A Red Card for Indian Football

ON AUGUST 22, IN response to an urgent plea by the Centre, the Supreme Court called a halt to the reforms it had initiated in the functioning of the All India Football Federation (AIFF) and placed an acting official in charge of its day-to-day functioning. In setting aside a committee of administrators (CoA) it had appointed to overhaul the functioning of Indian football and free it from the clutches of an entrenched old guard, the court essentially acknowledged it had been served with a fait accompli: the FIFA (Fédération internationale de Football Association) decision to suspend AIFF will prevent participation of Indian clubs and teams in international tournaments and scuttle the under-17 women’s World Cup to be held in India in October. Faced with a Hobson’s choice—with the Union sports ministry urging a review—the apex court effectively rescinded its previous orders. The court also accepted that the elections to AIFF will be held with a voters’ list comprising of 36 state and Union territory representatives, which meant the CoA’s proposal to also include 36 former international players as voters went out of the window. The AIFF executive council would largely comprise of members elected by state associations and six eminent former players. The timeline of the election would be altered to be held in early September instead of being completed by end-August.

This was a sensational, if disappointing, denouement to a high-octane drama that saw the CoA file a contempt of court petition against former AIFF boss and Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) leader Praful Patel, accusing him of acting in concert with state associations to undermine the Supreme Court’s decision to replace him and bring in a new executive committee and constitution. A well-known figure in New Delhi’s political and social circles, the suave Patel had headed AIFF since 2008 till he was relieved of his administrative responsibilities by the Supreme Court in May. Not unlike long-serving administrators who have headed national associations for various sports, the Rajya Sabha MP had pretty much made AIFF his fiefdom. A few years ago, elevation to the FIFA Council gave Patel an influential perch that added to his clout. His easy manners and membership of a gilded club that straddles business and politics made him a man to reckon with. It was his membership of the FIFA Council, the CoA said in a contempt petition it filed on August 9, which enabled him to “arrange” a letter from the world body that said AIFF could be banned on the grounds that an agreed timeline for the installation of an elected body was being violated.

The CoA appended Patel’s letter to FIFA President Gianni Infantino on May 23, in which the MP noted that it had been three years since the Supreme Court had set up a CoA to formulate statutes in accordance with the national sports council model guidelines but this had not come to pass. Patel said he feared a suspension of AIFF by FIFA and AFC (Asian Football Confederation), due to the CoA being “prima facie” interpreted as “undue third party interference”, would prevent India and Indian clubs from participating in international competitions. Though he “requested” FIFA and AFC not to impose a suspension at this stage, Patel urged a dialogue with the CoA on the timelines that he anticipated may not be acceptable to FIFA-AFC. He further notes that FIFA has taken a zero-tolerance attitude towards third-party influence in view of several national associations being suspended and added that draft AIFF statutes may not be in accordance with the world body’s norms (the CoA petition said Patel told a meeting of state association officials he convened that FIFA would never accept the inclusion of eminent former players as voters apart from the associations).

While Patel did not react to the apex court’s order, he has previously denied being responsible for AIFF’s problems. (Patel had not responded to Open’s request for a comment by the time of going to press.) A PTI report dated May 22 quotes him saying he would request FIFA that if the federation elections took place in two months, it would give India some leeway. “I will speak tomorrow. I will even call up president Infantino and also speak to Fatma Samoura [secretary-general] and tell them please try to give India two months to hold elections and let us continue with the game,” he told PTI. This was before the FIFA-AFC team reached India for discussions in June.

Did FIFA act on the basis of facts alone or did it display avoidable activism? The answer is not easy to arrive at but on August 6, a joint letter from FIFA-AFC to AIFF expressed apprehensions that the promised timelines had been deviated from without the consent of state associations. The CoA immediately wrote to FIFA on August 6 that there was no change and that state bodies were part of the consensus duly noted by the Supreme Court in its order. According to the CoA, on the same day, Patel conducted a meeting with 35 associations, “with the express purpose of interfering with the proceedings of this court and in the said meeting he impliedly admitted to having arranged the FIFA-AFC letter of August 5. Patel sought to push India towards suspension by hiding true facts from FIFA-AFC.” The CoA further said that various state association officials received the FIFA August 5 letter before the committee did. The CoA, which comprised Justice Anil Dave, former Chief Election Commissioner SY Qureshi and former India captain Bhaskar Ganguly, said: “On August 3, Supreme Court recorded consensus of various parties that the elections to the All India Football Federation will be conducted followed by finalisation of the constitution. Praful Patel abused his position as council member of the FIFA even after he was removed as president of AIFF. He orchestrated a campaign among various state associations to undermine the various steps taken by this court, including involvement of footballers in governance and administration.” Apart from the possible objections of FIFA-AFC, it does appear that the plan to induct eminent former internationals as voters in the election of the executive committee raised the hackles of state association officials who vehemently objected to players as “independent” entities.

