Thirteen Indian Super League clubs, with the notable exception of Jamshedpur FC, have formally responded to the All India Football Federation’s participation ultimatum with a comprehensive set of five-fold demands that must be met before they commit to the 2025-26 season. The joint response, delivered on January 1, 2026, makes it clear that while ISL clubs are willing to participate in the upcoming season, they require specific safeguards to be confirmed in writing before making any formal commitment to what has become Indian football’s most contentious league season in history.
Table of Contents
The AIFF Ultimatum And ISL Response
The ISL clubs’ response follows the AIFF’s December 31 letter that demanded clubs confirm their participation and accept the proposed competition format within an extremely tight deadline. Rather than outrightly rejecting participation, the ISL clubs have adopted a conditional approach that emphasizes transparency, financial prudence, and long-term sustainability as non-negotiable prerequisites for their involvement in the 2025-26 season.
Importantly, the clubs have framed their stance within the principles of the National Sports Governance Act of 2025, arguing that unchecked financial exposure could threaten institutional stability across Indian football. The response letter explicitly states: “The undersigned clubs wish to place on record that, subject to the confirmations set out below, they may be ready and willing to participate in the 2025-26 season, in a manner consistent with the principles of transparency, financial prudence, proportionality, and long-term sustainability as contemplated under the National Sports Governance Act, 2025 and also as per the discussions with the AIFF coordination committee and the clubs.”
This carefully worded response demonstrates that ISL clubs are not refusing to participate outright but rather establishing clear conditions that protect their financial interests and ensure the league operates under principles of good governance. The reference to the National Sports Governance Act provides legal grounding for their demands and signals their willingness to escalate matters if the AIFF fails to address their concerns adequately.
| Key Timeline | Events |
|---|---|
| December 31, 2025 | AIFF issues participation ultimatum to ISL clubs |
| January 1, 2026 | 13 ISL clubs submit joint response with demands |
| January 3, 2026 | Proposed stakeholder meeting |
| January 5, 2026 | Supreme Court reopens |
| 2025-26 Season Status | Uncertain, conditional on AIFF response |
Demand 1: AIFF Must Assume Financial Responsibility
The first and most pressing demand from ISL clubs relates directly to financial accountability in the absence of a commercial partner or broadcaster for the league. The clubs have explicitly asked the AIFF to formally assume responsibility for league-level operational costs until such time as commercial rights are transferred or monetized through partnership agreements.
According to the ISL clubs, since the AIFF is the league operator and rights holder, the federation should bear organizational risks until revenues can be generated through proper commercial arrangements. The clubs insist this approach reflects sound governance and fair risk allocation, particularly given the uncertain financial landscape facing Indian football.
The response letter states: “That, in the absence of an appointed commercial partner and/or broadcaster, and until such time as commercial rights are formally transferred or monetised, the AIFF—being the rights holder and operator of the league—shall assume financial responsibility for league-level organisational and operational costs for the 2025-26 season, in accordance with principles of sound financial governance and risk allocation envisaged under the NSGA and the minimum standards of the ISL product as discussed in the joint budgeting exercise.”
This demand strikes at the heart of the current crisis facing the ISL. Without Football Sports Development Limited managing league operations and without a clear commercial partner to generate revenue, the question of who bears financial responsibility has become the central sticking point. The ISL clubs are making it abundantly clear they will not accept open-ended financial liability for a season that lacks the basic commercial infrastructure necessary for sustainability.
Demand 2: No Participation Fee For 2025-26 Season
The second major demand from ISL clubs addresses the controversial issue of participation fees. The clubs have demanded that no participation fee be imposed for the 2025-26 season, arguing that the combination of a truncated format and uncertain revenues makes any such fee disproportionate and potentially unlawful.
The ISL clubs have warned that arbitrary financial demands could violate governance principles enshrined in the National Sports Governance Act, and they want a clean exemption for this transitional season. The response explicitly states: “That, having regard to the proposed truncated format, the absence of a settled commercial revenue model, and the requirement under the NSGA to avoid disproportionate or arbitrary financial burdens on regulated entities, there shall be no participation fee payable by clubs for the 2025–26 season.”
This demand is particularly significant given reports that the AIFF had asked clubs to contribute approximately 2.5 crore rupees each to support the centralized league model. For clubs already operating under severe financial constraints due to months of uncertainty and suspended operations, such a fee represents an untenable burden. The ISL clubs are essentially arguing that they should not be asked to pay for the privilege of participating in a league that offers them fewer revenue opportunities due to the centralized format and lack of home matches.
