Who makes the decisions within FIFA? A canceled deal sparks controversy

The plan included selling nearly 20 percent of the company to private investors, aiming to raise up to $4.2 billion, which FIFA stated would be allocated to developing football globally.

Infantino informed national associations that they would each receive $40 million if they agreed to the plan, but the initiative faced significant opposition within the football community.

UEFA led the opposition, with the 55 associations of the continent unanimously voting to boycott FIFA competitions if the plan was not withdrawn, objecting to the notion of the World Cup as an investment product.

The North American, Central American, and Caribbean Football Confederation also rejected the proposal, while the Asian Football Confederation announced its support for the opponents. Together, these three confederations represent 143 national associations out of 211 members in FIFA.

Internal Objections

The disagreements extended within FIFA, leading to the resignation of Carlos Cordeiro, a senior advisor to Infantino, who described the project as a bad deal for football. An executive at FIFA stated that staff had not been adequately informed about its details.

As objections grew and the threat of a boycott loomed, Infantino announced in July that the proposal would be withdrawn entirely.

He later stated that the plan had not progressed beyond the proposal stage and had not become a binding decision, noting that releasing its details without providing full context gave the impression that a decision had already been made.

In a new message to the FIFA Council and national association presidents, Infantino proposed conducting an independent external review of the governance framework concerning major strategic projects.

If approved, the review would examine which parties should be involved in critical decisions, the distribution of roles between the president, the administration, the council, and the congress, as well as enhancing transparency and accountability.

Infantino pointed out the varying perceptions within FIFA; some parties demand collective approval within the administration, while others prefer to refer major decisions directly to the congress and national associations.

The proposed suggestions can be discussed before the FIFA Council meeting on October 15, while any amendments to the statutes would require congress approval.

Reform Before Elections

This initiative comes as Infantino prepares to seek a new term in the elections scheduled for March in Rabat, while his opponents focus on reducing the president's powers and enhancing the role of collective institutions in decision-making.

The proposed review still requires discussion within FIFA, and its potential outcomes will depend on the positions of the council and member associations, as well as congress approval if amendments to the statutes are necessary.

Thus, the dispute has shifted from the viability of the financial deal to how decisions regarding the commercial rights of FIFA tournaments are made and who holds the authority to approve them.

">

This initiative raises questions about the distribution of power between the FIFA President and its institutions, especially after the deal sparked controversy regarding the management of commercial rights for the World Cup and the extent of member associations' involvement in crucial decisions.

The crisis began with a plan to establish a company valued at around $20 billion, responsible for managing the commercial operations of FIFA tournaments, including the World Cup.

The plan included selling nearly 20 percent of the company to private investors, aiming to raise up to $4.2 billion, which FIFA stated would be allocated to developing football globally.

Infantino informed national associations that they would each receive $40 million if they agreed to the plan, but the initiative faced significant opposition within the football community.

UEFA led the opposition, with the 55 associations of the continent unanimously voting to boycott FIFA competitions if the plan was not withdrawn, objecting to the notion of the World Cup as an investment product.

The North American, Central American, and Caribbean Football Confederation also rejected the proposal, while the Asian Football Confederation announced its support for the opponents. Together, these three confederations represent 143 national associations out of 211 members in FIFA.

Internal Objections

The disagreements extended within FIFA, leading to the resignation of Carlos Cordeiro, a senior advisor to Infantino, who described the project as a bad deal for football. An executive at FIFA stated that staff had not been adequately informed about its details.

As objections grew and the threat of a boycott loomed, Infantino announced in July that the proposal would be withdrawn entirely.

He later stated that the plan had not progressed beyond the proposal stage and had not become a binding decision, noting that releasing its details without providing full context gave the impression that a decision had already been made.

In a new message to the FIFA Council and national association presidents, Infantino proposed conducting an independent external review of the governance framework concerning major strategic projects.

If approved, the review would examine which parties should be involved in critical decisions, the distribution of roles between the president, the administration, the council, and the congress, as well as enhancing transparency and accountability.

Infantino pointed out the varying perceptions within FIFA; some parties demand collective approval within the administration, while others prefer to refer major decisions directly to the congress and national associations.

The proposed suggestions can be discussed before the FIFA Council meeting on October 15, while any amendments to the statutes would require congress approval.

Reform Before Elections

This initiative comes as Infantino prepares to seek a new term in the elections scheduled for March in Rabat, while his opponents focus on reducing the president's powers and enhancing the role of collective institutions in decision-making.

The proposed review still requires discussion within FIFA, and its potential outcomes will depend on the positions of the council and member associations, as well as congress approval if amendments to the statutes are necessary.

Thus, the dispute has shifted from the viability of the financial deal to how decisions regarding the commercial rights of FIFA tournaments are made and who holds the authority to approve them.