THE FIFA DECISION seems to have blindsided the CoA and has also taken the Centre by surprise. Whether the developments will see Patel’s influence being reinstated remains to be seen, but it does seem clear that many state associations are his allies. The success of the FIFA letter in serving the Indian government with a practical ultimatum can only have cemented the alliance. At any rate, the new executive body is unlikely to be free from the status quoist influences that the court had sought to get rid of. There is, however, some unfinished business that might serve as a caution for the former administrators. A forensic audit of AIFF conducted by the audit and consultancy firm Deloitte is understood to have reported several irregularities which might expose a lack of transparency in the federation’s working. It was only on May 18 that the court said continuance of the AIFF executive committee beyond its four-year term was not in the interest of proper governance of the federation. The FIFA intervention was preceded by a visit by a team of officials to India on June 21-23 and discussions with the ministry, the CoA, and state associations. More communication followed between July 1 and July 15 and on July 21, the CoA told the court that 98 per cent of objections raised by various stakeholders had been accepted. The idea was to ensure a smooth U-17 tournament and consensus of the state bodies is recorded clearly in the apex court’s order. At this point, everyone seemed to understand the need to finalise a schedule of elections and the adoption of a new constitution. Yet, despite all the assurances of the CoA and representations that FIFA was misinformed about the court proceedings, the body went ahead and suspended AIFF.

The FIFA decision seems to have blindsided the CoA and has also taken the centre by surprise. Whether the developments will see Praful Patel’s influence return remains to be seen, but it does seem clear that many state associations are his allies

Share this on

The debate on the inclusion of eminent players has generated some heat. Some commentators believe that players as administrators have not always been a success and others point out that FIFA was bound by its rules to view the CoA as third-party influence. If it did see a case of third-party interference, FIFA seems to have taken its time reaching such a conclusion, acting just as the election process was actually going to get underway. The CoA had on August 4 issued notice to invite men and women internationals to submit details regarding their inclusion. Election officials had also been appointed. In the course of its deliberations, the Supreme Court did consider the view that the provision for former players could be going beyond the suggested national sports code but did not find the objections valid. “[T]here are two specific provisions which contemplate the inclusion of sports persons. There is on the one hand clause 9.3(12) which specifically contemplates the inclusion of sports persons (say 25%) with voting rights in the management of national sports federations. On the other hand, clause 3.20 also provides for the inclusion of prominent sports persons with a certain minimum percentage of voting rights (say 25%) of the total members representing the Federation. The use of the expression “say 25%” indicates that 25% is only an indicative figure and the extent of the voting rights has to be decided upon deliberation with the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports,” the court said.

ON BEHALF OF THE Centre, Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Jain said the Sports Code is an enabling document and not a restrictive one and specifically endorsed the need to include 36 eminent players. “The irresponsible actions of the state associations [in seeking to overturn court orders] exposed Indian football and the nation to much embarrassment,” the CoA said in its plea, adding, “The petitioner submits that considering the conduct of the contemnors it is clear that there has been a deliberate attempt to interfere with the due administration of justice and to frustrate the orders… conduct of the contemnors is liable to be dealt with heavily at the hands of this Hon’ble Court in the interest of justice.” The petition was not pressed on August 22, keeping in view what committee sources said were the “larger interests” of Indian football.

The scheme considered by the CoA involved 36 state federations selecting one representative each in the AIFF electoral college with one vote. For the ensuing elections to be held at short notice, a list of 36 eminent player-representatives was to have been a part of the electoral college chosen, based on the number of international matches played for India. There were to be 24 male football players and 12 female players for the first election. Stung by Patel’s letter to FIFA, the CoA hit out at the NCP leader, saying, “It perhaps would not be appropriate for a person who has profited from presiding over Indian football for over 16 years without any tenure limits or other controls to suggest that the Federation be suspended merely because he has been removed from [the] post he had illegally occupied. In fact, the third party interference would now take place if the members’ desire to have the Court’s timelines honoured is not accepted.”

In the transcript of Patel’s interaction with state associations submitted to the court, he seems to suggest that the purpose of the FIFA letter is to help the state bodies and hints that he has an idea of what the world body and AFC might be considering. The CoA’s decision not to press its contempt plea seems to be dictated by the fraught situation created by FIFA suspending AIFF. Already, a women’s team was excluded from an Asian club championship and both the federation and the Centre are keen to ensure that the suspension is reversed and the U-17 women’s tourney proceeds without further hitches. But beyond the immediate situation, there remain issues of transparency and reform that the Supreme Court may well take up again in future.

About The Author

Rajeev Deshpande

•