Durham's Official Student Newspaper
By Daniel Stephens
The saying ‘laws are like sausages; it’s best not to see them made’ suggests dubious actions are tolerable if the results are worthwhile. With the announcement of a 2034 World Cup in Saudi Arabia, have the ends justified the means? Constantly plagued by scandal, two presidents, Joseph Sepp Blatter and Gianni Infantino, have defined FIFA’s trajectory. Blatter built its shady empire; Infantino promised reform. Yet, has Infantino truly improved upon Blatter’s legacy?
Blatter was instrumental in the growth and commercialisation of FIFA, allowing it to become the unwieldy beast we know today. Blatter first found considerable influence within FIFA under the João Havelange presidency. By forging partnerships with major brands like Coca-Cola, Adidas, and money-hungry sports marketing firms, FIFA’s primary task shifted away from promoting football, instead figuring out a way to make as much money off football as possible.
Undoubtedly, this commercialisation of FIFA did help football grow and expand throughout the World, but the developments, masterminded by Blatter before and during his presidency, grew out of control, exposing the ideals of FIFA to hijacking by external political forces.
With greater economic might, influence over FIFA and World Cup decision-makers rose in demand, engendering the corruption that defined FIFA in the 2000s. World Cups were no longer purely tournaments to enjoy football and determine who’s the best, instead, they had become events to get rich from and to project a friendly image of a country on a global stage. Greedy FIFA officials could use their voting power to obtain bribes in return for voting for a specific host country.
By forging partnerships with major brands like Coca-Cola, Adidas, and money-hungry sports marketing firms, FIFA’s primary task shifted away from promoting football
As a result, corruption was an integral aspect of a successful World Cup bid during the Blatter presidency, with allegations of bribery alleged against Germany, Russia, and Qatar’s bids. The quality of a country’s bid was no longer the deciding factor; rather, World Cup hosts were decided by how well ambitious men and nations could manipulate the system. By the end of Blatter’s reign, FIFA had become a political institution that superseded football and became overly entangled in global politics and the desires of the aggressive.
While Infantino promised to reform the system created under Blatter, during his 8 years in power, FIFA has continued to face allegations of corruption, with Infantino dragging FIFA into even more undemocratic waters. Instead of allowing the 2030 and 2034 World Cup host votes to be influenced by external pressures and corrupt officials, Infantino replaced the normal voting process with claps of support. In this ‘acclamation’ style voting, members were instructed to clap to show their support for the unopposed 2030 and 2034 bids.
With little ability for national FAs to dissent, Infantino consolidated power into his hands. With greater individual power, Infantino could manipulate the host country selection process to ensure his preference was chosen. Whether it was a desire to secure Saudi Arabian investments for the betterment of football or himself is still unclear, but the cramming of three continents into one World Cup to push forward the timeline for a Saudi Arabian World Cup and the brushing over of sustainability and human rights issues suggests a more self-centred motivation.
Infantino’s response to the criticism of the Blatter presidency has not been one of productive reform, instead, he has worked to ensure that the interests of money, instead of football, still dominate FIFA.
Beyond FIFA’s systemic issues, Blatter and Infantino’s leadership reflects their personal ambitions. Blatter sought recognition and global influence, while Infantino focused on monetary expansion and absolute control. Blatter believed that by hosting the World Cup in South Africa, FIFA could win the Nobel Peace Prize.
If Blatter wanted to be the Pope of football, Infantino would be more than content with being its king
Similarly, Blatter tried to help broker peace between Israel and Palestine through a friendly between the nations in Zurich. In this light, Blatter’s encouragement of FIFA’s economic might is no longer simply greed, but driven by delusions about the role that FIFA should or could play on the world’s stage. It could be argued that Blatter saw this system of corruption as a necessary means to an end, believing his actions served a greater purpose, but corruption spiralled beyond his control.
If Blatter wanted to be the Pope of football, Infantino would be more than content with being its king. Infantino has continued to try to milk the most money out of Football as possible, supporting controversial new tournaments like the new-look Club World Cup and African Super League, as well as the expansion to a 48-team World Cup.
Even more telling of Infantino’s use of FIFA for personal reasons is his desire to have his name inscribed on the Club World Cup trophy. Infantino’s legacy will not be a complicated one weighing the benefits and consequences of the rapid growth of FIFA, but one focused on his false promise of reform, only to repeat the sins of his predecessors.
Blatter and Infantino, the architects of FIFA’s empire, have left a legacy defined by scandal and self-interest. Blatter’s ambition to turn FIFA into a global powerhouse spiralled into endemic corruption, while Infantino’s hollow promises of reform have only entrenched the undemocratic practices he vowed to eliminate. At best, they believed in the importance of making football economically secure; at worst, they have turned football into a tool for dictators, all for personal glory.
Image: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime via Wikimedia Commons
Copyright © 2025 Palatinate. All rights reserved.
Welcome to Palatinate’s website. We rely on readers’ generosity to keep producing award-winning journalism and provide media training opportunities to our team of more than 100 students. Palatinate has produced some of the biggest names in British media, including Jeremy Vine, Sir Harold Evans and George Alagiah. Every contribution to Palatinate is an investment into the future of journalism.
