AIFF Proposes New Open Model for ISL: Promotion-Relegation Returns with 50% Club Revenue Share

The All India Football Federation (AIFF) has unveiled an ambitious proposal that could fundamentally reshape the Indian Super League (ISL), introducing a comprehensive 20-year operational plan that brings promotion and relegation back to Indian football’s top tier. The ground-breaking blueprint marks a significant shift from the closed franchise model that has defined the league since its inception in 2014.

At the heart of the proposal lies a radically different governance and financial structure: the AIFF will own and operate the ISL for two decades, clubs will receive an unprecedented 50% revenue share, and crucially, promotion and relegation will be restored to maintain sporting merit across India’s football pyramid. Additionally, relegated sides will receive parachute payments to cushion the financial blow—a safety net previously absent from Indian football.

The proposal comes at a critical juncture for the ISL, with the 2025-26 season still without a confirmed start date and clubs operating in a state of financial uncertainty following the end of the previous commercial arrangement with Football Sports Development Limited (FSDL).

The 20-Season Long-Term Blueprint

Under the proposed model, the ISL would be owned and operated by the AIFF for a 20-season cycle, with each season running from June 1 to May 31. At the end of this period, all revenue shares would revert to the federation and be restructured or re-tendered as deemed appropriate by the governing body.

“We have sent the proposal to the clubs, we have to wait for their response in the next couple of days before finalising our plan,” an AIFF source confirmed to media. “Let the clubs respond, we will try to find a solution after hearing them.”

AIFF Secretary-General M. Satyanarayan explained the guiding principles: “The AIFF has put this proposal to the ISL clubs and the two guiding principles have been to ensure the league starts as soon as possible and to ensure that we are in line with the recently adopted Constitution as directed by the Supreme Court.”

The jurisdiction of the proposed governance board would be limited to the utilization of unrestricted funds within the yearly operational budget earmarked for the league, addressing concerns over financial viability while providing clubs with meaningful input into commercial matters.

Promotion and Relegation Returns

Perhaps the most significant aspect of the proposal is the return of promotion and relegation, restoring sporting merit to the top tier of Indian football. This addresses a longstanding criticism of the ISL’s closed franchise model and aligns the competition with Asian Football Confederation (AFC) norms and international football standards.

The open league model ensures clubs from the I-League and lower divisions retain a clear pathway upward through the football pyramid. This principle has been mandated by both the AIFF’s Supreme Court-approved constitution and AFC regulations, making its implementation non-negotiable in any long-term structure.

For relegated teams, the proposal includes protective measures in the form of parachute payments designed to soften the financial shock of dropping to a lower tier. Two percent of the central pool has been earmarked specifically for parachute payments to relegated teams, offering financial cushioning for up to two seasons.

The parachute payment structure provides:

• Maximum of 1% per club per season
• Coverage for two seasons following relegation
• Funded from 2% of central revenue pool
• Designed to protect long-term club investments

Revolutionary Revenue Sharing Model

The financial architecture of the new ISL represents a radical departure from previous arrangements. The proposed revenue distribution structure allocates shares as follows:

Revenue Distribution Breakdown:

• Clubs: 50% (distributed equally among all participating teams)
• Commercial Partner: 30% (for potential new broadcaster/sponsor)
• AIFF: 10% (fixed revenue share)
• Club Allocation: 10% (for fixed revenue share pool)

The 50% revenue share for clubs represents an unprecedented commitment to equitable distribution, ensuring all participating teams benefit substantially from the league’s commercial success. This marks a significant increase from previous arrangements where FSDL’s 60-26-14 split (clubs-FSDL-AIFF) was in place.

Of the AIFF’s 60% total share (including the 10% for club allocation), the federation will retain only 10% directly while distributing the remaining 50% equally among all competing clubs based on their contribution to the central pool.

Central Operational Budget Framework

A key component of the proposal is the creation of a Central Operational Budget that would govern the league’s functioning every season. For the first year under the new structure, this budget has been set at ₹70 crore.

The budget would be funded through proportional contributions from all revenue shareholders and used to cover:

Central Operational Budget Allocation:

• Production Costs: Up to 45% of central operational cost
• Match Officials Expenses: Up to 15%
• Digital & Marketing Costs: Up to 15%
• Prize Money: Up to 10%
• Parachute Payments: Up to 2%
• Individual Prize Money: Up to 2%

Additionally, an operational provision of ₹1 crore per club has been proposed to support day-to-day league-related expenses and compliance costs. Importantly, any surplus generated after recovering the ₹70 crore operational budget would be redistributed among stakeholders in accordance with their predefined revenue shares.

Standard Participation Fee and Reimbursement

Each club would be required to pay the AIFF a standard participation fee of ₹1 crore annually at the beginning of each season. However, this amount would be fully reimbursable from the central revenue prior to distribution of net revenue, ensuring clubs aren’t financially burdened by the participation requirement.

The total participation fee for all clubs (currently 14 teams) would be capped at 20% of the Central Operational Budget. In case the board decides to raise the operational budget by 10% in the future, the standard participation fee would proportionately increase to maintain the 20% ratio.

Fixed Revenue Share for Long-Standing Clubs

The proposal includes provisions to safeguard long-term club investments through a tiered fixed revenue share system based on participation history. This ensures founding ISL clubs who paid franchise fees for the initial 10-year period retain some financial stake even if relegated.