The reference to the truncated format is crucial here, as the proposed centralized model eliminates home matches and the associated revenue streams from matchday operations, local sponsorships, and community engagement activities. ISL clubs contend that asking them to pay participation fees while simultaneously stripping away their revenue-generating opportunities represents a fundamentally unfair and unsustainable business model.
Demand 3: Clear Cost Allocation To Protect Club Stability
The third demand focuses on establishing clear boundaries regarding cost allocation and financial responsibilities. ISL clubs want the AIFF to shoulder the majority of league-level expenses for the interim 2025-26 season while clubs continue to meet only their team-related and routine operational expenses.
Crucially, ISL clubs have firmly rejected any exposure to indeterminate or open-ended financial liabilities, arguing that financial certainty is essential for institutional stability and the long-term health of Indian football. The response states: “That the majority of league-level costs required to deliver the 2025–26 season shall be borne by the AIFF, with clubs continuing to meet only their respective team-related and routine operational expenses, ensuring that clubs are not exposed to indeterminate or open-ended financial liabilities contrary to principles of financial certainty and institutional stability under the NSGA.”
This demand reflects lessons learned from the budget crisis that emerged in December when the AIFF revealed that hosting just the Goa leg of a centralized ISL would cost 42 crore rupees, with similar costs expected for other venues. ISL clubs were alarmed by projections suggesting total costs could exceed 60 crore rupees, potentially exhausting the AIFF’s stated first-year budget of 70 crore rupees for league operations.
| Financial Responsibility Demands | Details |
|---|---|
| League Operations Costs | AIFF must assume full responsibility |
| Club Obligations | Limited to team-related expenses only |
| Participation Fee | Must be waived for 2025-26 season |
| Open-Ended Liabilities | Explicitly rejected by ISL clubs |
| Cost Certainty | Required before participation confirmed |
By demanding clear cost allocation, ISL clubs are protecting themselves from scenarios where mid-season budget overruns or unforeseen expenses might be passed down to clubs as additional obligations. The clubs want firm commitments about exactly what they are responsible for paying, with the AIFF covering everything else required to deliver the league.
Demand 4: Time-Bound Roadmap For Long-Term Sustainability
Looking beyond the immediate 2025-26 season, ISL clubs have demanded that the AIFF provide a clear, time-bound roadmap for executing its long-term plan for Indian football’s premier competition. This roadmap must include defined timelines and accountability mechanisms for critical milestones including the appointment of a commercial partner and/or broadcaster, finalization of the league’s revenue, governance, and risk-sharing framework, and transition to a financially self-sustaining competition model.
The response letter specifies: “That the AIFF shall place on record a clear, time-bound roadmap for execution of the long-term plan, including defined timelines and accountability for: appointment of a commercial partner and/or broadcaster; finalisation of the league’s revenue, governance, and risk-sharing framework; and transition to a financially self-sustaining competition model consistent with statutory governance.”
This demand addresses one of the fundamental weaknesses in the current situation: the absence of any clear plan for how the ISL moves from its current crisis state to a sustainable operating model. ISL clubs are unwilling to commit to participating in a season that operates under emergency conditions without any visibility into how permanent solutions will be implemented.
The requirement for accountability is particularly significant. ISL clubs want the AIFF to not just promise future action but to commit to specific deadlines and accept responsibility for meeting those milestones. This transforms vague assurances about “working toward solutions” into concrete commitments that can be monitored and, if necessary, enforced through legal or administrative channels.
The demand for a transition to a self-sustaining model reflects the clubs’ belief that the AIFF should not be operating the ISL indefinitely. Professional leagues globally operate with significant private sector involvement, commercial expertise, and revenue-sharing models that align incentives between leagues and clubs. ISL clubs are signaling they want a return to this professional structure rather than prolonged federation control.
Demand 5: Government Support For Interim Season
The fifth and final demand asks the AIFF to actively seek commercial or institutional support from the Government of India to help make the interim 2025-26 season financially sustainable. ISL clubs argue this step is justified given the exceptional, transitional, and systemic nature of the present circumstances affecting Indian football.
The response states: “That, in view of the exceptional, transitional, and systemic nature of the present circumstances, and consistent with the NSGA’s recognition of government facilitation to preserve institutional continuity and sporting integrity, the AIFF shall actively seek commercial or institutional support from the Government of India to help make the interim 2025–26 season sustainable.”
