The state of Indian football in 2025 can be summarized starkly: the Supreme Court has convened 16 times on football-related matters, surpassing the mere 12 matches played by the men’s national team.
This statistic underscores the sport’s current freefall, characterized by administrators clinging to power, a multi-party struggle for control of the top division, and a national team languishing in disarray.
On Tuesday night, as Haiti secured a World Cup berth despite never playing at home, and Curaçao celebrated unprecedented achievements, India suffered an embarrassing defeat to Bangladesh, their first in 22 years. The team’s sluggish performance prompted the suggestion that head coach Khalid Jamil might as well have given jerseys to anyone, as the outcome couldn’t have been worse.
Adding to the bleakness, the All India Football Federation (AIFF) faces the reality that no one is willing to invest in Indian football on their terms, leaving the domestic game in a state of stagnation.
A senior executive involved in the sport attributed the situation to the AIFF’s “laziness.” For 15 years, the federation received Rs 50 crore annually as part of its agreement with Football Sports Development Limited (FSDL), a Reliance Industries subsidiary, which ends on December 8.
One of AIFF’s key demands for new Indian Super League (ISL) bidders was an annual payment of Rs 37.5 crore, or 5 percent of generated revenue, throughout the contract. This valuation implies the federation values all other properties, including the national teams, at just Rs 12.5 crore, based on the previous annual payment.
Potential investors argue this arrangement guarantees AIFF payment with minimal risk, while they bear all potential losses. FSDL’s renewal offer included 14 percent equity for AIFF, eliminating fixed annual payments. An official stated this would compel AIFF to actively pursue revenue generation instead of outsourcing the task.
A major criticism of AIFF since 2010 is that it ceded all rights to FSDL in exchange for annual payouts, granting FSDL significant power and decision-making authority.
AIFF is now attempting to course-correct, but may be overreaching. It continues to demand substantial annual fees while seeking to retain significant decision-making power. This approach lacks realism. AIFF needs investors who desire a greater say in the sport’s management, particularly at the top tier. The federation’s overplaying of its hand has left it cornered.
This raises concerns, as a private entity cannot be held as accountable for its decisions as a government-recognized federation. This concern was prevalent during the initial 15 years of the agreement, marked by several controversial decisions.
One such issue is promotion and relegation in the ISL.
The roadmap, developed in consultation with the Asian Football Confederation, stipulated that a proper league with promotion and relegation should be in place this year, aligning India’s domestic structure with most global leagues.
However, FSDL and ISL franchises have resisted the idea of promotion and relegation. Clubs argue they have been losing approximately Rs 25 to 30 crore annually and fear that relegation from the ISL could test owners’ ability and willingness to absorb further losses, potentially destabilizing the league.
Indian football cannot be held hostage to the reactions of a select few to the prospect of playing outside the spotlight. Many smaller clubs across the country, which have fostered communities and developed players, need incentives beyond the haphazardly organized I-League. Otherwise, more clubs risk following the paths of Dempo and Shillong Lajong, fading from the ecosystem.
Indian football’s problems are extensive, and these issues contribute significantly to the ongoing crisis.
Expectations for India’s players and administrators are low, but the current situation is abysmal even by those standards. A decade ago, losing to Guam felt like hitting rock bottom. This time, it feels even worse, and may not even be the lowest point.
