The Supreme Court of India has directed the All India Football Federation (AIFF) and Football Sports Development Limited (FSDL) to find an amicable solution to the ongoing dispute surrounding the Indian Super League (ISL).
The impasse, triggered by the non-renewal of the Master Rights Agreement (MRA) between the two bodies, has cast uncertainty over the future of India’s top-tier football league.
A bench comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter on Friday, instructing both parties to engage in discussions and report back with a resolution by August 28, the next scheduled hearing.
Clubs Warn Of Collapse Amid Standoff
The crisis has raised serious concerns among 11 ISL clubs, which recently wrote to AIFF President Kalyan Chaubey warning that the deadlock threatens the very existence of professional football in India.
“Over the past 11 years, through sustained investment and coordinated effort, clubs have built youth development systems, training infrastructure, community outreach programmes and professional teams,” the letter stated. “This progress is now in imminent danger of collapse.”
The clubs underscored the urgent need to resolve the situation, stressing that operations are currently suspended and some clubs may have to shut down permanently without a functioning league.
ISL 2025–26 Season On Hold
The issue came to a head when FSDL, which manages and operates the ISL and is AIFF’s commercial partner, announced on July 11 that the 2025–26 ISL season had been put on hold. The announcement came amid uncertainty regarding the renewal of the MRA, which governs the rights and responsibilities between FSDL and AIFF.
As a result, at least three clubs have reportedly paused their senior team operations or withheld player and staff salaries, triggering instability across the league.
Legal Oversight & Supreme Court Involvement
The Supreme Court had agreed to hear the case on August 18 after Amicus Curiae and senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan pointed out that FSDL is obligated to conduct the ISL during the contract period. He emphasized the disruption caused by the ongoing standoff, prompting the court to take up the issue urgently.
The dispute over the MRA also intersects with a broader legal matter concerning the finalisation of AIFF’s draft constitution, which was prepared by retired Supreme Court judge Justice L. Nageswara Rao on the court’s instruction.
The proposed draft introduced several governance reforms, including:
A maximum of 12 years in office for AIFF members (limited to two consecutive four-year terms).
A four-year cooling-off period after serving eight years in any office-bearer position.
An upper age limit of 70 years for holding any post within the federation.
The court earlier reserved its verdict on the final adoption of this draft on April 30.
National Team & AFC Participation At Risk
In their letter, the clubs also warned of broader implications for Indian football at the international level. They said the absence of a domestic league would limit players’ match fitness and preparation ahead of AFC and FIFA tournaments, placing the Indian national team at a competitive disadvantage.
Moreover, without the ISL, clubs may not meet the minimum match requirements needed for participation in Asian Football Confederation (AFC) competitions, risking disqualification or suspension.
The letter was signed by 11 prominent ISL teams-
Bengaluru FC, Hyderabad FC, Odisha FC, Chennaiyin FC, Jamshedpur FC, FC Goa, Kerala Blasters FC, Punjab FC, NorthEast United FC, Mumbai City FC, and Mohammedan Sporting.
Notably, East Bengal and Mohun Bagan Super Giant — two of Kolkata’s historic clubs — did not sign the joint statement.
With the Supreme Court calling for a resolution by August 28, the spotlight now turns to the negotiations between AIFF and FSDL. A failure to reach an agreement could have long-term consequences, not just for the ISL, but for the entire Indian football ecosystem — from grassroots development to international representation.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
