Twelve Indian Super League clubs have officially paid the first instalment of Rs 30 lakh mandated by the All India Football Federation for the 2025-26 season, but their payment came with a critical warning: governance cannot remain unilateral when clubs are bearing the entire operational exposure and majority of economic risk. In a strongly-worded five-page letter dated March 6, 2026, the clubs clarified their payment was made “strictly without prejudice” and does not imply acceptance of the current governance structure.
Table of Contents
The Payment and Governance Stand-Off
The clubs confirmed they would remit the first instalment of Rs 30 lakh within the stipulated timeline, but made it clear the payment is being made “strictly without prejudice” to all rights and contentions, and does not imply acceptance of unilateral governance. The 12 signatories, excluding NorthEast United and Jamshedpur FC, emphasized that while they are prioritizing Indian football’s continuity and AIFF’s financial difficulties, this payment should not be interpreted as endorsement of the Federation’s decision-making authority.
The clubs stated: “If AIFF views the ISL as a purely AIFF league, then AIFF must bear the corresponding financial burden. If AIFF views it as a partnership, then partnership must exist in both economics and decision-making.“
Financial Imbalance and Concerns
| Financial Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| League Operating Budget | Rs 26.23 crore |
| AIFF Direct Contribution | Rs 0 (Zero) |
| AIFF Share on Operations | Rs 0 (Zero) |
| Clubs’ Total Operational Cost | Rs 13.138 crore |
| FanCode Revenue (Projected) | Rs 8.62 crore |
| AIFF Share of Revenue | 40% (Rs 3.448 crore) |
| Clubs’ Share of Revenue | 60% (Rs 5.172 crore) |
| AIFF Projected Profit | Over Rs 3.4 crore |
The clubs accused the Federation of earning a surplus of over Rs 3.4 crore from the ongoing season despite assuring the Sports Ministry that it would not “make a rupee” from the league this year. The financial model shows AIFF Contributions at 0, AIFF Share on Operations at 0, with entire operational funding borne by clubs, yet AIFF is retaining 40 percent of central revenue.
Unilateral Tender Publication
One of the strongest objections raised concerns the publication of a long-term Request for Qualification (RFQ) for the league’s commercial structure, which was issued without consultation with the clubs. The RFQ was initially scheduled for February 20 release but was floated on March 2 with March 19 as the deadline for bid submission, seeking commercial rights for a period of 15 years with an option of a five-year extension.
Clubs learned of the publication of the long-term tender through the AIFF website, calling the development “extraordinary”. No club was informed in advance of its publication, circulated a draft for review, or formally provided a copy of the final RFQ.
Club Signatories and Demands
The 12 signatories include defending champions Mohun Bagan Super Giant, East Bengal FC, Mohammedan Sporting, Kerala Blasters FC, Bengaluru FC, Mumbai City FC, FC Goa, Odisha FC, Punjab FC, Chennaiyin FC, Mohammedan SC, and Inter Kashi. These clubs collectively raised serious concerns about financial contributions, governance rights, long-term commercial decisions, and sporting integrity, with particular objection to what they termed as unilateral decision-making by the federation.
Relegation and Season Integrity Concerns
The clubs raised concerns over the prospect of relegation in what they described as a highly irregular season, arguing that the truncated competition has been affected by unequal home-and-away distribution, operational uncertainty, financial asymmetry and player attrition, making it unsuitable to impose relegation. They urged the federation to recognize the campaign as an interim season or pause relegation for this cycle, stating “Relegation under such distorted conditions would not be a sporting outcome — it would be structural elimination”.
Enforcement Language and Coercive Terms
The clubs objected to the AIFF notice’s enforcement provisions, which include daily fines of Rs 1 lakh and the possibility of disqualification, describing the language as “coercive and inconsistent with a collaborative partnership model”.
Read More: ISL 2025-26: Punjab FC and NorthEast United Share Spoils in with 1-1 Draw
FAQs
Did the ISL clubs pay the first instalment to AIFF?
Yes, 12 ISL clubs paid the first instalment of Rs 30 lakh, but explicitly stated the payment was made “strictly without prejudice” and does not imply acceptance of unilateral governance.
What is the financial imbalance clubs are complaining about?
Clubs are bearing 100% of operational costs (Rs 13.138 crore) and 60% of economic risk, while AIFF contributes zero but retains 40% of central revenue, earning a projected surplus of Rs 3.4 crore.
Which clubs signed the letter to AIFF?
12 clubs signed, including Mohun Bagan, East Bengal, Mohammedan Sporting, Kerala Blasters, Bengaluru FC, Mumbai City FC, FC Goa, Odisha FC, Punjab FC, Chennaiyin FC, Mohammedan SC, and Inter Kashi.
What was the issue with the long-term RFQ?
The RFQ for commercial rights was published on March 2 without prior consultation, notification, or draft circulation to clubs, who only learned of it through the AIFF website.
Do the clubs accept the current governance structure?
No, clubs explicitly stated the payment does not constitute acceptance of unilateral governance and demanded partnership in both economics and decision-making.
