FIFA’s mission to expand the World Cup will only damage it

Avatar
CREDITL: ARSEN GALSTYAN / AFP

With 166 member nations of FIFA voting to explore the concept of a two-year cycle for the World Cup, questions need to be asked whether too much of a good thing will destroy what makes the competition special.

One of the best parts of the World Cup is the spectacle of it all. The elite quality of the tournament is already being watered down with the changes to the format, with 48 teams instead of 32. 

While allowing more teams in will create new markets for the competition, it isn’t like the World Cup would struggle for viewership without them, as it is the most-watched sporting event on the planet.

The changes to the structure of the cup – with two out of a group of three going through instead of the top two in a group of four – is already challenging the tradition and excitement of the World Cup. If you draw one of the powerhouse teams, like Spain, France, or Brazil, then it is likely your country will be on a plane ride home after playing just two games.

Despite the success of the World Cup, FIFA seems to want to tinker with the competition without any concern for the negative impacts the changes may cause. To build support for this, FIFA is wheeling out stars like Arsene Wenger and Yaya Toure.

Wenger is currently FIFA’s chief of global football development

Why FIFA wants to interrupt what has proved to be a winning formula only has one answer: Greed. More games mean more money. In a 48 team competition, there will be 64 games, compared to 40 in the current format. More games equal more money for TV rights and a wider reach for the game with an added 16 teams.

Combine this with the concept of hosting a World Cup every two years instead of four, and FIFA will be printing money like never before.

The unfortunate side effect of this will a weaker competition in terms of quality. There are always some relatively poor teams featured in a World Cup, but adding another 16 of the ‘best of the rest’ will dilute the talent pool. Combine this with the fact some teams may even go home playing only two games, it will surely make the World Cup a less exciting affair for many appearing in the group stage.

Another factor that needs to be considered is sustainability. We’ve already seen that major sporting tournaments often leave countries with huge stadiums without any use for them.

Engineers Against Poverty say that hosting a World Cup leaves a “legacy of white elephants”, with stadiums built for the 2010 South Africa World Cup and 2014 World Cup in Brazil “hemorrhaging taxpayer’s money”. 

A white elephant refers to a possession whose cost of maintenance is well beyond its value, and whose owner cannot dispose of it. An apt reference to what World Cup stadiums have become for countries that do not need bumper stadiums.

Four cities in Brazil that hosted games at the 2014 World Cup –Manaus, Cuiabá, Natal, and Brasília – have no major football teams to play in the humongous stadiums built for the event.

South Africa spent $2.7 billion to build 12 new stadiums for the World Cup, in a country where half the population lives off an average of $242AUD a month. 

Polokwane, a city of 130,000, now pays $2.7 million a year in maintenance towards the legacy of the South African World Cup.

Peter Mokaba Stadium, Polokwane, South Africa

Russia is also struggling with issues related to stadiums built for the 2018 World Cup. In Saransk, local authorities are dealing with the upkeep of 300 million rubles (AUD 5.5 million) to maintain the stadium built for the event.

Major events don’t just lead to empty stadiums either. For the Sochi Winter Olympics, the Russian Government built a $13.5 billion tunnel system to connect Sochi to the rest of the country. The operation and maintenance of this underutilised infrastructure cost taxpayers $1.6 billion a year. 

FIFA has praised the joint World Cup bid from the United States, Mexico and Canada for using existing infrastructure instead of building new stadiums, however, few countries already have the facilities to host games. 

By expanding the World Cup to every two years, many countries will  be hosting for the first time. This will inevitably lead to similar cases to South Africa, Brazil, and Russia’s stadiums becoming a burden on citizens. 

FIFA risk damaging their premier competition in the pursuit of greed. It needs to be asked why they seem hell-bent on changing a winning formula, especially one that has already been embraced worldwide.

Previous ArticleNext Article

FIFPRO demands governance reform after FIFA’s FFE failure

Avatar
Image credit: BBC Sport

While FIFA cancelled plans to move forward with FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE), FIFPRO are demanding change at the top of football’s global governing body.

‘Abuse of power’

The plan to sell minority stakes in future FIFA competitions to private investors brought intense criticism from fans across the world.

Governing bodies including UEFA (Europe), CONCACAF (North America, Central America and the Caribbean) and the AFC (Asia) rallied against FFE and FIFA President Gianni Infantino, leading to a crisis meeting in Morocco to determine Infantino’s seemingly untenable position at the head of world football governance.

The meeting, however, confirmed Infantino will remain as FIFA President going forward – a decision which has since prompted FIFPRO to make their stance clear: governance reform is a must.

“The withdrawal of FFE was inevitable. But withdrawing the proposal does not erase what it revealed,” the organisation said via an official statement on the FIFPRO website.

“A plan capable of permanently altering the ownership and governance of the FIFA World Cup, and commercialising the competitions built by generations of players, was conceived in secrecy, negotiated behind closed doors and brought to the brink of agreement before the FIFA Council, the Member Associations, players and football’s recognised stakeholders even knew it existed.”

“That is not merely a governance failure. It is a profound abuse of presidential power.”

 

How to navigate governance post-FFE

As reiterated by FIFPRO, the FFE controversy arrived a mere few weeks after a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between FIFA and the player’s union marked an optimistic step to a more collaborative future.

But what was previously a step in the right direction, now seems an insufficient policy to protect players – and the wider landscape of world football – from future unilateral decisions at the top.

