As the World Cup came to a close, a prominent figure in European football speculated on how Gianni Infantino, FIFA's president, might try to manage the fallout from the recent Folarin Balogun scandal. The underlying concern was the financial implications. It was assumed that Infantino would announce more funds to all parties involved. However, during the tournament, there was no clarification on how FIFA intended to allocate its record $15 billion in revenue. This was just the beginning of a larger issue. On Tuesday, nine days after the final match, Infantino unveiled a plan to involve private investors in the World Cup, sparking major controversy and leaving senior football officials in a state of disarray.
There is little time to organize a response because FIFA, during what is considered the sport's slowest period, has given national associations until 19 September to decide whether to accept the initial $20 million payment. Accepting this payment would essentially signal approval of the new arrangement. The reaction needs to be immediate. Uefa may take inspiration from its 2021 victory in blocking the European Super League, recalling the strategic moves that helped them secure their position. However, FIFA's new plan to allow private investors a role in managing and scheduling tournaments is potentially even more significant and far-reaching.
Uefa faces a critical decision
Uefa has been in conflict with FIFA over several issues in the past year and a half, and this latest move has only heightened the tension. The governing body has stated that the privatization proposal crosses an unacceptable line for football's institutions. This statement echoes Uefa's previous strong stance on another matter in early July when they declared that FIFA's decision to lift Balogun's suspension also crossed a red line. While these expressions are powerful, they can only be used so many times before they lose their impact.
Infantino could push his proposals through by relying on the majority of national associations, which are mostly based outside of Europe, and which have pledged loyalty to his administration. However, if football's most influential region, known for its competitive dominance and financial strength, demonstrates solidarity, it could significantly challenge FIFA's strategy. If a few major European nations, supported by their governments, take decisive action, the plan to introduce private investors could become unfeasible.
FIFA's strong base of support
FIFA is not defenseless; it has already secured backing from over 200 of its 211 member associations in support of Infantino's re-election in the coming year. The opposition primarily comes from European countries, with Germany being the most notable. However, other countries, like Finland, have also begun to reconsider their positions under pressure. The English Football Association, for instance, endorsed Infantino early in June, prioritizing its relationship with FIFA for the upcoming bid to host the 2035 Women's World Cup.
This pragmatic approach might undermine Uefa's efforts if European nations fail to align on a unified front. Countries, regardless of their size, must decide whether to continue participating in FIFA's ongoing process of political maneuvering. The idea of boycotting future World Cups, including the women's event in Brazil, is made difficult by FIFA's statutes, which require its members to participate in its competitions. The only alternative to facing costly penalties is a complete withdrawal from FIFA and the establishment of a new governance model for football.
The challenges of a full withdrawal
Uefa's decision may be further complicated by its close relationship with the European Football Clubs (EFC), a group interested in collaborating with FIFA to manage the Club World Cup. Although EFC and Uefa already operate a joint venture, UC3, which handles the commercial aspects of Uefa competitions, one significant difference from FIFA's plan is that it does not include private capital. If Uefa decides to take drastic action without EFC's support, it could disrupt the commercial operations of European football.
For now, the football world is in a state of uncertainty. Discussions about a potential candidate supported by Uefa for the FIFA presidential election in 2031 are ongoing, but no clear path has emerged. The central question remains whether Uefa can act quickly enough to halt Infantino's privatization plan before it becomes a permanent fixture in football's landscape.
Uefa has repeatedly shown itself to be the only football organisation with sufficient heft to check Infantino’s more radical schemes: from Fifa’s previous attempts to spin off commercial vehicles to biennial World Cups and, depending on who you believe, the European Super League. In 2018, when Infantino attempted to push through plans to raise $25bn from investors including SoftBank in order to expand the Club World Cup and launch a Global Nations League, it was Uefa’s staunch resistance that ensured it never even made it to a vote. Three years later, it was Uefa’s furious reaction to the launch of the European Super League – plus political pressure amid a fan backlash – that swiftly killed the project. Infantino has never admitted it but some believe he privately supported the breakaway. And in 2022, when Infantino entertained the prospect of hosting World Cups every two years rather than four, it was Uefa’s unyielding opposition alongside its South American counterpart Conmebol that made the proposal a non-starter. The trump card was the threat of a World Cup boycott from Uefa nations. “We can decide not to play in it,” Uefa president Aleksander Ceferin told The Times. “As far as I know the South Americans are on the same page, so good luck with a World Cup like that.”
Fifa needs Uefa more than it would like to admit. Europe provided three of the four semi-finalists at this summer’s World Cup and five of the last six winners of the tournament. Staging the event without England, France, Spain and Germany is unthinkable. It is not just Europe’s status as the historic cradle of football; it is also its financial bedrock. Almost a third of Fifa’s media rights income flows from Europe, making it the biggest contributor to the quadrennial bonanza. Indeed, Uefa actually generates more revenue than Fifa – around $20bn versus $15bn per four-year cycle – because it is home to the world’s biggest and most popular clubs, who play in its Champions League. That fact has always been something that Infantino has tried to address since taking office a decade ago, following the fall of predecessor Sepp Blatter, and goes a long way to explaining his expansionist approach to Fifa tournaments. His latest gambit can be viewed through that lens too, although it has also been accused of being a shameless power and cash grab to feather the nests of Infantino and his ally Donald Trump’s inner circle.
Uefa is far from perfect. It has faced its own questions about governance, its handling of financial regulation, and rampant commercialisation. It has expanded its Champions League and dabbled in musical performances at its final. But in the apparent absence of any meaningful checks and balances at Fifa, it again falls to Uefa to act as football’s protector. Member nations due to meet today to discuss a possible boycott threat – the nuclear option that has proved decisive in the past.
The 55 nations that make up Uefa have reacted to Infantino's scheme to sell off stakes in the World Cup to private investors by voting unanimously to boycott Fifa tournaments, including World Cups, if Infantino presses ahead. This would mean Spain and Portugal boycotting their own men’s World Cup next time around. The North American confederation, Concacaf, and the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) have also expressed concerns. Sheikh Salman bin Ibrahim al-Khalifa, the AFC leader, has issued a statement, declaring that “the AFC is deeply concerned that Fifa’s unilateral actions appear to undermine the very foundations of continental football, which are based on solidarity, cooperation and transparency”. He also called for “the highest standards of ethics and good governance”. Despite the backlash, Infantino remains determined to push forward with the scheme, even as Uefa has pledged a boycott. At the center of the controversy is the involvement of JP Morgan, which is working with Fifa to raise $4.2 billion with the new commercial vehicle. JP Morgan previously apologized for its role in the imploded plan to create a breakaway European Super League.