New Delhi: Murmurs of discontent have floated over the functioning of the All India Football Federation president Kalyan Chaubey for quite a while, but a fresh round of boardroom politics has surfaced at the AIFF recently amidst stalled negotiations of master rights agreements (MRA) with its marketing partners.
Kalyan Chaubey’s reign as the AIFF president has been controversial ever since a spate of corruption allegations surfaced against him, something he, of course, has addressed in detail during the AIFF executive committee and general meetings a number of times.
But as reports of at least 20 members planning on moving a no-confidence motion against him emerged, the former goalkeeper is left to fend off a fresh wave of attack in a crucial year that could decide the game’s course in the country for the next decade and a half.
MRA negotiations yet to begin in right earnest
With AIFF’s 15-year agreement for marketing rights with Reliance subsidiary Football Sports Development Limited (FSDL) ending in December and the existence of a right-to-refuse option in the last six months of the contract, negotiations should have been in motion by now and ideally concluded by March-April.
As per the MRA, the AIFF receives Rs 50 crore per year, and the Indian Super League serves as the country’s premier football competition.
At AIFF’s executive committee meeting on June 6, 2024, it was decided to form a committee to study the MRA before beginning negotiations, but no such panel has been formed since. The federation had wished for a meeting with FSDL in January, but it hasn’t materialised yet. Talks are expected to resume soon after initial interactions in 2023.
In finding a way past the clutches of the former glovesman, dissenters have resorted to Article 23 of AIFF’s existing constitution that allows at least 12 members (1/3rd of the house strength) to ask for staging of a special general meeting within 60 days of making a formal request, but only after setting an agenda that “may not be altered.”.
In that article or anywhere in AIFF’s existing constitution, there is no specific mention regarding a no-confidence motion against the president, nor is there any provision to dismiss the supremo.
“It (the no-confidence motion against the president) is not explicitly mentioned. But members can force a motion against the president in the SGM; it is a globally accepted phenomenon,” a person aware of the developments said, who was not willing to be identified as the scenario is particularly fluid now.
“Unless the president resigns, it is difficult to throw him away under the existing structure,” a legal expert explained, adding that he might be forced to resign if the house decidedly turns against him.
On top of it, the president himself has to approve the agenda before it could be set for the SGM, which could mean a lot of manoeuvring and lobbying on the part of the revolters to have the numbers on their side for which they have campaigned on the sly for months.
AIFF president Kalyan Chaubey (third from right) in conversation with Sports Minister Mansukh Mandaviya over strategies to promote football and strengthen the Indian football’s ecosystem. Photo: @mansukhmandviya
Article 16 that deals with “expulsions” is applicable in case of expelling a member where “presence of an absolute majority of members (50% of members plus one) entitled to vote at the general body is necessary for an expulsion to be valid, and the motion for expulsion must be adopted by a two-thirds majority of the votes taken.”
In the new draft constitution submitted to the Supreme Court, Article 26 deals with ‘Removal of Office-Bearers,’ in which it is written, “Office-bearer(s) may be removed by a vote of no-confidence passed by the General Body in an AGM or SGM called for this purpose, provided that such resolution must receive the affirmative vote of at least 2/3rds (two-thirds) of the Members present and voting, and provided further that a quorum of at least 50% (fifty percent) of the total members of the General Body entitled to participate and vote in such meeting is present.”
For the FSDL and the federation to shake hands on a new deal, approval of the new constitution from the Supreme Court is necessary, as specifications over terms and conditions on which MRAs might be negotiated are mentioned in it.
As the AIFF depends heavily on that Rs 50 crore per year for the bulk of its operational expenses, including the organisation of 18 men’s and women’s senior and junior tournaments and salaries of its large number of coaching and office staff, the valuation of the new deal is of paramount importance to Indian football.
“For me, the MRA is more important; removing the president is only for two years till the next election happens in due process, but the MRA is a long-term process that will shape the future of football in India,” an official said, exasperated at the way things are going on.
Brains behind the so-called “uprising”
Interestingly, there is a feeling around that a particular lobby keen on taking the ongoing MRA deal further ahead in the future is actively working behind the move to bring an end to the current regime.
At least two important officials of the previous regime, headed by the NCP (Ajit Pawar) leader Praful Patel, are in regular touch with the members and advising them how to go about the “no-confidence” move.
While one of them remain ineligible to vie for any position in the AIFF as per the 2011 Sports Code, the other left the organisation as a much-maligned person.
AIFF president Kalyan Chaubey is left to fend off a fresh wave of attack in a crucial year that could decide the course of Indian football for the next decade and a half. Football Sports News: Latest Cricket News, Cricket Live Score, Sports Breaking News from Sports Today
