With the All India Football Federation (AIFF) and their commercial partners IMG-Reliance (IMG-R) inviting bids from "interested parties to enroll and participate" in the Indian Super League (ISL) from the 2017-18 season, where does that leave the I-League? ESPN attempts to answer this, and other questions on the minds of Indian football fans.
It seems the odds are stacked against the I-League clubs and the ISL holds all the aces. What leverage do the I-League clubs have with the AIFF?
In tangible terms, the I-League clubs can choose to stay away from the ISL as long as the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) recognises the I-League as the official league of India. However, these clubs have no bargaining power at all, especially if the ISL becomes the recognised competition. The AIFF can simply ask them to stay or leave the I-League, as has been the case with the Goan clubs with more than half of century of history who have folded up operations with their senior teams in Indian football.
Why would I-League teams want to be part of the ISL?
There are financial benefits to be had from getting into the ISL, including a share of the television broadcast rights money (though that's yet to kick in across the first three seasons).
For sheer visibility and the level of marketing that is put into the ISL, most clubs would want to be a part of it, provided it becomes a recognised league and the winner from the ISL gets a chance to compete in AFC competitions.
What is the AFC's role in this? Does it have a say in either the domestic league or the teams playing the AFC tournaments?
The AFC has a fairly stringent set of criteria on the basis of which it gives member associations a chance to be a part of their continental competitions, and this also extends to the licensing criteria that all clubs have to fulfill to be a part of AFC tournaments.
As of 2017, seven Indian clubs have applied for AFC's license - based on sporting, infrastructure, administration, legal and financial models, transparency and credibility - but the only club satisfying all the criteria and is thus licensed, is Bengaluru FC.
However, exceptions are allowed, for one season and based on various established criteria, which is how other clubs participate in AFC competitions.
The AFC has said before that India's domestic restructuring is purely the purview of the AIFF; latest reports indicate that while they currently recognise only the I-League, they could consider the ISL after discussions with the AIFF and IMG-R.
Why are Durgapur and Siliguri being considered to host franchises? Neither is a traditional football club base.
Durgapur, in West Bengal, houses the Mohun Bagan youth academy; Siliguri, in the northern part of the state, has been an alternate venue for East Bengal, largely due its fan base there, and has hosted several high-profile matches including both Kolkata derbies in the recent I-League.
Naming Durgapur and Siliguri might be a hint that both the Kolkata clubs are inclined to be a part of the ISL, should it get elevated to the status of the top division of Indian football, as was the original plan of the AIFF.
Also read: ISL seeks new teams, looks set to be top league
And why are Ahmedabad, Cuttack and Jamshedpur -- all places with relatively less history with football - included on the list?
Jamshedpur is closely associated with the Tatas, who have been linked - without their confirming it - with buying a franchise in the expanded ISL. The other venues named could be the AIFF wanting to broadbase their game as much as possible and taking the game to non-traditional centres.
So many cities and not one from the north-east? How valid is the AIFF's contention that the ISL will be too expensive for Aizawl FC or Shillong Lajong? Apart from the Rs 15-crore fee, what are the other expenses in the ISL that are much higher than in the I-League? Will salaries be an issue?
Why the AIFF has not included the north-east in their list remains a mystery - perhaps the idea is to maintain the hegemony of NorthEast United as the region's only team in the ISL.
The ISL is a cost-intensive league but it has thus far been staged over a short, three-month spell. Also, clubs have moved from high-profile marquee names - Freddie Ljungberg in the first season for Mumbai City FC - to relatively lesser-known but more recently active international players like Aaron Hughes of Kerala Blasters.
If the ISL is to expand to a four or five-month league, this will automatically mean a longer period for which squads will have to be maintained. This will skew the operating budgets of existing ISL franchises.
The ISL currently allows franchises to recover a lot of their invested money through multiple sponsorship deals but these flout AFC norms for a national league. In a remodelled league, teams will require greater creativity to generate funds for themselves.
Mohun Bagan and East Bengal are not in great financial health, so they have problems joining the ISL without concessions. What is BFC's issue?
The most important point for any I-League team to consider before joining the ISL would be an assurance of being eligible to compete in AFC competitions.
The proposed roadmap of Indian football rules out AFC competitions for anyone other than the winner of the top recognised national league, whichever one that may eventually be; there's also a proposal to replace the ongoing Federation Cup with a tournament that will allow the top teams of the I-League and the ISL to compete to find another candidate for AFC competitions.
Until either of these is assured, it is unlikely any I-League team would want to compete in the ISL.
Kerala Blasters have already developed a fan base in Kerala. Wouldn't a team from Thiruvananthapuram dilute that?
The counter-argument could be that if Maharashtra can have two teams in the ISL, why not Kerala, which has a greater appetite for football and traditionally a larger fan base.