Even EPL is not run by the FA. They are only responsible for approving the rulebook submitted by the 20 member clubs. Although FA is a shareholder, they are not involved in day to day running of the PL. So , I guess its not necessary that AIFF has to run the league. Here FSDL sets all rules related to ISL and informs AIFF. AIFF gives green signal.
Basically. I mean, disciplinary stuff is apparently done through the AIFF so the AIFF is involved in some way or another.
Only serious thing for me is that STAR Sports is a co-owner of the league. With TEN Sports, SONY ESPN among other TV channels being around, STAR Sports will probably never really lose the ISL and thus what will be the incentive in terms of TV revenue? We could say we could get a second broadcaster for games that go on at the same time or something but since the ISL is only 8 teams, that will never happen, and STAR Sports has more than one channel.
STAR Sports does amazing at production, they are the best in India but TV revenue is important and I don't think we can rely on revenue from abroad in ISL for awhile.
The way I see it , since IMG-R and star co-own the league, its their responsibility to draw good deals for the central sponsorship and make ISL saleable product. As per reports season 2 had Rs100 cr in central sponsorship.... if they can keep improving on this , dont think broadcasting revenue will be that much of an issue... Even, individually the clubs have done a decent job of roping in sponsors this year, ranging Rs10-15 cr, I guess.
The league ownership issue is being misrepresented here. According to FIFA, a country's premier league should be owned by their Fed, or, by the clubs that are playing in the league. The accent is on democracy (election) here -- the governing body must have elected members. Example for the first kind is MLS, where the US Fed owns it indirectly. The reason for owning it 'indirectly' is for accounting purpose and/ or administrative convenience. Example for the second one is EPL. The clubs themselves own it. Barclays Bank, KFC, Venky's do not and cannot grab ownership. So is the case of IMR-R. What is FSDL? it is a fully owned subsidiary of IMG-R, not an elected body. They, or Nita aunty, cannot own India's Premier League!
Found this part very interesting>>> "In the wake of a successful World Cup USA, MLS was officially formed in February 1995 as a limited liability company (“LLC”) under Delaware law. The league is owned by a number of independent investors (a mix of corporations, partnerships, and one individual) and is governed by a management committee known as the board of governors. Some of the investors are passive; others are also team operators as explained below. "
"MLS retains significant centralized control over both league and individual team operations. MLS owns all of the teams that play in the league (a total of 12 prior to the start of 2002), as well as all intellectual property rights, tickets, supplied equipment, and broadcast rights. MLS sets the teams' schedules; negotiates all stadium leases and assumes all related liabilities; pays the salaries of referees and other league personnel; and supplies certain equipment. -"
So what is wrong with img-r/star/fsdl ...nita aunty, mukesh uncle or ambanis brother in laws ,sister in laws investing in a top tier and ISL getting approved just like USSF did for MLS ?
Essentially. What interests me is that it seems like the chairman coming for MLS was also the president of the USSF but that was only given to him after the selection of the league (and his running of the World Cup):
Comments
Only serious thing for me is that STAR Sports is a co-owner of the league. With TEN Sports, SONY ESPN among other TV channels being around, STAR Sports will probably never really lose the ISL and thus what will be the incentive in terms of TV revenue? We could say we could get a second broadcaster for games that go on at the same time or something but since the ISL is only 8 teams, that will never happen, and STAR Sports has more than one channel.
STAR Sports does amazing at production, they are the best in India but TV revenue is important and I don't think we can rely on revenue from abroad in ISL for awhile.
The USSF does not indirectly own MLS, or any other league. If anything, it is closer to the "Premier League ownership model" than the other.
Interesting that a lot of the things in that link are pretty much copy and paste of what we see in ISL.
"MLS retains significant centralized control over both league and individual team operations. MLS owns all of the teams that play in the league (a total of 12 prior to the start of 2002), as well as all intellectual property rights, tickets, supplied equipment, and broadcast rights. MLS sets the teams' schedules; negotiates all stadium leases and assumes all related liabilities; pays the salaries of referees and other league personnel; and supplies certain equipment. -"
So what is wrong with img-r/star/fsdl ...nita aunty, mukesh uncle or ambanis brother in laws ,sister in laws investing in a top tier and ISL getting approved just like USSF did for MLS ?
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/03/16/sports/soccer-us-pro-league-moves-along-by-signing-a-television-deal.html