The key sticking point in the week-long tangle between FIFA and those running Indian football was very simple: FIFA were adamant that, in line with its rules for all countries, only the 36 member bodies could elect the All India Football Federation's new governing body, while the Supreme Court-appointed Committee of Administrators proposed an electoral college of which half (another 36) were eminent former players (nominated, not elected). This was the basis for FIFA to cite "third-party interference" while banning the AIFF.
FIFA then demanded a removal of the 36 players from the electoral college, and the dismantling of the CoA for the suspension to be lifted.
On Monday, the Indian government - which was negotiating with FIFA and which runs the sports ministry - referred to FIFA's stipulation and offered a simple solution: We want players as part of the AIFF administration (as part of the executive committee and not the electoral college). We can dismantle the CoA.
And, just like that, the "36 eminent players" proposal was done away with.
It raises this question: If an expanded electorate was not part of the government's intention, where did the idea come from?
The answer: From the CoA; even though it had been expressly informed by FIFA on 26 July that expanding the electoral college was "not a prudent idea".
The letter had said, "Although we agree that the players' voice needs to be heard, we are also of the view that the importance of the existing members of the AIFF should not be undermined. To bring in 50 percent of the members in the Congress structure which equals the current membership structure is not prudent idea... However, we understand the requirements of the Sports Code of India and recommend AIFF to bring in a presence of above 25 percent of the Eminent Players in the AIFF Executive Committee as Co-opted Members."
FIFA bans AIFF: What went wrong in the span of a month?
One week later, the CoA told the Supreme Court that it would do precisely what it intended to do in the first place: add 36 eminent players to the electoral college.
This was on 3 August and based on their submission, the SC urged them to expedite elections with the 36 + 36 structure.
A pertinent point to note here is that removal of the players from the voters list is not a violation of the National Sports Code (something that's been reinforced by the government's arguments in court).
FIFA's problem was '36', National Sports Code had the solution
On 6 August, FIFA once again warned the CoA about this particular clause, this time raising the threat of suspension. It read, "should there exist serious deviations to the aforesaid roadmap [agreed upon earlier between the CoA, AFC and FIFA], we would submit the matter to our relevant decision-making body for further considerations and possible decisions based on FIFA Statutes including the suspension of the AIFF and the withdrawal of the hosting rights for the 2022 FIFA U-17 Women's World Cup in India." It added, "In this context we would like to recall AIFF's statutory obligations applicable to all of FIFA and AFC member associations, including the obligation to manage its affairs independently and ensure that its own affairs are not influenced by any third parties."
The CoA responded to this with assurances that all was well. Less than a week later (13 August), though, they then published the names of the 36 'eminent players' who would be added to the electoral college. Two days after that, almost inevitably, FIFA suspended AIFF.
Two explicit warnings had been ignored in the lead up to the suspension. A simple solution was then found, one which conforms to Indian laws (and regulations) and FIFA's statutes, in a matter of days.
This raises one more question: Could all of this trouble - the suspension, the players losing rare playing opportunities, time and money being spent on litigation, emails, phone calls and all this stress - have been avoided?