FIFPRO’s demands – agreed upon by the Presidents of all FIFPRO regional divisions across Africa, Asia/Oceania, Europe, South America and Central & North America – include measures such as:

  • Using the Global Social Dialogue Platform as fundamental part of FIFA’s governance
  • Engagement with stakeholders over future decisions affecting the professional game
  • Voting rights for professional football’s stakeholders on the FIFA Council
  • Structural reforms to prevent future unilateral decisions

The message from FIFPRO is therefore clear. Now is not the time to rest on criticism; stakeholders in the professional game must encourage action and reform.

“These reforms are now indespensable. But they are the responsibility of the future, not an absolution of the past,” FIFPRO continued via their official statement.

“The players did not create this crisis. They will insist that football emerges from it with stronger institutions, stronger safeguards and leadership worthy of the trust the game demands.”

FIFA sparks widespread backlash with private investment proposal

Avatar
Image credit: BBC Sport

In a shock announcement made on Tuesday this week, FIFA revealed plans to create a subsidiary known as FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE) to manage commercial and event operations for major competitions, including the World Cup. FIFA promises to reinvest all benefits back into the game, but the plan is receiving widespread criticism from governing bodies and governments around the world.

 

“Unleashing” football’s commercial power

Following the huge financial success of this summer’s FIFA World Cup, FIFA President Gianni Infantino indicated plans to “unleash the commercial potential and opportunity” at FIFA’s disposal.

Indeed, it appears Infantino is wasting no time in capitalising on the tournament’s success, which generated AUD 21 billion (USD 15 billion) for FIFA.

An eye-watering number. A tournament record. And, apparently, still not enough.

Tuesday’s announcement made clear the intention to bring commercial rights under a new subsidiary, FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE). This, according to FIFA, could generate AUD 6 billion (USD 4.2 billion) of initial capital with all net benefits going back into grassroots and infrastructure development for Member Associations (MA) through the FIFA Forward programme.

The money would be raised by selling minority stakes in FFE to private third-party investors, although FIFA has outlined that it will retain “sole control of FFE”.

The venture has a reported valuation of AUD 29 billion (USD 20 billion), prompting questions and backlash from around the world over who will actually benefit from the finances – and whether anyone should benefit at all.

 

What are critics saying?

On the surface, the principle of generating more money for MAs and investing into grassroots, coaching, women’s and youth football is a worthwhile ambition.

Currently, each MA receives AUD 11.5 million (USD 8 million) per year from FIFA Forward. FIFA affirms that, should the proposal go through, this funding would increase to AUD 29 million (USD 20 million) between 2027-2030.

However, several governing bodies, including UEFA, Concacaf and the English FA, are adamantly fighting the plans.

“This crosses a line that football’s governing institutions should never cross,” UEFA said via an official statement on social media.

“The soul and governance of football are not assets to trade especially with zero transparency as to who gains financially,” UEFA continued.

“None of us are the owners of football. It is not FIFA’s to sell.”

Concacaf also expressed deep concern over the reports, citing a distinct lack of warning and due process from FIFA prior to the announcement.

“We share the disappointment of many within our region and the game that this level of detail has been designed and shared publicly before any discussion with the relevant governance bodies and stakeholders has taken place,” Concacaf said via official statement.

“As leaders within football, we are custodians of the game. Collectively, FIFA, the Confederations and every Member Association have a responsibility to always act in the best interests of the sport.”

Further concerns also centre around the company set to lead the proposed investor group – Thrive Eternal. Founded by Joshua Kushner, the brother of US President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, Thrive Eternal’s role in the venture opens the door to potential conflicts of interests – and emboldens criticisms that Infantino’s relationship with the US President is compromising his leading role in football’s international governing body.

 

Football was never about the money

Investing into the game is vital to football’s sustained future, especially for nations without the financial power to fund it independent of football’s governing body.

Nobody will argue that supporting the entire football pyramid – from grassroots to professional, men’s and women’s, youth and para, playing and coaching – should benefit from the financial might of the sport’s elite.

And FIFA is promising such benefits for all – arriving in the form of tens of millions of dollars – and stemming from third-party investors intrigued by the commercial value of the beautiful game.

But this is exactly where the venture’s flaws start to appear.

Rhetoric about increasing football’s commercial power following the 2026 World Cup leads the governing body down a slippery slope to a sport which prioritises money over integrity, due process and the fans who uphold it week-in week-out.

Football – from its very first beginnings as a working class sport – was never about the money.

Although modern commercialisation has turned clubs into businesses and players into tradable assets, everyone within the pyramid is a custodian of the game.

The game is not a product to sell – especially by those entrusted to uphold its integrity.

 

What happens now?

FIFA stated its intentions to only proceed with the venture if it receives support from the majority of MAs. While many are already uniting in opposition to the proposal, there are national governing bodies who have vocalised their support, including the Czech FA.

UEFA, on the other hand, is set to hold an emergency meeting with its 55 members to discuss a potential boycott of future tournaments.

But with a deadline of September 19 for MAs to accept the proposal, and the promise of a payment worth AUD 57.5 million (USD 40 million) if they do, the next eight weeks will reveal the future of the game and the nature of its global governance.

FIFA’s plan, although laced with promises of investment, development and growth for all, has instead kicked off a contest to save the game’s soul – or change it forever.

Most Popular Topics

Editor Picks

Send this to a friend