<
>

AIFF Constitution case: Why Indian football's fate rests on the Supreme Court verdict

Qamar Sibtain/The India Today Group via Getty Images

India's Supreme Court is set to rule on the constitution of the All India Football Federation (AIFF) soon. Here's all you need to know about the case:

Why is the Supreme Court involved at all?

We'll have to go all the way back to 2017 for that one. The Delhi High Court had, in that year, ordered to set aside the election of the office-bearers of the AIFF because it was contended that the elections violated the National Sports Code.

This went all the way to the Supreme Court, who relieved Praful Patel from his post as AIFF president, and then subsequently appointed a three-member Committee of Administrators (CoA) in May 2022. This CoA then drafted a constitution, which attracted objections from several state associations, and tables it at the Supreme Court. The CoA was disbanded by the SC before the constitution was passed (due to a FIFA ban ahead of the 2022 FIFA U17 Women's World Cup).

The Court circulated the CoA prepared draft constitution seeking comments from various stakeholders including AIFF, member state associations, FIFA and FSDL. On receipt of their comments, the Court entrusted retired SC judge L Nageswara Rao with finalizing the constitution in May 2023.

Once Justice Rao finalized his constitution, the Supreme Court commenced hearings in late March 2025 before they reserved the verdict for July 18, 2025.

So what are they going to eventually give a verdict on?

On the adoption of this new Justice Rao-prepared constitution, which introduces significant changes in tenure, age limits and representation of players.

The changes include, but are not limited to:

  • Inclusion of at least five former national players (including two women) in the 14-member Executive Committee

  • Removal of office bearers through a no-confidence motion

  • Changes in General Body constitution: one representative from every member association, 15 eminent players (minimum five women), three club representatives (one each from ISL, I-League and Indian Women's League), two representatives from referees (one male and one female) and two representatives from coaches (one male and one female). These changes mean the vote of the state associations in the General Body has been reduced from two to a single vote.

  • Tenure: a person can hold office for a maximum period of 12 years in his or her lifetime, subject to serving a maximum of two successive terms of four years each.

  • It also provided for an age cap of 70 years.

What does this have to do with the ISL? Why is it on hold?

The second part first -- because the contract between FSDL (the Reliance-backed entity that runs the Indian Super League) and the AIFF expires in early December 2025, and it hasn't been renewed. After months of inactivity, the AIFF sprung to life by setting up a 'negotiation committee' in April but was soon told to put it all on hold by the Supreme Court.

To quote from the official AIFF statement: "renewal discussions have been in abeyance pending further directions from the Hon'ble Supreme Court." Essentially, that's because if the new constitution calls for fresh elections, any negotiations with FSDL over the Master Rights Agreement (MRA) would need to happen with the new committee.

Hence, any renewal of talks over the MRA and conduct of the ISL would depend on the verdict pronounced by the Supreme Court.