Panaji: Chairperson of the All India Football Federation’s League Committee and Mizoram sports minister, Lalnghinglova Hmar, has sought clarifications after being left “confused and disappointed” at the federation’s “vacillating stands on the legal battle between a few I-League clubs,” involving the re-registration of Inter Kashi forward Mario Barco.It was the League Committee that allowed the re-registration of Barco after the AIFF’s competitions department had turned down Inter Kashi. The Spanish forward was initially registered before the league kicked off, but suffered an injury in December, leading to his replacement by Matija Babovic. Two months later, Kashi re-registered Barco as a replacement for Juan Perez del Pino, who had mutually terminated his contract with the club.Three clubs – Churchill Brothers, Namdhari FC and Delhi FC – lodged a protest and later filed an appeal with the AIFF Appeals Committee, which they won. The ruling was, however, set aside by the Switzerland-based Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).“I am afraid to say the AIFF failed to take a definite stand on the subject,” Hmar wrote in a letter to AIFF president Kalyan Chaubey on Wednesday.“AIFF’s vacillating stands on the legal battle between a few I-League clubs led to the unusual development of the I-League title being decided in the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Switzerland for the first time in Indian football history,” he added.Popularly known as Tetea, the man credited with transforming football in Mizoram said the way AIFF handled the entire issue threatened to dismantle the fabric and the long-standing tradition of India’s domestic football.“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.“The difference of opinion between the two submissions is so stark and glaring that it makes it hard to believe that they were made by the same party in less than three and a half months,” said Hmar, adding that it also 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.The chairperson also put on record that he was “thoroughly disappointed” that the AIFF made every attempt to undermine the importance of the League Committee in its submission to CAS.“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,” said Hmar.Inter Kashi were announced as champions after CAS overturned two decisions by the AIFF Appeals Committee, a first for Indian football.
