The All India Football Federation (AIFF) has pulled off quite the coup by getting the sports ministry in its corner and announcing that Indian Super League (ISL) and I-League will be held this season. ISL clubs were told clearly that enough meetings have happened, and letters exchanged, and that a decision on participation would have to be made at the meeting with union sports minister Mansukh Mandaviya. All 14 clubs have agreed to play, some with conditions.
A difficult conversation
It triggered another difficult conversation: cost rationalisation. Some clubs do not have a stadium and some are looking to trim expenses by sharing one. But it was Parth Jindal who addressed the elephant in the room: players need to share some of the burden of the owners, he said.
Now that the plea to save Indian football and the clarity that players, owners and fans sought have been addressed, how about footballers being ready to sacrifice, the Bengaluru FC owner asked? With that, Jindal brought into the open what was being discussed in meetings between clubs, AIFF and the sports ministry.
Had the league not happened, clubs could have checked if force majeure was applicable to players’ contracts and sought a reset from 2026-27. Tuesday’s meeting scotched that plan. Clubs wanting to reduce losses this term in the absence of a central revenue pool is understandable. As is the owners’ saying why should they suffer for what is clearly not their doing. Even when stretched financially, now that ₹50 crore it got from commercial partners has stopped, AIFF is paying to ensure football. It is not unfair to ask players and staff to cushion some of the blow.
“Why pay so much?”
But using the crisis to try and bring down players’ salaries is. At a time when there was no certainty of ISL12, Bengaluru FC signed Ashique Kuruniyan on a four-year deal said to be worth over ₹1 crore annually. Try squaring that with asking players to “sacrifice”. Or, salary bills increasing even as clubs complained of losses. Should negotiations stall, some clubs could play reserve teams in ISL. Because, as one player pointed out to his ISL employers, not all clubs have sought to reduce wages.
“It is not as if players don’t understand how difficult investing in football is. But we are worried that we will be asked to take a pay cut that could be as high as 30%,” a club captain told me. Their books better balanced, the CEO of another club simply said: “Who asked those clubs to pay so much?”
For all the data available, player recruitment is not an exact science. And ballooning wage bills are not an Indian problem alone. A small players’ pool though is. Till that is addressed – and there are no easy fixes here – Indian players, at least those in the national team, will get more than what they would have been worth elsewhere.
And now about the clip to “save Indian football”. Is tagging FIFA the best way to draw the attention of the world football body or was this done to get eyeballs? Is it fair to say Indian football’s governance is no longer able to fulfill responsibilities when four national teams have qualified for Asia, the women’s league and age-group leagues are on? Finally, why doesn’t the clip mention that the I-League has also been “paralysed” and draw the attention of the world to how players paid significantly less are getting by?
