E-Paper
‘AIFF undermined own committee at CAS’
Kolkata: AIFF's submission to CAS undermines its League Committee, says chairman Hmar, expressing disappointment over conflicting jurisdiction claims.
Kolkata: The All India Football Federation (AIFF) has belittled its league committee in the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), according to an official. Lalnghinglova Hmar, chairman of the league committee, has said AIFF gave different versions on the committee’s jurisdiction to CAS and the federation’s appeals committee.
“I am thoroughly disappointed that the AIFF made every attempt to undermine the importance of the League Committee in its submission to CAS,” Hmar has written in a letter to federation president Kalyan Chaubey on Wednesday. HT has seen the letter.
An AIFF executive committee member, Hmar is also president of Mizoram Football Association and a minister of state in charge of Mizoram’s sports and youth affairs department.
The league committee has the authority to allow a player to be re-registered, AIFF informed its appeals committee, Hmar’s letter states. “Surprisingly, the AIFF did a complete volte-face in its submission to 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,” according to the letter.
Hmar’s letter pertains to the status of a player, Mario Barco, fielded by 2024-25 I-League champions Inter Kashi. Barco was registered but had to be replaced because of injury. After he recovered, Inter Kashi re-registered Barco as replacement for Jan Pérez del Pino who had left the club by mutual agreement. This was okayed by the league committee by a majority decision but overturned by AIFF appeals committee, which is an independent adjudicatory body, in April.
Inter Kashi then took the matter to CAS whose decision on July 18 upholding the re-registration forced AIFF to declare Inter Kashi as champions.
AIFF told its appeals committee that the league committee, as per AIFF Regulations, can deal with “decisions on overall organizational matters,” the letter says. The regulations, as per Hmar’s letter, state 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.”
AIFF’s submission to CAS was different, Hmar has said. According to his letter, AIFF told CAS that the league committee “shall recommend actions” on disputes including those pertaining to players. The league committee’s role is to provide “clarifications or explanations” if doubts arise in the interpretation of the AIFF Regulations, the letter states.
“Consequently, the AIFF League Committee lacked the authority to render any final and binding clarification…” Hmar quotes AIFF’s as telling CAS in his letter. “The invalidity of the League Committee Opinion (sic) is not merely procedural but jurisdictional, and it therefore taints the entire process.” This is what AIFF told CAS according to Hmar’s letter.
“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,” Hmar has said.
It is an attempt to “erode” and “sabotage” the authority of what is one the standing committees of AIFF, Hmar has said.
“The letter is self-explanatory. And it was sent to the AIFF to uphold the dignity of the League Committee,” Hmar told HT on Thursday.
Reacting to the letter, Chaubey said: “In CAS, the AIFF had to defend the decision taken by its appeals committee which is headed by a retired High Court judge. It did not have to defend itself in the appeals committee and hence its submission was different.
“AIFF had no intention to undermine Mr Hmar or its League committee. That said, if AIFF’s actions have hurt Mr Hmar, as head of the organisation, I am willing to write a letter of apology to him. I have told him that.”
