictable pattern that has characterized the AIFF’s approach throughout the ISL crisis. Faced with substantive questions requiring difficult decisions, the federation responds with process rather than resolution.
On December 20, 2025, the AIFF formally rejected proposals from ISL clubs seeking a club-owned league model and from I-League clubs proposing the Indian Football Premier League concept. Rather than engaging substantively with these proposals or offering counter-proposals with financial backing, the AIFF announced the formation of committees to “seek resolution.”
These committees—one for ISL, one for I-League, both including three state association officials and AIFF Deputy Secretary General M. Satyanarayan—were tasked with holding discussions leading toward a viable framework. The ISL committee scheduled meetings with five clubs between December 22-29, with reports due December 29 for submission to the Sports Ministry and eventual Supreme Court consideration on January 5, 2026.
This approach transforms urgent operational questions into extended consultation processes. The ISL hasn’t started despite being December. Clubs face financial collapse. Players remain unpaid. Sponsors demand answers. And the AIFF’s response is: more meetings, more committees, more discussions.
The Wednesday meeting exemplifies this pattern perfectly. Rather than arriving with a complete proposal addressing all stakeholder concerns, the committee presented format options and promised “formal proposals” at the next meeting on Friday, December 26. Then another meeting on December 29 to make “decisions keeping in mind the long and short terms.”
As one AIFF official acknowledged: “Today was only a discussion. Now clubs will speak among themselves before meeting with us again two days later.”
Discussions. Consultations. Meetings. Never decisions. Never commitments. Never the financial clarity or commercial framework that would allow clubs to make informed choices.
What Clubs Actually Need: Long-Term Framework, Not Format Variations
The ISL clubs have made their requirements clear through their consortium proposal submitted December 19, 2025. Nine clubs signed the letter (East Bengal notably abstained), seeking perpetual rights to operate the league through a club-owned company while AIFF retains regulatory authority.
The clubs’ proposal included specific commitments:
- 2025-26 Season: Zero franchise fee, allowing the season to proceed without immediate financial burden
- 2026-27 Onwards: ₹10 crore annual grant to AIFF for grassroots development, technical programs, and administration
- Operational Control: Clubs collectively hold majority ownership of a League Company, with AIFF holding a special share protecting sporting integrity
- Implementation Timeline: League starting within 45 days of formal rights handover
- Financial Commitment: Clubs cover all referee and match official costs
This proposal addressed long-term governance, financial sustainability, and operational control. It offered the AIFF ₹10 crore annually plus regulatory authority while removing the commercial and operational risks the federation clearly cannot manage.
The AIFF rejected it without offering a financially viable alternative.
What clubs received instead were format variations that ignore the fundamental questions: Who controls the league? Who bears financial risk? Who secures commercial partnerships? How is revenue distributed? What guarantees exist for sustainability?
Clubs don’t primarily need format clarity—whether 19 matches or 91 matches is less important than knowing if those matches will be broadcast, whether sponsors will pay for visibility, whether players can be paid, and whether the league will continue existing beyond 2025-26.
The AIFF is answering questions clubs haven’t asked while ignoring the questions they desperately need resolved.
The Broader Context: Indian Football in Freefall
The Wednesday meeting occurred against a backdrop of accelerating crisis:
City Football Group Exit: Just hours before the AIFF committee convened, reports confirmed that CFG is withdrawing from Mumbai City FC due to ongoing uncertainty in Indian football. When one of the world’s most sophisticated football ownership groups concludes that India’s ecosystem is too unstable to justify continued investment, it validates every club’s concerns about the AIFF’s governance and competence.
Financial Hemorrhaging: Clubs are maintaining skeletal operations with unpaid players, deferred vendor payments, and sponsor agreements in limbo. Every week without a season start deepens financial losses that many clubs cannot absorb.
Sponsor Uncertainty: Title sponsors, team sponsors, and commercial partners require clarity on league structure, broadcasting arrangements, and operational timelines. The longer uncertainty persists, the more sponsors withdraw or renegotiate deals downward.
Player Contracts in Limbo: Players contracted for the 2025-26 season face an impossible situation: employed by clubs with no matches to play, often unpaid due to cash flow problems, unable to move to other clubs due to contractual commitments, and watching the season they signed for potentially disappear entirely.
Fans Abandoning Hope: Perhaps most damaging long-term, Indian football fans are losing faith. The sport’s momentum from 2014-2022—rising attendance, growing youth participation, increased media coverage—is evaporating as governance failures make football seem hopelessly dysfunctional compared to cricket, kabaddi, and other sports.
