Clubs will engage directly with the three bidders for Indian club football’s long-term commercial rights, the All India Football Federation (AIFF) decided in its executive committee meeting on Sunday. Additionally, the three bids will be turned over to audit firm KPMG, who the federation said “will prepare comprehensive comparison tables evaluating the feasibility and key aspects of the bids”.
FanCode, the media rights holder for the ongoing 2025/26 season of the Indian Super League (ISL), and Genius Sports made bids for the ISL and the Federation Cup. Meanwhile, Capri Sports have bid for the top two flights of women’s club football in India, Indian Women’s League (IWL) and the IWL 2. Genius Sports has offered INR 2,129 crore for a 20-year cycle with a 5% annual increase in value. FanCode submitted a significantly lower bid of INR 1,190 crore for the same 20-year period. Capri Sports was the sole bidder for women’s football with a bid between INR 150 crore to INR 160 crore for a 20-year cycle.
“After detailed deliberations, the Executive Committee decided that KPMG will prepare comprehensive comparison tables to evaluate the feasibility, financial structure and key technical aspects of the bids,” the AIFF said in a statement.
“To ensure greater clarity and transparency in the process, clubs associated with the competitions will also hold meetings with the respective bidders to address any queries they may have.
“Following the preparation of the comparison analysis, the bidders will be requested to submit term sheets within a defined timeline. The matter will subsequently be placed before the AIFF General Body for consideration in accordance with the provisions of the AIFF Constitution.”
The federation has hence heeded the ISL clubs’ earlier request of not making any “binding decision” on the new long-term commercial rights holder during Sunday’s executive committee meeting, citing a lack of meaningful opportunity to evaluate the bidders.
The clubs had said in a joint statement they “cannot be expected to arrive at a considered view” on the competing bidders without being “afforded a more meaningful opportunity” to assess them in substance while also pointing out that they were not part of the drafting process.
