Questions about why Indian Super League (ISL) clubs need to meet bidders interested in being commercial partners of the All India Football Federation (AIFF) are valid. After all, two representatives of ISL clubs were part of the bid evaluation committee. Also, why have a bid evaluation committee when it does not, well, evaluate?
Seeking a meeting
“A decision of this nature must be informed not merely by the fact of a bid having been submitted, but by a proper understanding of the respective bidders’ business plans, revenue generation models, cost structures, operational capabilities, strategic assumptions and overall vision for the property,” the clubs wrote to AIFF one day after bids from Genius Sports and FanCode were opened.
Fair enough. But again, isn’t that the bid evaluation committee’s job? Would it have saved time if 14 clubs were part of that committee along with the AIFF deputy secretary-general, the league’s COO, head of strategy and two executive committee members of the federation?
Clubs are key stakeholders in any league, not just the one owned and operated by the federation. Also, it is a contract that will have a “material bearing on the structure, commercial direction and long-term future of Indian football,” as per the clubs. So, even though the bid evaluation committee should have given a recommendation, AIFF is likely to facilitate meetings with the bidders. Easter holidays came in the way of them happening last week, according to an AIFF official who added that it will be held shortly.
That could be AIFF’s way of showing it has no reason to let the clubs feel shortchanged. Especially after the clubs pointed out that they were not involved in drafting the RFQ (Request For Quotation) that led to bids worth approximately ₹2130 crore and ₹1190 crore for the next 15+5 years.
Quoting figures from AIFF’s former commercial partner, Football Sports Development Limited (FSDL), in its restructured plan for the league, clubs’ CEOs have said production cost alone for a season would be ₹60 crore. A further ₹31 crore would be earmarked for marketing and ₹15 crore for salaries. All told, the league was projected to cost around ₹160 crore per season. (Which makes it strange that JioHotstar, which like FSDL is owned by Reliance, bid around ₹5 crore to be broadcast partner for this season. The bid evaluation committee awarded the rights to FanCode for its bid of ₹8.5 crore.)
Neither bid comes close to FSDL’s projection but they are all that AIFF has. Genius Sports’s bid is said to be worth $7m (around ₹64 crore) per year and FanCode’s around ₹36 crore. Both have 5% annual increase factored in.
Seeking reasonable time
Once the meetings happen, the clubs have sought “reasonable time to deliberate internally, including with our respective owners and key stakeholders…,” before giving a “collective” view. Will AIFF define reasonable time and stick to the deadline?
It didn’t when it came to clubs making the first instalment of payment to run this season. The deadline for the first tranche of ₹30 lakh was March 5 but it wasn’t until April 6 that reigning champions Mohun Bagan Super Giant paid. No reason was cited for the delay, said an AIFF official. The federation has also not been firm on forming the governing council or re-forming the management committee though both were part of the governance structure.
The management committee, disbanded one day before the league started after two members said they were okay with the inclusion of a 15th team, is back but nothing has been made public on the governing council. The participation agreement too has not been signed.
It is one thing for AIFF to be lenient with all these to ensure a disruption-free season. But do that with potential bidders and it could jeopardise another season. A letter from Avijit Paul, an executive committee member, asks pertinent questions about how AIFF will run its programmes. It also says committing to a long-term deal would be “unwise” and points out that this committee’s tenure ends in six months. Paul’s letter does not explain how, assuming AIFF gets a partner for the short term, the proposal would square with the clubs seeking the opposite.
Clubs have told AIFF that their wish to understand what’s on offer should not be seen as a bid to “delay matters unnecessarily.” Time for them to walk the talk.