Into this crisis, the AIFF offers format proposals without broadcasting, commercial, or financial details. It’s like presenting color options for a car when the buyer needs to know the price, fuel efficiency, and whether the engine actually works.
The February 5 Fantasy
The AIFF suggests February 5, 2026 as a potential kickoff date, assuming clubs agree to one of the proposed formats. This timeline reveals how disconnected the federation is from operational reality.
Consider what must happen between now and February 5 for an ISL season to actually start:
Broadcasting Arrangements: A broadcaster must be secured, contracts signed, production teams hired, cameras and equipment deployed to all venues, graphics packages created, commentary teams assembled, and technical infrastructure tested. This process typically requires 8-12 weeks minimum for a league of ISL’s scale.
Commercial Partnerships: Title sponsors and commercial partners must be identified, negotiations completed, contracts finalized, and activation plans implemented. Major commercial deals require legal review, board approvals, and complex negotiations that take months.
Club Preparation: Clubs need to finalize squads, complete remaining player transfers, conduct pre-season training camps, arrange friendlies for match fitness, and prepare home stadiums. Professional football teams require 4-6 weeks minimum for proper pre-season preparation.
Stadium Readiness: Venues must be inspected, certified for safety, and prepared for match operations. Stadium agreements must be finalized, security protocols established, and operational staff hired and trained.
Regulatory Compliance: Match officials must be assigned, licensing requirements verified, AFC documentation completed, and legal clearances obtained.
We are currently December 25, 2025. February 5, 2026 is 42 days away. Even if the AIFF secured broadcaster and commercial partners today—which they haven’t—the timeline remains impossibly compressed.
The February 5 date isn’t a realistic target. It’s wishful thinking presented as operational planning, further evidence that the AIFF lacks either the competence or the resources to actually organize the league it claims to want to operate directly.
What Happens Next: More Meetings, More Uncertainty
The AIFF committee scheduled follow-up meetings on Friday, December 26, to present formal proposals to clubs, and December 29 for decisions on “long and short term” plans. These reports will then proceed to the Sports Ministry for submission to the Supreme Court on January 5, 2026, when the court reconvenes after winter recess.
This process guarantees that nothing substantive will be resolved before 2026. Even if the Supreme Court approves whatever plan emerges from the December 29 meeting—a significant “if” given the court’s likely questions about financial viability—implementation would begin in January at the earliest.
Meanwhile, clubs burn cash maintaining operations for a season that may never start. Players remain in contractual limbo. Sponsors lose patience. Fans lose interest. And Indian football slides further toward irrelevance while administrators hold meetings.
The most likely outcome is a significantly truncated season starting late January or February, played without major broadcasting or commercial support, featuring reduced match numbers and compressed schedules, and concluding in circumstances that leave everyone dissatisfied while solving none of the underlying governance, financial, or structural problems.
Format proposals without financial frameworks don’t resolve crises. They postpone inevitable reckonings while circumstances deteriorate further.
The AIFF’s presentation of two format proposals without addressing broadcasting, commercial arrangements, financial details, or operational timelines perfectly encapsulates what is wrong with Indian football governance. The federation offers technical solutions to tactical questions while ignoring the strategic crisis threatening the sport’s very existence.
Clubs don’t need format variations. They need answers. Will there be a broadcaster? Who pays for production? What commercial revenues exist? How is money distributed? When must financial commitments be made? What guarantees exist for sustainability beyond 2025-26?
Two formats, zero clarity. It’s an apt summary not just of Wednesday’s meeting but of the AIFF’s entire approach to the ISL crisis. Meetings substitute for decisions. Discussions replace commitments. Process becomes a substitute for progress.
At a time when clubs are bleeding, investors are exiting, and players face uncertain futures, the federation has offered formats instead of answers. Indian football isn’t waiting for creativity in match scheduling. It is waiting for leadership—clear, decisive, financially backed leadership willing to make difficult decisions and provide the commercial and operational framework that professional football requires.
The AIFF has demonstrated repeatedly that it either cannot or will not provide that leadership. The format proposals are just the latest evidence of an organization lost in administrative theater while the sport it supposedly governs collapses around it.
Indian football doesn’t need more meetings scheduled for December 26 and December 29. It needs someone willing to answer the questions that actually matter and implement solutions that might actually work. Until that happens, format proposals are just paper pushed across tables while the house burns.
