New Delhi: The All India Football Federation, which was left hugely embarrassed and heavily fined in the Court of Arbitration for Sport last week in an arbitral award related to the final standings of 2024-25 I-League, is now under fire from its own League Committee chairperson.
The CAS order on July 18 asked the AIFF to declare Inter Kashi FC the I-League champions, thus altering the earlier league table that had Churchill Brothers on the top.
Lalnghinglova Hmar, the chairperson of the AIFF League Committee, who is also the sports minister in the government of Mizoram, has questioned the manner in which the AIFF presented its case at CAS.
According to Hmar, the AIFF’s stand was self-sabotaging that may give unnecessary rise to the suspicion about the neutrality of the national federation.
In a letter to the AIFF president Kalyan Chaubey on Thursday, July 24, 2025, Hmar, who is also a senior member of the AIFF Executive Committee, said the federation’s “vacillating” stance over Inter Kashi’s player re-registration request and questioning its league committee’s jurisdiction over it at CAS has threatened to “dismantle the fabric and the long-standing tradition” of the game in the country.
While the AIFF’s league committee approved of Kashi’s request to re-register foreigner Mario Barco, its appeal committee rejected it, leading to a courtroom battle in Lausanne where the club eventually came up trumps and became the I-League champions.
In defence of its appeal committee’s decision to dock points from Kashi and announce Churchill Brothers as the champions, the AIFF said that the league committee’s jurisdiction is entirely “recommendatory”, as it has “no independent adjudicatory or executive authority to render binding interpretations or grant approvals”.
“… the AIFF League Committee’s act of suggesting that the reregistration of Mr. Barco “may be approved”, in the absence of a statutory provision for exercising such authority, was null and void in law, incapable of being cured.
“The re-registration of Mr. Barco rested solely on an opinion/suggestion delivered by a body that was neither competent to interpret the regulation in the context it was invoked, nor validly approached for such interpretation,” the AIFF said to CAS, in a 240-page submission.
Three of the five league committee members had given a nod for Barco’s re-registration.
‘Volte-face belittling’
Such a damning indictment has left league committee chairperson Hmar “somewhat confused and disappointed” and compelled him to pen his views to Chaubey.
“After examining all the documents related to the dispute of Inter Kashi FC re-registering a foreign player in the I-League 2024-25 and subsequent protests by three other clubs, I am afraid to say the AIFF failed to take a definite stand on the subject,” Hmar wrote.
“When the matter went to the AIFF Appeal Committee on April 30, 2025, the AIFF’s submission stated that the Inter Kashi footballer was allowed to be re-registered by the League Committee, which has the necessary jurisdiction and constitutional authority to do so.
“Surprisingly, the AIFF did a complete volte-face in its submission to the CAS, in which it not only belittled its own League Committee, but went on to explain at length that the League Committee doesn’t have the authority to allow the said footballer to play.”
CAS rejected AIFF’s stance to declare Inter Kashi the I-League champions. Photo: @InterKashi
The AIFF’s contrasting submissions to the appeal committee and at CAS in less than three and a half months, according to Hmar, were so “stark and glaring” that is scarcely believable that were made by the same body, Hmar mentioned.
On provisions of Article 13.1.1 of I-League regulations, “it can be concluded that any administrative action, including those relating to registration and/or re-registration of players, would fall within the terms of reference of the League Committee,” the AIFF had told the appeal committee.
While at CAS, the AIFF stated: “… the League Committee lacked the authority to render any final and binding clarification or opinion… as such, the League Committee Opinion was void ab 7 initio. The invalidity of the League Committee Opinion is not merely procedural but jurisdictional, and it therefore taints the entire process.”
Pointing out the sudden change in AIFF’s views, Hmar said, “… it gives rise to unnecessary suspicion that the AIFF’s complete change of stance was driven by reasons that could hamper the neutrality of the National Federation,” adding that he could have put forward more proof to depict the AIFF’s “360-degree turnaround” in this particular issue for “reasons best known to it”.
‘Shocking’
The federation’s failure to ratify the league committee’s decision from its executive committee was also equally baffling, which threatened to erode its control, it was pointed out.
“At the same time, I am thoroughly disappointed that the AIFF made every attempt to undermine the importance of the League Committee in its submission to CAS,” Hmar said.
“The league committee is one of the standing committees of the AIFF, constituted and approved by the Executive Committee. To say this committee “lacked the authority to render any final and binding clarification or opinion” is absolutely shocking and is like an attempt to erode and sabotage its own authority.
“So much so, the AIFF secretariat didn’t even bother to table the decision of the League Committee in the Executive Committee meeting for approval.
“I am confident that your reply to this letter, which I am sure of receiving soon, will clear all my doubts in this regard,” Hmar concluded.
Chaubey is yet to respond to Hmar’s letter.