League’s Scheduling Decision Sparks Controversy and Allegations of Favoritism
A scheduling decision by the Iranian Football League Organization has become the center of a political storm, drawing accusations of bias and igniting fervent debate among fans and commentators.
The controversy stems from the upcoming match in the 25th season of the Persian Gulf Pro League between Esteghlal Khuzestan and the Tehran-based club Esteghlal. Due to the unavailability of their home stadium, the Ghadir Stadium in Ahvaz, Esteghlal Khuzestan has been hosting its matches in Tehran for the initial part of the season.
However, the League Organization has announced that the Week 3 match, scheduled for Friday, September 12th, will not be held in Tehran as might be expected. Instead, it has been moved to the Shahid Foolad Arena in Ahvaz.
Fan Outrage and Allegations of a “Behind-the-Scenes” Deal
The decision has provoked significant discontent among Esteghlal Tehran’s passionate fan base. A prominent fan channel alleged that Esteghlal Khuzestan itself had preferred to play the match in Tehran, but the League Organization, through what it described as “insistence and behind-the-scenes negotiations,” forcibly moved the venue to Ahvaz.
The implication is that the league is showing preferential treatment to the Khuzestan-based club, forcing the more popular Tehran team to travel and face a hostile away environment.
A Broader Political Question is Raised
The debate escalated when commentator Soheil Abi framed the issue within a broader, more political context. He questioned whether the Football Federation and League Organization would show the same diligence in ensuring a match for a different team is held on its rightful home ground, implying a selective application of rules that favors certain clubs.
This framing has transformed a routine sports administrative matter into a topic of wider discussion, with fans and observers questioning the fairness and transparency of the sport’s governing bodies. The incident highlights how football in Iran often intersects with perceptions of regional favoritism and institutional integrity.