Abdurahiman’s central argument is simple: a government department should not be the direct commercial counterparty for an international football association in a privately funded event. The update says he viewed the AFA as an unsuitable direct business partner for the state, which is why private sponsorship was used.
That logic is familiar in modern football. High-profile friendlies often sit in a grey zone between sport, branding and event management. For a public body, that brings obvious risk:
By placing liability on a sponsor, officials could argue the public purse stayed protected if the project ran into trouble.
Abdurahiman also pushed back on the idea that the Sports Department was bypassed. Claims to the contrary were “completely false,” he said, arguing that official approvals still had to move through the proper state channels even if the commercial agreement itself was not signed by the government.
That distinction matters. Administratively, there is a big difference between facilitating an event and underwriting it. The update says the sponsor, not the state, was expected to bear the financial obligations.
Abdurahiman’s other point was political as much as sporting: this was supposedly part of a wider effort to build international sporting links and energise football culture in Kerala, where Argentina’s support runs deep. He also called allegations over stadium rights “highly malicious.”
The next question is whether any future attempt follows the same model. If elite teams are to be brought to Kerala, the structure behind the event may end up being scrutinised just as hard as the star names on the pitch.