Update: FIFA announced Friday night that it is withdrawing its proposal, with Infantino conceding it had created “divisions of a nature that, regardless of the level of support, are no longer in the interest of the objective set out in the first place.”
Battle lines are being drawn in international soccer this week, with many fans, executives and governing bodies up in arms about FIFA’s plan to sell a chunk of its commercial rights for upfront cash.
Friday’s Club Sportico essay breaks down the plan, the backlash and the underlying issues at play. That includes analysis on why FIFA’s unique structure often strips power from its most prominent members, making money a valuable tool in consolidating authority.
FIFA is a collection of 211 national governing bodies, each with an equal vote, which means powerhouse teams like Spain and Argentina have the same vote as Vanuatu or San Marino. For years FIFA leadership has used that structure as a way to consolidate power, utilizing financial aid and development grants aimed at small nations to push through initiatives and cover up inappropriate business dealings.
Critics of this investment proposal see a similar pattern unfolding this week. Right now, FIFA members are each set to receive about $8 million in distributions in the next four-year cycle. Should they approve Infantino’s plan, that will jump to $20 million, with an opportunity for another $20 million for special projects.
For the richest FIFA members, that difference might not move the needle. U.S. Soccer, for example, reported revenue of more than $455 million in just the last two years. But for all those smaller nations, the ones that hold the same vote as the U.S.—and would receive the same payout, regardless of World Cup participation—that money is a panacea.
Here is an excerpt of that essay:
And that’s what Infantino is banking on: enough of those countries seeing the prospect of $40 million, instead of $8 million, and voting to approve the selloff. This plan may reek to soccer executives in the U.S., England, Spain and Argentina, but they’re less relevant in Infantino’s calculation. There are more FIFA members with a population under 5 million (84) than members that have played in the World Cup since WWII (82). There are more FIFA members with a population under 50,000—equivalent to a medium-sized Manhattan neighborhood—than there are members that have won a World Cup.
FIFA technically only needs the votes of every country smaller than Kyrgyzstan. Alternatively, if Infantino could secure a Yes from every country that has never played in a single men’s World Cup, this plan would pass in overwhelming fashion.
There have been open questions about whether Infantino intends to enrich himself directly as part of this deal. He says no—and that maybe be true, but it’s also irrelevant. The fear of what this investment does to global soccer isn’t about the 21% passive investment, it’s about what Infantino and his allies (including the Trump family) might do after buying all this goodwill.
This strategy has worked in the past. Read anything about the major FIFA corruption scandals of the past two decades, and the playbook is clear. Global soccer leaders have used financial aid and development grants to small nations to push through initiatives and cover up inappropriate business dealings. Until he pled guilty to racketeering, wire fraud and money laundering, former CONCACAF president Jeffrey Webb was one of the sport’s most powerful (and most feted) people because of his ability to whip up votes from small Caribbean nations like Montserrat, Barbados and Dominica.
____________________________________________________
You can read and subscribe to Club Sportico, our casual Substack newsletter, here. Sportico subscribers have free access to Club Sportico.