Editorial | Message to UEFA

Given the crisis of confidence and disrepute into which Gianni Infantino has plunged FIFA, the Dutch football federation’s call for a global summit to reimagine the organisation seems a good idea.

However, the outcome of any such forum cannot merely entrench the power of the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) over the global game whether directly or by proxy. Other parts of the world, especially the Global South, must emerge with a genuine voice and a place at the table beyond being mere beneficiaries of a less vulgar form of patronage.

At the same time, while criticising Mr Infantino’s highly irregular actions as FIFA president, UEFA should also engage in some self-reflection over its failure to identify his growing excesses early enough and take steps to hold him accountable.

Put differently, UEFA cannot escape the fact that apart from the power it wields as overseer of the world’s richest football leagues, it controls nine seats, or 24 per cent, on FIFA’s Council, the body responsible for defining FIFA’s strategic direction, including its financial relationships. One of those members is Aleksander Čeferin, UEFA’s president, who occupies the seat by virtue of his position as head of the European federation.

Clause 34(2) of FIFA’s statutes states: “ As regards business or finance-related matters, the Council shall, inter alia, define the standards, policies and procedures applicable to the awarding of commercial contracts by FIFA.”

Further, along with the presidents of the other regional confederations and Mr Infantino, Mr Čeferin sits on the Bureau of the Council, whose role is to address “all matters within the competence of the Council requiring immediate decision between two meetings of the Council”.

FAILURE OF OVERSIGHT

While Mr Infantino may have deliberately concealed information from the council and its bureau, including his infamous attempt to sell a stake in football’s World Cup to the brother of Donald Trump’s son-in-law, there appears to have been a significant failure of oversight. These bodies should have detected at least some indication that something was amiss before Mr Infantino sought to push the deal through.

Mr Čeferin and UEFA led the resistance, arguing that FIFA was merely a steward, not the owner of football or its governing institutions. Therefore, FIFA had neither the right nor the authority to sell equity in the game’s premier asset to private investors.

More recently, UEFA reportedly sought a criminal investigation into Mr Infantino for alleged fiduciary misconduct. It contends that he undervalued the World Cup in the proposed sale and entered into a secret agreement with the prospective purchasers for an executive management role in future World Cup operations after leaving FIFA.

Even without these latest allegations, there is little doubt that Mr Infantino has tarnished global football not least through what many regard as his unseemly efforts to use the game in service of President Trump. One notorious example was his presentation of FIFA’s so-called Peace Medal to the US president, an act widely viewed as pandering to Mr Trump’s vanity while further ingratiating himself with the White House.

Mr Infantino’s conduct reached another low during the World Cup when, following intervention from Mr Trump, a red card shown to a leading US player was reportedly overturned, nullifying the automatic suspension that should have applied for the following match.

It is to Mr Infantino’s shame that he has so damaged FIFA, an institution he pledged to rebuild and restore when he became president in 2016 after the scandals and corruption of the Sepp Blatter era.

ERODED PROGRESS

The Dutch federation’s argument that the issue extends beyond removing Mr Infantino and installing a new president has merit. The evidence suggests that the reforms introduced in 2016 did not go far enough. Mr Infantino eroded what progress had been made.

The Dutch federation is now advocating a genuine decentralisation of power within FIFA, including a substantial reduction in the authority of the president. It has also called for greater transparency and proposed that up to 90 per cent of distributable income be directed towards football development, including grass-roots programmes for both men and women.

This proposal is clearly designed to appeal to poorer federations and to counter the patronage and populism through which Mr Infantino cultivated support among smaller countries and less-developed football regions. One example was his expansion of the World Cup from 34 to 48 teams, creating opportunities for additional nations from Africa and the Americas despite concerns within UEFA that the tournament’s quality would decline. It did not. He subsequently proposed increasing the field to 64 teams.

UEFA should not be surprised that such ideas resonate in parts of the world where Europe’s football engagement is often perceived as largely extractive, attracting talented players to its wealthy clubs and leagues while contributing little to their development or to grass-roots football at home.

Mr Infantino should go. Europe has the influence to begin that process. But if UEFA wants the effort to be both clean and complete, it must foster a new and different conversation and relationship with football stakeholders across the Global South, not merely with their federation leaders.