by Satish Sekar
(Yanks Abroad has covered everything regarding American soccer for over 20 years. Although that is our main mission, we felt that with the turmoil around ‘the beautiful game,’ especially leading up to, during and immediately after the 2026 World Cup, we left that it has become necessary to also delve deeper into other aspects of the game, especially where FIFA is concerned. Afterall, we are a part of FIFA, so decisions also affect the US national teams. – YA)
FIFA’s supremo, Gianni Infantino, recently presided over the 23rd FIFA (Fédération Internationale de Football Association) World Cup. It was controversial, but successful especially from a financial point of view. Nevertheless, Infantino’s days in FIFA’s top job
appear to be numbered, and he only has himself to blame. His hubris has long stood out. What other head of a not-for-profit flies around in luxury in a private jet to attend every match? Under his watch – far more so that even that of his controversial predecessor, Joseph (Sepp) Blatter – the commercialisation of football has reached epidemic proportions.
Despite the controversies that raged through the recent tournament, Infantino helped to deliver a very successful tournament, but it was not enough for Infantino. He saw a financial opportunity – one a not-for-profit could not deliver. He needed another organisation to land untold riches by selling shares in the FIFA World Cup, 20% to be precise. And so, FFE (FIFA Forward Enterprise) was conceived as a commercial subsidiary of FIFA – or to put it another way, a-for-profit for FIFA.
But Infantino overplayed his hand – badly. He tried to push through his latest project – FFE – a plan to sell off 20% of the takings of World Cups to investors without adequate consultation within football, or even FIFA itself. His aggressive attempt to force his plan through by offering a large financial incentive to individual FAs if they backed his plan in less than eight weeks backfired spectacularly as UEFA, CONCACAF and the AFC hit back by rejecting his plan and telling him that football was not his to sell.
Flawed
Infantino’s plan was fatally flawed. UEFA was never going to be held to ransom over what was to them a paltry amount. UEFA nations are among the richest in football and Asiacontains big money too – $20m or even $40m was never going to buy their support. But it did expose a huge problem – the three confederations that did not respond, South Americas CONMEBOL, Oceania’s OFC and Africa’s CAF – were the poorest. They were the ones where money could talk even though they did not talk. Infantino’s plan acquired some support among those who saw dollar signs and the opportunity to invest in football after decades of underdevelopment.
This was Infantino’s massive error – he needed to build support before the plan leaked. And that meant he had to discuss it within FIFA. He didn’t. Even close advisors have had enough, insisting that they had been deceived. It wasn’t just the powerful UEFA and its allies opposing him. He was becoming hopelessly isolated.
Had he been content to wait and bask in the success of the tournament a fourth term as FIFA President was probably his for the taking next year. Now that he has been forced to abandon the plan, he is bruised and vulnerable – damaged goods, ripe for overthrow if he doesn’t resign. With more than 140 of the 211 individual Football Federations expressing concerns and rejecting his plans – CONMEBOL, CAF and Oceania have yet to declare their plans – despite the $40m sweetener for each FA, Infantino’s plans are as extinct as sabre-toothed tigers, despite his attempts at doubling down at the expense of media.
Financial Doublespeak
Infantino wanted to sell off 20% of the World Cup’s earning potential – he offered a substantial incentive of each individual FA if they supported his plan within his deadline. It failed – miserably. Interestingly, nobody appears to have done the arithmetic. $40m for 211members is $8.44bn, or 2.11bn if they all refused. That means less than half goes to the FAs to improve facilities or deliver other projects in their countries, so where does the rest go? FIFA’s silence on this is deafening. And interestingly, so were its numerous critics.
FIFA explained that it planned to consult its members, but premature media exposure prevented that. UEFA’s response that its members would boycott FIFA competitions if the plan was not withdrawn set the cat among the pigeons.
FIFA’s First Victim – Oh the Irony!
Only the President of the Czech Republic’s FA, David Trunda, welcomed Infantino’s plan – he has been heavily outnumbered. That it should be the Czech Republic of all countries is ironic or worse.
FIFA was founded in 1904. Bohemia (more or less today’s Czech Republic) received Associate membership of FIFA in 1906 and was given full membership of FIFA in 1907, much to the chagrin of Austria, which used a loophole to force FIFA to expel Bohemia. The shameful bullying worked. At the 1908 FIFA Congress in Vienna, Austria persuaded FIFA to withdraw Bohemia’s membership. That caused Bohemia to withdraw from the Football Tournament at the 1908 Olympic Games.
Bohemia was still out in the cold in 1912 even though Hungary and other countries were sympathetic. Bohemia’s case was strengthened by other sports, such as fencing having no issue with Bohemia and Austria competing in the same Olympic Games. If politics does not interfere in sport, what was this? Politics soon intervened again, but on a far bigger scale, as the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie were assassinated in Sarajevo in June 1914, precipitating the First World War, which destroyed the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and others too.
Czechoslovakia became a member of FIFA after that war and competed in the final of the 1920 Olympic Games – so controversial a match that the Czech players walked off before half time and refused to return – the only major international football final that has ended in that manner. They were disqualified despite the controversy over the officiating by septuagenarian English referee, John Lewis and treatment of the new nation.
Yet again, they had been treated badly by FIFA who ran the tournament for the International Olympic Committee. They were also one of three countries complaining of poor officiating in the 1934 World Cup to benefit the hosts, Italy – Spain and ironically Austria too.
