The Indian Super League rejected a conference model proposed by the AIFF committee in December 2025, instead opting for a traditional single home-and-away league format. The decision raises questions about whether clubs prioritized short-term revenue over long-term operational efficiency during the compressed February-May 2026 season. AIFF’s three-man committee had proposed two formats: a conference model with two seven-team groups or a single-leg home-and-away tournament. The clubs voted overwhelmingly for the home-and-away format, citing financial considerations. However, financial analysts suggest the decision may have prioritized certain franchises’ immediate revenue needs over broader ecosystem sustainability.
Table of Contents
Format Comparison and Key Differences
Both formats guarantee each club 11-13 group-stage matches, yet the AIFF proposal’s conference structure would have reduced logistical complexity significantly. The eventual single-leg format requires all 14 clubs maintaining constant availability for travel, while the conference model would have concentrated fixtures within regional groupings, reducing overall movement and operational complexity.
| Model | Teams Per Group | Total Matches | Champion Determination | Playoff Format |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conference Model | 7 teams per group (2 groups) | ~91 matches | Top 4 from each group advance | Knockout stage |
| Single Home-Away | 14 teams (no groups) | 91 matches | Table topper crowned | No playoffs |
| Matches Per Club | ~13 matches (group stage) | 26 matches (13 home + 13 away) | Dependent on progression | Fixed structure |
Why Clubs Rejected the Conference Model
Certain franchises—notably East Bengal, Mohun Bagan, Kerala Blasters, Jamshedpur, Bengaluru, Goa, and Northeast United—command significant home attendance, often exceeding 10,000 supporters. These clubs generate substantial matchday revenue through tickets, hospitality, and merchandise. The conference model, concentrating teams geographically, would have eliminated these high-revenue home fixtures for many weeks, directly impacting financial projections already strained by the commercial partner absence.
| Opposition Factor | Impact |
|---|---|
| Revenue Generation | Home matches attract ticket sales and sponsorships |
| Regional Media Engagement | Local broadcast partnerships require home fixtures |
| Stadium Utilization | Dedicated home venues become unavailable if unused |
| Supporter Base Engagement | Regular home fixtures strengthen fan loyalty |
| Training Facility Usage | Clubs utilize city-based training infrastructure |
| Competitive Advantage | Home-field psychological edge proves significant |
Financial and Operational Arguments for Conference Model
The conference format would have substantially reduced operational expenses. Stadium maintenance costs, traditionally borne individually, would have been distributed across multiple clubs. Travel expenses—including flights, accommodation, and per diem—would have decreased dramatically with concentrated fixtures. Broadcasting from centralized venues would have streamlined production, potentially reducing costs for Prime Video.
Additionally, the tight schedule (February 14 to May 17) creates minimal recovery windows between matches. Players experiencing 72-84 hour turnarounds between competitive matches face elevated injury risk. Conference clustering would have extended recovery periods, potentially reducing injury incidence and improving player welfare during the compressed campaign.
| Advantage | Details |
|---|---|
| Centralized Venues | Shared stadium maintenance costs divided among clubs |
| Reduced Travel | Concentrated fixtures minimize transportation expenses |
| Player Recovery | Less frequent travel enables superior recovery protocols |
| Broadcasting Efficiency | Centralized venue production reduces broadcast costs |
| Wage Bill Management | Reduced per diem and accommodation expenses |
| Logistical Simplification | Consolidated scheduling reduces administrative burden |
Clubs Facing Financial Pressure
Mohammedan SC and Inter Kashi explicitly requested permission to play all fixtures away from home, acknowledging their inability to generate sufficient home-game revenue. These clubs recognize that maintaining home venues represents a financial burden they cannot sustainably support. Smaller franchises without established fan bases would have benefited significantly from conference concentration, avoiding expensive stadium operations.
| Club | Attendance Challenges | Preference |
|---|---|---|
| Mohammedan SC | Lower home draw capacity | Prefer away-only fixtures |
| Inter Kashi | Emerging franchise, limited fan base | Prefer away-only fixtures |
| Smaller Franchises | Struggle to fill stadiums | Conference concentration preferred |
| Elite Franchises | Consistent high attendance | Home-and-away format preferred |
Relegation Dynamics and Competitive Fairness
The conference model would have created meaningful relegation battles within group structures. Bottom-three clubs within each group competing for survival would have avoided playing elite teams while mathematically eliminated. This structure would have preserved dignity and competitiveness during relegation scraps, contrasting with the current format where bottom-placed teams continue facing championship contenders throughout May.
Current format dynamics create inequitable situations where already-relegated teams face remaining championship contenders, impacting competitive integrity and player morale. Conference grouping would have ensured relegated teams retain hope until mathematical elimination, improving overall league quality and competitive balance.
Season Logistics and Schedule Intensity
The single-leg format concentrates 91 matches across 103 days (February 14 to May 17), with double-headers on weekends and single matches Thursday. This intensity creates minimal recovery time, increased travel frequency, and elevated injury risk. Conference concentration would have enabled more balanced scheduling with superior player recovery protocols and reduced logistical chaos.
Expert Assessment and Moving Forward
The format decision reflects clubs prioritizing immediate revenue over systemic sustainability. While certain franchises benefit enormously from home fixtures, the league’s overall health suffers from increased operational costs, compressed schedules, and elevated injury risk.
Future ISL seasons might reconsider conference models when operational stability becomes more critical than individual franchise revenue maximization.
Read More: Adama Traoré to West Ham: Nuno Reunites with Spanish Winger in Relegation Fight
FAQs
Why did ISL clubs reject the conference model?
Clubs voted for single home-and-away format to generate home-match ticket revenue and maintain home-ground advantage. Elite franchises with consistent large attendances (10,000+) opposed the conference model’s reduction of home fixtures.
What were the advantages of the conference model?
Conference format would have reduced travel expenses, centralized stadium maintenance costs, improved player recovery time, simplified broadcasting production, and created more equitable relegation dynamics.
Which clubs preferred to avoid home fixtures?
Mohammedan SC and Inter Kashi formally requested permission to play all matches away from home, citing inability to generate sufficient home-game revenue to sustain operations.
How many matches will each ISL club play in 2025-26?
Each club plays 26 matches (13 home + 13 away) in a single home-and-away league format, totaling 91 matches across the season.
Will relegation occur in ISL 2025-26?
Yes, the bottom-placed club will be relegated to the I-League. No playoffs will determine the champion—the table-topper will be crowned ISL champions and awarded the ISL Shield.
