Last Friday, Indian football was at the receiving end of a major jolt yet again as two Goan giants, Salgaocar and Sporting Clube de Goa, released a joint statement to announce that they will not be taking part in the next edition of the I-League, the country’s top-tier football competition.
By now, this has become an annual affair. Over the last few years, clubs as well-known as JCT, Mahindra United, Churchill Brothers, Royal Wahingdoh, United Sports, Bharat FC, Mumbai Tigers and Pune FC have all bid good-bye to the tournament, either by opting out on their own or being booted out by the All India Football Federation.
With the governing body introducing their new roadmap a few months ago, the rift between the clubs and the AIFF is becoming more and more bitter by the day. The Indian Super League, which was started in 2014 and which AIFF president Praful Patel called a “good disruptor”, is set to be elevated as the top league of the nation and will also accommodate a number of teams from the existing I-League.
The arguments about the new plan have focussed largely on the regular I-League versus ISL debate and even though that is a relevant point, confining the discussion to that single topic will do no justice to the other issues that plague football in India.
The allegations against the ruling body are multi-fold. While the federation’s inability to popularise the I-League has been thoroughly criticised, its increasingly dictatorial approach to the game has rarely come under the scanner. In order to safeguard its own agenda, the administrative body has treaded into a zone where unethical decisions are being passed off as ones making business sense.
Irrelevant arguments
The organisation’s reactions to the recent developments expose the dangerous line of argument rolled out by Patel and Co. in the last couple of years.
“.. Suggestions were sent over a month ago by multiple stakeholders. The lack of response from the AIFF is telling, and makes it clear that the fate of the world’s most popular sport in the world’s second most populous nation would be decided unilaterally,” read the press release sent by the two big Goa clubs, who condemned the AIFF’s lack of concern about their future. The governing body, they say, did not even care to reply to the points raised about the proposed three-tier system.
The federation's argument? “It was also evident that they were unable to create a fan base to sustain themselves,” Kushal Das, AIFF general secretary remarked about Salgaocar and Sporting Clube de Goa’s withdrawal, apart from expressing his “regret and surprise over the sudden decision”.
That is an irrelevant argument. Salgaocar, for example, has been taking part in national competitions for the last 55 years. The owners have invested huge sums and have complied with the existing regulations even if their loyal supporter base has waned. Does that make them any less eligible to be part of Indian football’s top tier? No. By victimising and shaming clubs that have cross-questioned their plans, the AIFF is trying to wipe out the right to dissent.
It was the same case when India’s football governing body tried to implement the Asian Football Confederation’s licensing criteria in 2014. From the decisions they took then, it was obvious that every club’s fate was decided even before the contingent visited the clubs.
For example, Kolkata's United Sports Club was denied renewal of its licence mainly because AIFF officials were not happy with their youth development programme and their financial status. However, only two years after that verdict, the youngsters of the team formed the core of the West Bengal side that won bragging rights in the national U-15 championship in New Delhi this year. All this points to the pre-determined judgement AIFF had drawn in the licensing episode, eliminating clubs like Churchill Brothers and Rangdajied United.
Clutching at thin air?
“The AFC regulations require the clubs to pay their players on time. However, even though we were in trouble, there was no complaint against us from any player. Despite this, AIFF refused to renew our licence and gave licences to clubs that players had actually complained against,” Nabab Bhattacharya, an official of United Sports Club told Scroll.in.
“Nothing was happening in the I-League. It was a product simply not accepted by the market for whatever reasons it may have been,” AIFF's Das told PTI in an interview on Tuesday, trying to disown the tournament launched by his own organisation and also making it clear that the body has not really introspected on the reasons for its unpopularity.
Patel, on the other hand, has taken a dig at the inability of Mohun Bagan and East Bengalto lure new sponsors, while the federation themselves failed to find a partner for their developmental side Pailan Arrows, which went defunct three years ago. Under Patel's leadership, the national team had sunk to its worst ever FIFA ranking (171) in December 2014. But his profile on the AIFF website reads: "the virtuoso of Mr Patel has enabled Indian Football to scale new heights.”
By reducing the whole discussion to a black-and-white ISL vs I-League debate, the AIFF has succeeded in covering up its mishandling, and is now hoping that a day will come when everything will fall into place miraculously, and their decision to cut out long-standing clubs will look like a good decision in retrospect.
Even if it sounds ludicrous at the moment, let us assume that, twenty years later, India will become a football superpower after the restructuring being ushered in over the next couple of years. Will this compensate for the utter disregard shown by the AIFF to the I-League clubs, and its nonchalance and favouritism?
The answer is no. Contrary to what Machiavelli said, the end cannot justify the means – at least in a game that boasts of instilling sportsman spirit in millions. Labelling the AIFF only as inefficient and spineless undermines the potential danger that their policies pose, both from ethical and execution perspectives.
Atanu Mitra has been covering Indian football for more than four years. He tweets @Atanu00.
