New Delhi: Twenty fours after agreeing for discussions over ‘joint’ organisation of the Indian Super League’s stalled 2024-25 edition, the All India Football Federation came under fire from clubs as well as executive committee members over perceived attempts to “deflect responsibility” and “bypass rules and regulations” of its constitution.

Since the Sports ministry is yet to come up with a way forward even after promising to Supreme Court that the league would happen, AIFF had expressed a desire on Wednesday for a “mutually agreeable solution” with clubs to eliminate the bottleneck.

But the clubs deemed that approach disappointing as it didn’t address their concerns “substantively” while failing to reflect the “seriousness of the commercial, legal, and operational crisis”.

Citing “commercial impossibility” after expiration of AIFF’s commercial deal with Reliance-owned FSDL on Monday, clubs said their concerns are in line with observations of Justice LN Rao and audit firm KPMG in separate reports on failure to find a bidder for ISL’s tender.

Rao and KPMG had pointed out constitutional challenges emanating from four clauses in its new constitution for AIFF’s inability to attract any bidder and clubs said if those aren’t addressed, it would force them to cease first-team football operations.

“In that context, the dismissive tone of your response and the implication that Clubs must find solutions without regulatory support is both inaccurate and unhelpful. Your response appears to deflect responsibility onto the Clubs while simultaneously citing constitutional restrictions as justification for the Federation’s inaction. Such an approach is neither reasonable nor conducive to resolving matters of existential importance,” Mohun Bagan director Vinay Chopra wrote to AIFF president Kalyan Chaubey on behalf of 13 of 14 ISL clubs, excluding East Bengal.

“Any short-term approach, without addressing the core constitutional and structural impediments, would merely serve as a band-aid on a severe injury. Such an arrangement is commercially impossible, as it would shift the entire financial burden of running the national league onto Clubs that are already incurring significant losses.

“The Clubs remain open and committed to working with the AIFF towards a club-led model, consistent with global best practices. However, for such a model to be financially viable, Clubs must have commercial flexibility—including the ability to attract sponsors, investors, and long-term partners.

‘Remove restrictive clauses’

“This is not possible until the commercially restrictive clauses in the AIFF Constitution are amended or removed. Without this change, no sustainable league structure can be built, regardless of good intentions.”

In their earlier communication on December 5, clubs had urged removal of those restrictive clauses to make the bid financialy feasible for prospective bidders, which they reiterated on Thursday, urging AIFF to undertake measures for constitutional amendments at its forthcoming annual general meeting on December 20.

It would allow the federation, along with clubs and support of the Union government to “transparently identify an appropriate” commercial partner.

AIFF president Kalyan Chaubey (centre) called a meeting with ISL clubs in New Delhi on Tuesday. Photo:@IndSuperLeague

“Alternatively, if the AIFF considers it institutionally preferable and the above process fails, the AIFF (after removing the constitutional impediments) may hand over the long-term rights of the league to the Clubs, who are fully prepared—consistent with global best practices—to either solely or jointly operate, commercialise, and develop the league, including through securing sponsors, broadcasters, commercial partners, and strategic investors,” Chopra said.

Only then would the clubs agree to attend any meeting at AIFF’s request, noting that it would be effective if the constitutional hurdles are removed.

AIFF’s options are “limited”, deputy secretary general M Satyanarayan responded, reminding that the matter remains subjudice before the Supreme Court.

“At present, there are two possible approaches: 1. To await the final directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court; or 2. To collectively explore an amicable alternative solution,” he said.

‘Without permission’

AIFF’s executive committee members have also frowned upon the attempt to consider a joint framework, highlighting that they have not been kept in the loop over the matter that is “highly sensitive in nature” and took umbrage on failure to apprise what clubs’ communicated on December 5.

“While you have rightly pointed out that any such proposal cannot be accepted without the consent of the AIFF Executive Committee and the General Body, I truly wonder what prompted you to write this very letter inviting the clubs for a meeting without the permission of the Exco,” executive member Avijit Paul wrote to Satyanarayan, who has sent the letter to clubs on Wednesday.

“As a Deputy Secretary General, appointed by the Exco, you should understand the fact that the Exco is the highest decision-making body in the AIFF, and to bypass it in any form is against the rules and regulations and the constitution of the AIFF.

“I should also like to remind you that in this case, the issue is highly sensitive in nature and is related to the long-time financial health of the AIFF.

“We all know the country’s premier league attracts considerably big sponsorship and revenue that plays a big role in running the federation. It is hugely disappointing to know that you have decided to jump the gun and enter into a dialogue in this regard by keeping Exco and the General Body in the complete dark.”