The battle to force Gianni Infantino out of Fifa may be nearly all over just a few weeks after his opponents thought they would dethrone the president of world soccer’s governing body, but the war over how much power he can exercise may only be beginning.
Senior figures in world football increasingly see the crisis triggered by Infantino’s abandoned private-investment plan shifting away from the question of succession and towards a struggle over the terms of his continued presidency.
One outcome could be a governance compromise under which Infantino remains in office but gives up some power.
The other possibility is a prolonged “hot-cold war” in which
clubs, confederations, player representatives and national
associations challenge FIFA repeatedly over competitions, money
and control of the international calendar.
“What is clear now … is that he’s going nowhere,” a senior
world football executive told Reuters. “A hot-cold war is a very
real problem for FIFA and for world football.”
A veteran international sports executive, who has spent
decades working with governing bodies, offered a similar
assessment, saying Infantino was “hanging on” but questioning
how FIFA could operate if many of the game’s most powerful
countries and institutions remained opposed to him.
“You would have effectively a civil war within the
governance which I cannot recall in a sports body before,” the
executive said. “Unprecedented.”
That possible scenario of a prolonged and potentially
damaging cold war within world football was independently
corroborated to Reuters by two other senior football officials.
The prospect points to a potentially paradoxical outcome to
a crisis that at its height threatened Infantino’s position: he
could survive politically while presiding over a governing body
in which some of football’s biggest stakeholders seek to
constrain what he can actually do.
“Does he become a lame duck?” the veteran executive asked.
There is little indication that Infantino’s attempt this
week to draw a line under the crisis has repaired the rupture.
In a letter to the FIFA Council and the presidents of all
211 member associations, Infantino proposed that the Council
consider commissioning an independent external review of FIFA’s
governance framework for major strategic initiatives.
He also proposed consultations with confederations,
associations and other stakeholders over strengthening
decision-making and said he remained fully committed to leading
FIFA.
Several European federations quickly dismissed the move, and
UEFA President Aleksander Ceferin issued a stern assessment on
Wednesday.
“The project that shattered the unity of world football may
be abolished, but the trust it broke has not returned,” Ceferin
said in a video address to the Portugal Football Summit.
“Trust in our sport rests on three pillars: unity,
transparency, and governance that serves the many, not the few.”
“Football is not for sale,” he added.
Ceferin did not name Infantino but his remarks were a clear
reference to the proposal to sell a 20% stake in FIFA’s
commercial rights, including rights linked to the World Cup, to
private investors.
The project was dropped in July after opposition from
European soccer’s governing body UEFA, the Asian Football
Confederation and North American confederation CONCACAF.
For 56-year-old Swiss-Italian Infantino, that leaves one
route to a less confrontational settlement, which is a reform
substantial enough to persuade his opponents that power inside
FIFA has genuinely shifted.
The senior world football executive said one possible
outcome could be the creation of a new body or structure that
diluted the authority of the president.
Infantino’s governance proposals were the “bare minimum”
needed to give him room to remain in office, the executive said,
adding that the question was whether he would accept meaningful
changes.
How far any compromise could go would depend on “how much
Infantino is willing to cede” and how much his opponents were
willing to fight to take away, the world football executive
said.
There is historical irony in such an outcome.
Reforms introduced after the downfall of former FIFA chief
Sepp Blatter were intended in part to reduce the power
concentrated in the presidency.
Yet senior figures now see another battle developing over
how much authority the FIFA president should wield.
If no settlement is reached, the alternative could be
attritional rather than spectacular.
The world football executive said clubs could fight FIFA
over the Club World Cup, financial distributions and player
release; player representatives could challenge the calendar;
national associations could obstruct initiatives; and major
confederations could contest attempts to expand or reshape FIFA
competitions.
“Maybe it seems like we’re boiling down to two options now,”
the executive said.
“One, a compromise where Gianni gives up some of his power
and there are some new bodies that are created or, two, a
permanent hot-cold war where all the stakeholders just fight
every issue.”
That could include expanded World Cups, bigger or more
frequent Club World Cups and commercial distribution decisions,
the executive said.
The result would not necessarily be a formal break with
FIFA. Instead, opponents could make every major initiative
harder to deliver.
The veteran sports executive said the challenge went to the
heart of how global governing bodies function.
“The importance of unity. Keeping these monster sports
organisations together, they are not political parties,” the
executive said. “This will be new territory.”
There is another reason the focus is shifting towards life
with Infantino rather than replacing him: his position appears
to have strengthened since the crisis first erupted.
A national association president, who spoke to Reuters on
condition of anonymity, believes Infantino’s opponents missed
their best opportunity when the backlash was at its peak and
that he is now rebuilding support ahead of the March election.
The FIFA president has a succession of opportunities in the
coming months to meet national association leaders at
tournaments, congresses and confederation events, including
several gatherings in Africa.
The association president expects Infantino to use those
meetings to maintain support among football leaders through to
the FIFA presidential election in March 2027.
The political significance of smaller associations has also
been highlighted by a proposal from Ceferin and CONCACAF
President Victor Montagliani for FIFA to distribute at least $10
million from its reserves to each of its 211 member associations
during the next financial cycle.
For many associations heavily reliant on FIFA funding, such
sums could be transformative.
If Infantino is reelected, the association president
believes some federations that have opposed him may eventually
become less hostile, concluding there is little to gain from
four years of permanent confrontation.
That possibility means a “cold war” is not inevitable.
Source: Khaleej Times