Explained: Why ISL clubs running the league isn't a conflict of interest?

The All India Football Federation (AIFF) on Tuesday announced that it had reached an agreement with Indian Super League (ISL) clubs to jointly conduct the league for the upcoming season, with the clubs set to take over its commercial operations under a new governance model.

Under the agreement, the clubs will own the league's commercial rights for the next four years, although they will have the option to review the arrangement after two years. AIFF will receive 10 per cent of the league's net profits, retain audit rights over the league's accounts and receive ₹1.1 crore from each participating club.

The announcement has also raised a question among many Indian football fans: If the clubs themselves are running the league, doesn't that create a conflict of interest?

The short answer is no. In fact, several of the world's biggest football leagues are run on similar lines.

What did AIFF announce?

The AIFF confirmed that it has accepted a club-led model for the ISL's commercial operations.

While the clubs will collectively conduct the league and own its commercial rights, AIFF will continue to remain the governing body of football in India.

The federation will retain oversight through audit rights, receive a share of the league's profits and continue to perform its regulatory responsibilities under FIFA and Asian Football Confederation (AFC) statutes.

The federation also agreed to make the Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) player quota optional for the 2026-27 season. Clubs will be allowed to register six foreign players, with a maximum of four on the field at any given time.

Why doesn't this give clubs an unfair advantage?

The biggest misconception is that one or two clubs can now run the league however they want.

That isn't how club-owned leagues function.

The clubs don't manage the league individually, they manage it collectively.

Every club is a competitor. What benefits one club often disadvantages another. If one club were to push for a rule that unfairly favoured it, the remaining clubs would have every reason to oppose it.

Their shared interest lies in making the league more valuable commercially through better sponsorships, stronger broadcast deals and increased fan engagement, not in giving one club a sporting advantage.

The league's credibility is also its biggest commercial asset. If clubs were seen to be manipulating the competition, the value of television rights, sponsorships and fan interest would decline, hurting every club financially.

In other words, the clubs cooperate to grow the business of the league while continuing to compete against each other on the pitch.

This is not a new concept in football.

When the Premier League was formed in 1992, England's top clubs broke away from the old Football League and created a competition they would collectively own and operate. The move allowed them to negotiate television rights and sponsorship deals together, helping transform the Premier League into one of the world's most commercially successful sports leagues.

Today, the Premier League's clubs remain its shareholders and vote on major commercial and strategic decisions. No single club controls the competition, and decisions are taken collectively.

Germany's Bundesliga follows a similar model. Its commercial operations are managed by the Deutsche Fußball Liga (DFL), an organisation made up of the Bundesliga and 2. Bundesliga clubs. The clubs jointly oversee the league's business while competing against one another every season.

The proposed ISL structure follows the same principle.

Rather than allowing individual clubs to control the league, it gives all participating clubs a collective stake in growing the competition while ensuring that no single club can dictate how it is run.