A significant majority of clubs competing in the top tier of Indian football, the Indian Super League (ISL), have voiced a strong preference for a phased relegation system, expressing serious concerns about the commercial sustainability of a club that faces the drop to the second division.
Commercial Fears Drive Relegation Debate
This critical feedback was formally conveyed to the global consulting firm, KPMG, which prepared the Request for Proposal (RFP) aimed at monetizing the ISL's commercial rights for a 15-year period. The clubs pointed to the wide commercial, reputational and quality gap between the top-tier ISL and the second division I-League as a primary reason for their apprehension. They fear that an immediate drop would be financially catastrophic for any relegated entity.
These findings, compiled by KPMG, have now been submitted to the Supreme Court of India by Justice (Retd) L Nageswara Rao. Justice Rao, who was appointed by the apex court to supervise the constitutional reform within the All India Football Federation (AIFF), currently serves as the chairman of the bid evaluation committee (BEC).
Failed Tender and Bidder Apprehensions
The issue has gained prominence after the AIFF's tender to commercialize the ISL rights found no takers. Prospective bidders, including FSDL, Sporta Technologies, Raak Advisory, and Supersub Management, chose not to submit bids. A key reason cited by these entities was the inclusion of promotion and relegation in the league structure, which is now a part of the AIFF's approved constitution.
One bidder explicitly stated that the system could hamper the football ecosystem and its long-term development. This has been a contentious point ever since the ISL was recognized as India's premier football league in 2019. While ISL clubs have remained immune to relegation so far, the league does grant entry to the I-League champions on sporting merit, as seen with clubs like Punjab FC, Mohammedan Sporting, and the recent addition, Inter Kashi.
Justice Rao's Recommendations for a Viable Future
Beyond the relegation debate, Justice Rao's report outlines other significant concerns raised by bidders. A major point of contention was the proposed Rs 37.5 crore annual minimum guarantee payment, which was deemed on the higher side and not reflective of the current sports monetization landscape in India.
Bidders also felt that the commercial partner, despite taking on substantial operational and financial risks, would have limited representation within the AIFF's governing council.
In his recommendations to the Supreme Court, Justice Rao has proposed a balanced approach to make the commercial framework more attractive. His key suggestions include:
- Reconsidering the financial obligations stipulated in the RFP.
- Reconstituting the governing council to provide the commercial partner with equal representation.
- Granting permission for bidders to independently sub-licence media rights as per their commercial strategy, without needing prior approval from the federation.
Significantly, while addressing these structural and financial hurdles, Justice Rao's report makes no specific mention of the promotion and relegation issue, leaving it as an unresolved core challenge for Indian football's future. The ball is now in the Supreme Court's court to provide further directions on this matter.
