By Sujit Bhar
On August 28, the Supreme Court once again reserved its verdict on the long-pending All India Football Federation (AIFF) constitution case, stating that a final judgment would be delivered on September 1. The matter has been under judicial review since 2017, when the apex court directed the drafting of a fresh AIFF constitution to bring the body in line with the National Sports Code and global sporting regulations.
In 2023 a revised draft, prepared under the supervision of Justice (Retd) L Nageswara Rao, was submitted. Yet, despite the urgency and repeated warnings from FIFA, the world’s football governing body, the matter remains unresolved.
This delay is not merely a matter of bureaucratic indecision; it risks placing Indian football in a dangerous position. FIFA and the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) have already written to AIFF, warning of a potential suspension if the constitution is not formally adopted by October 30. If such a sanction is imposed, it will mark the second time in recent years that AIFF has been suspended by FIFA.
The issue brings to the surface a deeper malaise that has long plagued Indian sports: political interference in the functioning of national sports federations. For world sporting bodies, such interference—whether by governments, courts, or political actors—is unacceptable, and they have repeatedly demonstrated their willingness to suspend national associations when autonomy is compromised.
THE THICK RED LINE
FIFA, like other world sporting federations, strictly prohibits what it terms “third-party interference”. This definition is broad and includes direct government control, political appointments, or even judicial interventions in the internal matters of national associations. The rationale is simple: to safeguard the independence, transparency, and global integrity of sport. This brings to mind certain precedents:
- Kuwait Football Association (2015, 2017): FIFA suspended Kuwait multiple times due to governmental interference in sports bodies. The suspension barred Kuwait from participating in qualifiers for the 2018 FIFA World Cup.
- Pakistan Football Federation (2017, 2021): Twice suspended by FIFA, first when a court-appointed administrator took charge of the Federation, and later due to disputes between government-backed officials and FIFA-recognized leadership.
- Zimbabwe Football Association (2022): Suspended by FIFA after the government-run Sports and Recreation Commission (SRC) dissolved the football association board citing corruption and maladministration.
- Olympic movement precedents: The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has often acted against countries for political meddling. In 2015, the IOC suspended the Kuwait Olympic Committee for government interference, leading to Kuwaiti athletes competing under the Olympic flag in Rio 2016. Similarly, India itself faced suspension by the IOC in 2012, after elections to the Indian Olympic Association were found to be manipulated by political forces.
These examples highlight the seriousness with which world sporting bodies treat autonomy. For them, political intrusion is not just a domestic issue; it undermines the credibility of sport on a global stage.
At the heart of the AIFF case lies a paradox. On the one hand, the Supreme Court has acted to clean up the Federation’s governance and align it with India’s National Sports Development Code, thereby making it compliant with international norms. On the other, FIFA sees any direct judicial or governmental intervention as “third-party interference.” This tension has led to repeated warnings and even temporary sanctions, like the one imposed in August 2022 when India was briefly suspended by FIFA.
The current president of AIFF, Kalyan Chaubey, is not just a former footballer, but also an active member of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). His political identity makes the situation particularly sensitive. If the Supreme Court issues a clear directive excluding political influence from AIFF’s administration, it could have ripple effects across the Indian sporting landscape.
IS A PRECEDENT POSSIBLE?
A Supreme Court order that explicitly bars political figures from leading or influencing AIFF may set a historic precedent. Such a ruling would not remain confined to football; other federations, equally riddled with political entrenchment, could face similar scrutiny.
Sports governance in India has long been dominated by political heavyweights. Senior leaders across parties—from the Congress to the BJP, from regional satraps to Parliamentarians—have held top positions in federations. Their influence often outlasts their political careers, creating dynastic control within sports administration.
Consider the case of the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI). The recent turmoil in Indian wrestling highlighted the dangers of political control. Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh, a BJP MP, headed the WFI for years before being forced to step down amid serious allegations of sexual harassment by women wrestlers. The scandal revealed how political patronage insulated individuals from accountability. A precedent from the AIFF case could inspire calls for depoliticizing wrestling governance. The sad issue is as Brij Bhushan stepped down, he managed to keep as head of the WFI a relative, another political hot potato.
