The All India Football Federation (AIFF) has once again reached for committees as its solution of choice. Following a long Executive Committee and Annual General Body meeting in New Delhi on December 20, the AIFF approved the formation of multiple panels aimed at “fast-tracking” decisions around the Indian Super League (ISL) and the I-League — all while stressing adherence to its constitutional framework.
The question, as ever in Indian football governance, is whether this signals meaningful progress or simply postpones hard decisions.
ISL Future: Clubs Push, AIFF Pauses
The flashpoint of the AGM was a proposal submitted by 10 ISL clubs regarding the league’s long-term future. Presented by Mohun Bagan Super Giant CEO Vinay Chopra, the proposal reportedly sought greater club control — including management of the league in perpetuity.
That ambition did not land cleanly. Mixed reactions from the General Body prompted the AIFF to avoid an immediate call, instead appointing a three-member committee to “seek resolution.”
The panel — comprising officials from the Kerala FA, Goa FA, and Indian Football Association (West Bengal), alongside the AIFF deputy secretary general as an ex-officio member — will now hold discussions with five selected clubs between December 22 and 29.
Notably, the talks are framed strictly within the boundaries of the AIFF Constitution as mandated by the Supreme Court. That caveat looms large, especially given Indian football’s recent history of governance scrutiny.
I-League Gets a Parallel Committee
In a move that felt both expected and telling, the AIFF applied the same template to the I-League. A separate three-member committee has been tasked with addressing concerns raised by I-League clubs, again working alongside the deputy secretary general.
While the Federation has positioned this as inclusive problem-solving, critics may wonder why structural clarity around India’s league pyramid still requires fresh committees rather than firm policy.
FIFA, AFC, and the Constitution — Again
If consensus proves elusive, the AIFF has left the door open to consulting FIFA and the AFC for precedents from other nations. During the meeting, observers from both bodies reiterated a familiar message: the AIFF Constitution remains supreme.
That reminder, while procedurally sound, also underlines the central tension — ambitious commercial visions colliding with constitutional limits that Indian football is still grappling to interpret consistently.
Objections Logged, But What Changes?
Formal objections from Executive Committee members Avijit Paul and Valanka Alemao, along with a letter from Emami East Bengal FC, were placed on record. The inclusion is procedurally important, but it remains unclear how much weight these objections will carry once committee reports are submitted.
Judiciary Committees Approved — Stability or Symbolism?
The General Body also approved the appointment of retired judges, former election officials, and senior police officers to head the Independent Judiciary Committees, as mandated by the Constitution.
On paper, this strengthens institutional oversight. In practice, whether it leads to faster, clearer decisions — or simply adds another layer to an already complex system — remains to be seen.
The Bigger Picture
Indian football has heard the language of reform before: committees, consultations, constitutional compliance. What’s still missing is certainty — for clubs, players, and investors alike.
Until the AIFF moves beyond temporary panels and delivers definitive frameworks for both the ISL and I-League, skepticism will persist. For now, Indian football waits once more — not for matches, but for clarity.
