Supreme Court to hear pleas on status of Indian Super League 2025–26 season

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear pleas by stakeholders on the status of the Indian Super League (ISL), offering some relief to millions of fans awaiting the new season of the country’s premier football competition.

The case centres on the Master Rights Agreement (MRA) between the All-India Football Federation (AIFF) and Football Sports Development Ltd. (FSDL), which has been on hold since April following an apex court directive. ISL clubs and AIFF approached the Supreme Court, citing delays in the 2025-26 season, frozen player contracts and operational disruptions due to the stalled MRA.

The matter will be heard on 22 August by a bench led by Justice P.S. Narasimha, after being mentioned by amicus curiae, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan on Monday.

The MRA, signed in 2010, granted FSDL exclusive commercial rights to operate and market the ISL for 15 years. This included sponsorships, broadcasting and league management, while ensuring AIFF an annual fee of $5.1 million.

AIFF, a member of FIFA, governs the sport in India. FSDL, a subsidiary of Reliance-backed IMG-Reliance, was incorporated in 2010 to commercially operate and develop Indian football.

The agreement is set to expire on 8 December 2025, but its renewal has been stalled as the court weighs the AIFF’s constitutional validity. In April, the court barred AIFF from signing fresh commercial contracts, plunging the upcoming season into uncertainty.

While the agreement helped transform ISL into India’s flagship football competition—expanding from eight clubs in 2013 to 14 today—the impasse has created turmoil. Many clubs have suspended operations; broadcasters face uncertainty and players’ contracts remain frozen. Bengaluru FC, Chennaiyin FC and Odisha FC are among those forced to halt salaries.

“The judgment in the AIFF matter is reserved since April 30. Its outcome will determine not only the future of the MRA but also how national sports federations are governed in India,” said sports activist and lawyer Rahul Mehra, the petitioner in the case.

“A discussion was held between the legal representatives of the All-India Football Federation and the Indian Super League clubs on Thursday. It has been agreed by all parties that the concerns of the ISL clubs pertaining to the delay in the commencement of the 2025-26 ISL season, and the hardship being felt by the players and other stakeholders will be conveyed to the Supreme Court next week,” the AIFF said in a statement last week.

The tournament is typically held from September to April.

The dispute coincides with the introduction of the National Sports Governance Bill, 2025, last month, which proposes sweeping reforms, including stricter accountability of sports bodies, mandatory ethics codes and the creation of a National Sports Tribunal with appeals to the Supreme Court or the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

The uncertainty over ISL reflects a deeper malaise in Indian sport. From the collapse of the domestic hockey and boxing leagues to repeated suspensions of national federations, poor governance, political infighting and opaque structures, professional sport in the country continues to get derailed.

The AIFF controversy dates back to its 2016 elections, when Praful Patel was re-elected as president. The Delhi High Court ruled that the elections violated the National Sports Code, 2011, citing breaches in tenure limits, age caps and democratic representation. The court invalidated the polls and ordered a new AIFF constitution in line with the Sports Code.

Though the Supreme Court stayed that ruling in 2017, it acknowledged the need for reform and appointed a Committee of Administrators (CoA) in 2022 to draft a new constitution. FIFA’s subsequent suspension of India highlighted the gravity of AIFF’s governance crisis.

Later, the Supreme Court’s intervention led to fresh elections and Kalyan Chaubey’s presidency. The suspension was lifted, restoring India’s hosting rights for the U-17 Women’s World Cup.

While reserving its verdict on the AIFF’s constitutional case in April, the Supreme Court directed the AIFF not to sign or renew the MRA until a final ruling is delivered—leading to the current deliberations.