BANGKOK, THAILAND – MAY 17: Gianni Infantino, President of FIFA speaks on stage during the 74th FIFA … [+]
Soccer, the world’s favorite pastime, has long been plagued by scandal and controversy. In 2015, FIFAGate caused global headlines and ultimately led to the downfall of the organization’s godfather, Sepp Blatter. The Swiss administrator transformed the World Cup into a global, commercial juggernaut, and with the riches – often distributed in the form of development money – came a culture of graft.
That model of distribution of development money remains at the heart of FIFA’s governance problems. In 2016, the organization introduced governance reforms, but a new report “The Case for the External Reform of FIFA” by NGO FairSquare argues that FIFA is not fit to govern soccer and calls on the EU to reform the governing body.
It singles out the “patronage” system as the key obstacle to change. Under Infantino, FIFA has distributed more money than ever to its 211 member associations – $2.8 billion between 2016 and 2022. In that time window, Germany received $9.2 million and the Cook Islands $9.7 million. The report reads: “FIFA has repeatedly shown itself to be incapable of internal reform because its senior officials and a critical mass of its member associations are locked into a mutually dependent system of patronage that makes the organization structurally resistant to internal reform.”
Current FIFA boss Gianni Infantino has repeatedly trumpeted that FIFA is reformed, claiming that every dollar spent is accounted for. However, FIFA does not disclose the audited financial reports of member associations that receive development funds. The annual reports don’t provide granular detail. This is part of a wider transparency problem in Zurich, the report highlights, citing the lack of publicly available minutes of council meetings, and other key financial documents. FIFA failed to reply to specific questions as well as a broader query about governance reform for this article.
In soccer, governance problems are not just limited to FIFA. Women remain underrepresented at the European confederation UEFA. The Asian Football Confederation (AFC) abolished term limits for its top executives. While struggling financially, the Confederation of African Football (CAF) passed a pay raise for a slate of top officials. At club level, the ecosystem is as distorted: nation states own soccer clubs, American capital is often behind opaque multiple club ownership structures, and financial inequality is growing in the club game. Players unions and leagues are suing FIFA over the match calendar.
Yet soccer’s world of self-regulation may be on the wane. The United Kingdom provides an illustration. Last week, the Labour government relaunched the ‘football governance bill’ that will establish an independent soccer regulator with, according to a 2021 white paper, three primary duties: assess club sustainability and systemic stability, and ensure the game’s cultural heritage. In the view of Niall Cooper, the CEO of FairGame, the regulator may lack teeth “without the ability to set parameters about how soccer’s financial flow is distributed.” Even so, it may set a precedent.
Under Infantino, FIFA’s self-regulation has resulted in governance regression, FairSquare argues. The NGO cites the dismissal of the FIFA governance committee chair Miguel Maduro in 2017, the disbandment of its independent human rights advisory board in 2021, the recent amendments to FIFA’s statutes and the reintroduction of a series of committees. But the most egregious example of rolling governance back may be the fast-tracking of Saudi Arabia for the hosting rights to the 2034 World Cup. Other eligible nations were given less than a month to express their interest.
“The manner in which FIFA manipulated its bidding guidelines to make Saudi Arabia the sole candidate and the way in which it has apparently allowed a deeply defective human rights assessment to be carried out since, suggest that FIFA is increasingly within the sphere of influence of authoritarian states that could take soccer in a very dangerous direction,” said FairSquare’s co-director James Lynch.
FairSquare presents an optimistic outlook for FIFA’s future, suggesting that EU-led reforms could reshape the organization into a transparent and accountable body that acts in the best interests of the game, developing women’s soccer and tackling climate change.
At present, article 165 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union enshrines the ‘autonomy’ of sports, allowing sports and soccer officials to assume that they are accountable to no one. Jan Zglinski, an associate professor at the London School of Economics said: “Sports governance is in pressing need of reform. The EU is uniquely positioned to make a positive contribution here due to its transnational character, relative immunity to pressure from federations, as well as the ability to make and enforce laws.”
“Soccer is far too socially, politically and economically important to be governed this poorly,” said FairSquare co-director Nick McGeehan. “Only external regulation will provide the foundations for FIFA to deliver on soccer’s transformative potential and to prevent the organisation from causing more serious harm.”