And so, the first nation to express any support for Infantino’s controversial plan was FIFA’s first victim.
So, what should be done?
A Way Forward
That FIFA in its current state leaves much to be desired is not disputed by many. Corruption had reared its head in FIFA previously, but current governance seems unfit to deliver. A whole Confederation, CAF was all but taken over and run by FIFA – that cannot be tolerated. Convince and win the discussion and proceed accordingly.
In 2015 Blatter and then UEFA President Michel Platini, among others, were brought down, largely by a probe of corruption by the FBI. The former US official and General Secretary of CONCACAF, the late Chuck Blazer, threw many colleagues under the bus, resulting in many FIFA officials being disgraced or worse – some went to prison. Platini had been set to succeed Blatter, but both faced trial and had to step aside. Infantino stepped into the void – both Blatter and Platini were subsequently acquitted in court but faced bans from football.
Democratisation and accountability were promised but had not been delivered. Infantino’s tenure as President of FIFA has demonstrated beyond doubt that the governance structures of FIFA must be changed. Challenges should be encouraged and even nurtured. Competitions and the development of football must be guaranteed after consultation of all FIFA members and agreement must be sought, and integrity must be delivered.
Start with an interim President if Infantino steps down or is removed, and have a Governance Committee assess whether the statutes serve the interests of football – if not, change them.
World Cup Hosting
Among the necessary changes is the hosting of World Cups – the issue that caused the demise of the previous leadership of FIFA. The manipulation of the hosting of the 2030 tournament is scandalous to put it mildly. Allowing Paraguay, Argentina and Uruguay to host one match each at the expense of CONMEBOL’s turn to host is scandalous.
By all means celebrate the centenary of the FIFA World Cup, but there is no excuse to rob CONMEBOL of its turn for three paltry matches. Let Morocco, Portugal and Spain be considered hosts of that tournament if need be – that already means two confederations (CAF and UEFA) use their turn and cannot host again until the other confederations have had their turn. Instead, three confederations use their hosting rights, meaning only Oceania and the Asian Football Confederation can host in 2034, since CONCACAF hosted in 2026.
Oceania cannot realistically host unless it shares with Australia, which leaves Asia, and that permits Saudi Arabia to be manoeuvred into being able to host on its own in 2034, just 12 years after Asia last hosted – it can certainly afford it, but let’s not forget the many issues that arose from Qatar’s World Cup, such as the shocking treatment of workers that ensured Qatar was ready.
Hosting is not difficult to resolve. Some form of rotation is required. If Spain and Portugal host in 2030 a staggering half of the FIFA World Cups will have been hosted in Europe! South America – the other football giant has hosted just thrice. Even CONCACAF has hosted four times, México has hosted twice on its own and once shared, so as many times as South America. Let’s not forget that one of México’s turns was meant for Colombia, but a change in the format prevented the South Americans from hosting.
Despite having a combined 101 members CAF and the AFC have only hosted thrice between them to date. Rotation was introduced after Africa was robbed of hosting in 2006. Blatter – the much-maligned Blatter – was determined that Africa, or rather South Africa would host, so rotation was introduced to ensure it.
So, how can this be resolved now? Some countries cannot host or even co-host which means that hosting rights is restricted to the few. CONMEBOL is very restricted. The bids for 2014’s World Cup was restricted to just one nation – everyone knew that Brasil would win, and the other South American nations decided – rightly – that it was pointless bidding. That had the consequence
of preventing any opportunity to corruptly influence the bidding process. This was the last World Cup to avoid a corrupt or corruptible bidding process. And the English FA cannot play the integrity card credibly either.
Years ago, I asked them what the football reason was for arranging a friendly against Trinidad and Tobago in the Caribbean – Fabio Capello was England’s manager then. Does anyone believe he insisted on that match? As for my question well over a decade ago, I am still waiting for an answer.
Perhaps the English FA will have the courtesy to provide one now! The likelihood of Oceania hosting is remote, so why not combine Asia and Oceania into one hosting region and the Americas into another with Europe and Africa on their own. That makes four regions and ensures that opportunities to host come around quicker.
The Allocation of Slots
Another issue is the allocation of World Cup slots. The coefficient system assumes an even playing field. It has never been even. Africa had to wait 40 years to obtain an automatic slot at the World Cup and Asia even longer, and Africa had to boycott 1966 to win that right – boycotts and threats of boycotts work.
The scarcity of slots historically affected the opportunity to acquire experience and more. Ignore coefficients for the next twenty years – let there be more inter-confederation playoffs to win a place. After all, those who win will qualify on merit until such time as coefficients are actually based on equal opportunities.
As for FIFA, if as seems likely, Infantino falls from power, or is pushed, appoint an interim President for the next four years and use that time to redraft FIFA’s statutes to ensure that the most popular sport in the world remains the property of those who love the sport and maintain its popularity – the fans, players, administrators and others who help it thrive.
Satish Sekar has over 35 years experience in journalism. He founded EmpowerS Magazine almost 20 years ago to highlight the power of sport to achieve social change and expose discrimination in and through sport.
He has exposed major injustices in and out of sport. His fifth book Bad Firm: How Tariffs Protect the Guilty and Punish the Innocent will be published later this year. He is currently researching a book on African football history.
You can read more of Satish at www.empowersmag.com