Fixed Revenue Share Allocation (Based on Participation History):

ISL’s founding clubs, who have paid franchise fees for 10 years, would retain the right to reserved allocation within the fixed revenue share structure. Relegated teams would have to surrender their participation share to the promoted team but could retain their stake in the fixed revenue share and claim a portion of revenue generated if they continue to contribute to the central pool.

Commercial Partner Requirements

For a potential commercial partner to join the structure, significant financial commitments would be required. The partner would need to invest ₹12 crore to acquire an additional 4% revenue share, taking their total holding from the allocated 26% to 30%.

After every season, the commercial partner would be required to pay either 4% of the previous season’s net league revenue or ₹12 crore—whichever amount is higher. This ensures sustained investment and prevents commercial partners from reducing commitments during less profitable seasons.

The AIFF has prepared to decrease its own share from 14% to 10% in return for this additional ₹12 crore contribution from the commercial partner, effectively trading 4% of revenue share for guaranteed annual investment.

Club Concerns and Ongoing Negotiations

Despite the comprehensive nature of the proposal, ISL clubs have raised several concerns that require resolution before consensus can be reached:

Primary Club Concerns:

1. Operational Expenditure: Lack of clarity on cost distribution and real spending limits
2. Salary Cap Framework: Absence of defined salary regulations raising sustainability concerns
3. Investment Protection: Long-term security of club investments needs stronger guarantees
4. Commercial Revenue Uncertainty: No confirmed broadcaster or commercial partner in place
5. Timeline Ambiguity: Unclear start date for 2025-26 season

Clubs are willing to consider the proposal and have engaged in internal discussions to examine operational expenses, salary cap implications, and protection of investments before meeting again with AIFF officials. The federation and club representatives were scheduled to reconvene on December 29, 2025, to iron out remaining details.

A day before that crucial meeting, clubs planned to meet among themselves to finalize their position on the truncated format options AIFF presented for the stalled 2025-26 edition, with a tentative kick-off date of February 5, 2026, being targeted.

Two Format Options for 2025-26 Season

While negotiating the long-term structure, AIFF has also proposed two truncated format options for the immediate 2025-26 season to ensure the league can commence despite ongoing structural discussions:

Option 1: Two-Conference Model (MLS-Style)

• 14 teams divided into East and West conferences (7 teams each)
• Double-leg matches within conferences (42 games per conference)
• Top 4 teams from each conference qualify for Championship Round
• Single-leg matches to decide champions
• Bottom 3 teams from each conference compete in relegation battle
• All matches held in two centralized venues to control costs

Option 2: Swiss Format

• Single-leg matches in home and away format
• Total of 91 games for 14 teams (13 games per team)
• Randomized scheduling
• Each team gets 6-7 home and away games
• Team with most points declared champion
• Involves travel between venues

The centralized venue approach in Option 1 would significantly reduce logistical expenses, helping keep operational costs under control—a key consideration given clubs’ financial constraints while awaiting resolution of commercial partnerships.

Historical Context: The FSDL Era Ends

The current uncertainty stems from the expiration of the 15-year Master Rights Agreement (MRA) between AIFF and Football Sports Development Limited (FSDL), which had provided financial and operational stability since 2010.

Under that agreement, FSDL committed to providing ₹50 crore annually to AIFF while receiving broadcast, marketing, and operational rights for the ISL and national team. The partnership drove commercial growth but created dependency on a single commercial operator.

With the MRA ended and no new commercial partner secured after a Supreme Court-supervised tender process failed to attract bids, the league now operates without central revenue—the financial lifeline that previously sustained club operations.

The Path Forward

The proposal marks the most comprehensive attempt yet to provide stable, long-term structure for Indian football. Whether it satisfies club stakeholders and leads to consensus remains to be seen, but the coming discussions will likely shape the future direction of the ISL for decades.

For the proposal to succeed, several conditions must be met:

• Commercial broadcast deal providing guaranteed central revenues
• Clear salary cap framework preventing unsustainable spending
• Cost controls protecting financially weaker clubs
• Transparent governance mechanisms ensuring fair treatment
• Protection of club investments through relegation cycles

The old model of closed franchises and third-party commercial operation has clearly run its course. The question now is whether the AIFF’s proposed open model with promotion-relegation, revenue sharing, and long-term stability can provide the foundation Indian football desperately needs.

The AIFF’s proposal for an open ISL model represents a watershed moment for Indian football. The return of promotion and relegation, 50% revenue share for clubs, 20-year operational blueprint, and parachute payments for relegated sides collectively address many longstanding criticisms of the league’s structure.

However, significant challenges remain. Without a confirmed commercial partner, guaranteed broadcast revenues, or a defined salary cap framework, clubs understandably seek greater certainty before committing to the long-term vision. The ongoing negotiations between AIFF and club representatives will determine whether Indian football can finally achieve the stable, merit-based structure it has long needed.

The immediate priority is getting the 2025-26 season underway, with February 5, 2026, being targeted as a potential start date. But the larger ambition—transforming Indian football governance from dependence to sustainability—requires aligning commercial certainty, club accountability, and regulatory clarity.

As clubs prepare for crucial meetings to finalize their position, one thing is clear: the future structure of the ISL will define not just the next season, but the trajectory of Indian football for the next two decades.

Read More: Indian Football Team FIFA Ranking Graph 2025: Blue Tigers Drop 15 Places in Turbulent Year

FAQs