Or, consider the case of Hockey India. Though currently stabilized, Hockey India has in the past seen interference from both politicians and bureaucrats. Given India’s status as a hockey powerhouse, ensuring neutrality and professionalism in administration is vital.
The Boxing Federation of India (BFI) has been frequently in the news for factional battles and allegations of political interference, the BFI has suffered from governance instability, affecting India’s boxing ecosystem.
The malaise also affects the top sporting body of the country, the Indian Olympic Association. Historically plagued by political infighting, the Association was suspended by the IOC in 2012. Even today, it is seen more as a battleground for political clout than a professional sports body. Even though PT Usha, a former star athlete, heads the IOA, her political ambitions and her own greed for power has created several enemies within the body, greatly hampering the functioning of the IOA.
If the Supreme Court verdict in the AIFF case clearly articulates the need to separate politics from sports administration, all these federations could face reform pressures.
THE POLITICAL DAMAGE
The entanglement of politics and sports in India has produced multiple negative consequences:
- Stifling talent: In wrestling, athletes like Sakshi Malik and Bajrang Punia were forced to stage protests demanding justice. Their training and competitive schedules were disrupted because the administration was embroiled in political controversies.
- Stunted development: In football, AIFF’s internal wrangling delayed league reforms and youth development programmes. While global football nations streamlined professional structures, India’s football calendar often fell prey to power tussles.
- Loss of credibility: Suspension by international bodies not only halts participation, but also damages a country’s global sporting reputation. India’s brief FIFA suspension in 2022 sent shockwaves across the footballing world and embarrassed the nation.
- Funding and sponsorships dry up: Political controversies make private players wary of associating with federations, limiting the growth of professional leagues and grassroots initiatives.
- Focus on power, not performance: When politicians head sports bodies, attention often shifts to elections, lobbying, and maintaining control, rather than building long-term athletic ecosystems.
THE OTHER SIDE
To understand India’s predicament, it is useful to contrast it with other sporting nations:
- Germany (DFB): The German Football Association is run by elected officials, most of whom are from football or corporate backgrounds, not politics. Strict compliance with governance codes ensures transparency.
- Japan: Sporting federations in Japan function with corporate-style governance, with a heavy emphasis on professional management. Political figures rarely head national associations.
- United States (US Soccer, US Olympic Committee): Governance is highly professionalized, with former athletes, corporate leaders, and administrators forming boards. Government has little to no role in the internal workings of federations.
- United Kingdom (FA, UK Sport): The Football Association operates with independence, though it cooperates with the government for funding grassroots programmes. The emphasis is on professional administrators and independent commissions rather than political appointees.
These examples demonstrate that independence from politics, coupled with transparent elections and professional management, is the global norm. India’s tendency to treat sports federations as fiefdoms of politicians stands in stark contrast.
THE ROAD AHEAD
The Supreme Court’s forthcoming verdict on September 1 will not just decide the fate of AIFF’s constitution, but could also determine the trajectory of Indian football itself. The joint statement between AIFF and Football Sports Development Limited (FSDL) about the future of the Indian Super League (ISL) and domestic tournaments shows some progress. The agreement to hold a transparent tender process for ISL’s commercial rights is a positive step towards professionalism.
Yet, unless the underlying issue of political interference is resolved, Indian football risks sliding back into turmoil. FIFA’s October 30 deadline leaves little room for complacency. If AIFF is suspended again, India will face embarrassment on the global stage, and its players, coaches, and fans will suffer.
The AIFF case has grown into something larger than a mere football governance issue. It symbolizes the broader crisis in Indian sport—the stranglehold of politics over federations. If the Supreme Court uses this case to mandate a separation of politics and sport, it could set a transformative precedent for Indian athletics as a whole. Wrestling, hockey, boxing, and even the Indian Olympic Association could face renewed calls for reform.
For too long, India’s sporting future has been sacrificed at the altar of political control. The coming weeks could determine whether that cycle finally begins to break. If India truly aspires to become a global sporting powerhouse, it must embrace the principle that world bodies like FIFA, IOC, and AFC hold sacred: sport must be free from political interference.