This demand recognizes the reality that the current crisis in Indian football stems from broader governance failures and systemic issues that transcend any single club or even the AIFF itself. The Supreme Court interventions, the Master Rights Agreement dispute with Football Sports Development Limited, and the constitutional issues facing the AIFF all represent structural problems that have created the current untenable situation.
By requesting government support, ISL clubs are acknowledging that private entities cannot be expected to absorb the full costs of addressing systemic failures. The reference to preserving institutional continuity and sporting integrity frames government assistance not as a bailout but as a necessary intervention to prevent the collapse of Indian football’s professional structure.
Acting In Good Faith And Seeking Dialogue
Throughout their response, ISL clubs have emphasized that they are acting in good faith and that their goal is not to delay the season but to ensure participation remains lawful, sustainable, and aligned with principles of good governance. The clubs have expressed readiness to meet with all stakeholders on January 3, ahead of the Supreme Court’s reopening on January 5, demonstrating their willingness to engage in constructive dialogue.
This positioning is important because it preempts accusations that ISL clubs are being obstructionist or attempting to derail the season. By offering to participate conditionally rather than refusing outright, and by proposing meetings to find solutions, the clubs are presenting themselves as responsible stakeholders seeking workable arrangements rather than antagonists fighting against the league’s survival.
The timing of the proposed meeting on January 3 is strategically significant, occurring just two days before the Supreme Court reopens. This gives stakeholders a final opportunity to resolve issues through negotiation before potential legal interventions or court directives that might impose solutions rather than allowing parties to reach mutual agreement.
| ISL Clubs’ Five-Fold Demands | Key Requirements |
|---|---|
| 1. Financial Responsibility | AIFF must assume league operational costs |
| 2. No Participation Fee | Waiver for truncated 2025-26 season |
| 3. Clear Cost Allocation | Clubs only pay team-related expenses |
| 4. Long-Term Roadmap | Time-bound plan with accountability |
| 5. Government Support | Active seeking of institutional assistance |
The Jamshedpur Exception
Notably, Jamshedpur FC did not join the thirteen other ISL clubs in submitting this conditional response. The Jharkhand-based club had previously announced its commitment to participating in the 2025-26 season regardless of format or financial model, making it the only ISL club to provide an unconditional guarantee of participation.
Jamshedpur FC’s decision to stand apart from the collective position reflects either a different assessment of risks, more favorable financial circumstances, or strategic calculations about maintaining positive relationships with the AIFF. However, the club’s isolation also means it lacks the collective bargaining power that the united thirteen clubs wield in their negotiations with the federation.
The Path Forward
The ISL clubs’ five-fold demands create a clear framework for what must happen before the 2025-26 season can proceed with full participation. The AIFF now faces a critical decision: accept these conditions and provide the written safeguards demanded by clubs, attempt to negotiate modified terms, or reject the demands and risk proceeding with a heavily compromised league featuring minimal club participation.
The reference throughout the clubs’ response to the National Sports Governance Act suggests they believe they have strong legal grounds for their positions. If the AIFF attempts to force participation without addressing these demands, ISL clubs may have recourse through administrative or legal channels to challenge such actions as violations of governance principles.
Read More: Martin Odegaard Proves Irreplaceable Value as Arsenal Captain is Delivering to Lead Title Charge
FAQs
How many ISL clubs responded to the AIFF ultimatum?
Thirteen ISL clubs submitted a joint response to the AIFF ultimatum, with Jamshedpur FC being the only club that did not join the collective conditional acceptance.
What are the main demands from ISL clubs?
The five-fold demands include AIFF assuming financial responsibility for league operations, waiving participation fees, clear cost allocation, a time-bound long-term roadmap, and actively seeking government support for the interim season.
Will ISL clubs participate in the 2025-26 season?
ISL clubs have indicated conditional willingness to participate, but only if the AIFF meets their demands and provides written safeguards regarding financial responsibilities and governance.
Why are ISL clubs demanding no participation fee?
Clubs argue that the truncated format and absence of commercial revenue make participation fees disproportionate, especially since the centralized model eliminates home match revenues and other income streams.
When is the next meeting between ISL clubs and AIFF?
ISL clubs have expressed readiness to meet all stakeholders on January 3, 2026, ahead of the Supreme Court’s reopening on January 5, to discuss their demands and find solutions.
