Hello guys, Infatino has been supported by African, Asian and South American Confederations for his re-election campaign. It's been reported UEFA is working to find a candidate in the goal to make Infantino be defeated. Do you think UEFA will succeed to defeat Infantino?
Infantino uses FIFA staff to lobby MAs for his March 2027 presidential re-election - Inside World Football More than 200 countries endorse Infantino for fourth Fifa term despite Balogun scandal | Fifa | The Guardian Unfortunately, it does look like we are stuck with him for another term.
How many times did Blatter run unopposed for FIFA president? Why would it be any different for Infantino? FIFA members await higher payouts, which Infantino promised to be funded out of 2026 WC revenue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gianni_Infantino#Governance_and_finances Governance and finances Under Infantino, FIFA's revenues have more than doubled; for the 2027–2030 cycle the organization is projected to generate $14 billion, of which $2.7 billion, or about 20 percent, is to be redistributed to national associations through the "FIFA Forward" development program.[34] Critics have described the program as a mechanism of patronage: between 2023 and 2025, Brazil, a five-time World Cup winner with a population of 213 million, received $6.35 million through FIFA Forward, about $94,000 less than San Marino, the world's lowest-ranked national team, with a population of 34,000.[34] The number of FIFA competitions has grown from two (the men's World Cup and the Olympic football tournament) to twenty under Infantino, and its committees have increased from seven to thirty-five.[34] From 2016 to 2026, Infantino quadrupled grants to member associations.[35]
FIFA said last night that 2023-26 cycle revenue will top USD$15bn! That represents a trebling of the revenue from the 2015-18 cycle during which Infantino was first elected when they made USD$5bn. 2027-30 cycle is forecast to be higher still because while ticket and hospitality revenue will fall - which likely means more affordable EUROS-level ticketing for the 2030 WC - sponsorship will more than compensate for that decrease. So sponsorship value - which already showed significant growth in this cycle - is set to increase still further next time.
Yesterday, Infantino told the nationals associations gathered in New York: “So, when we see the success of this FIFA World Cup, we need to really be aware of the fact that the FIFA World Cup is the pinnacle of football in the world, and that everyone in football, big or small, depends on the success of the FIFA World Cup. We need to be very, very careful, and put the FIFA World Cup always at the centre of everything we do in football. Everything else has to come after that and with that together. “When we will speak about calendars, about when (and) how to organise events, we need to care about all of you. FIFA is a democracy. The members have to decide, and you will decide what you think is right for the future. There are discussions about whether we should increase more (from 48) to 64 (teams), but this will be debated and this will be discussed.” That probably means WCs and probably Club WCs post-2030 are going to be held in the Spring or Autumn rather than June-July as per his previously stated wish so that when FIFA awards hosting rights climate is not an issue.
UEFA is a very insular Confederation. If they want to get some support from the rest of the world they need to actually do something for the rest of the world.
That doesn't work with league seasons. You can't keep chopping and changing seasons around World Cups. Whatever he thinks is the pinnacle it isn't the World Cup that pays players wages. It is clubs that pay the wages and they don't want a 6 week + break and pushing their seasons back into July. Also, has this world cup been a success? There was the Iran situation and the political interference with Balogun. Hydration breaks and a woeful, overly long half time show. A lot of it has been a farce. Overall the football has been average. A poor final albeit with a deserved winner. His definition of success can only be financial. Who benefits from that? Primarily football administrators.
FIFA want their competitions in autumn or spring, which involves a break of the club season of between 4 and 7 weeks, so the UCL final would end the club season sometime between the end of June and mid-July. This would probably be accepted by the rest of the world - notwithstanding some disruption to their club football - but UEFA and European Leagues are undoubtably fighting it. I would imagine there will be some resolution of the IMC post-2030 WC by the autumn because competition organisers need to plan several years in advance.
On the contrary, they've been helping the others for a long time now. For example, the OFC HQ was paid for jointly by FIFA and UEFA a few years ago. In fact, UEFA signed new MoUs with CAF, Concacaf and OFC at the end of April on the sidelines of the FIFA congress. These MoUs are interesting because they all include a clause about political alignment. 1.6 Oversight & Coordination 1.6.1 The Parties will endeavor to convene an annual high-level meeting between their Presidents and General Secretaries to discuss shared strategic priorities, explore forward-looking areas of cooperation and ensure political alignment on key issues affecting both Confederations.
To me there is a bit more to it than words in a document. Over the last few years UEFA hasn't been in favour of WC expansion and flooded their international fixture list with Nations League matches limiting any opportunities for friendly matches with nations outside UEFA. There are always murmurings about UEFA going their own way with maybe inviting a few select nations from outside to join them when they are unhappy with things FIFA does. That's why I think they will struggle to get support for a candidate they may put up for FIFA President. They way it's been raised it's come across more as an attempted takeover rather than a new direction. That's what I mean by being insular. I'm not a great fan of how FIFA has been operating under the current regime and if I had a vote I would vote for change, but the reality is I don't get a vote, lots of fairly small football Associations do and despite what UEFA puts in agreements, they need to back it up over a period of time before they can expect to get votes for a candidate. That's just how I see the politics of it right now.
When it comes to expansion of FIFA competitions - particularly the WC and Club WC - which, as you say, UEFA has repeatedly opposed, that needs to be understood in the context of how we got to where we are today. The trebling of FIFA's revenues since the 2015-18 cycle during which Infantino was elected risks draining resources of broadcasters, sponsors and fans from domestic and continental football which is the lifeblood of the game. With FIFA budgeting for increased revenue in the next cycle starting in January, there's a feeling among the European Leagues that FIFA's growth is unsustainable and damaging not only the wider football pyramid but also affecting other international sports, most of which exist on scraps. There was nothing to prevent UEFA from taking the dates in the calendar and inserting its Nations League games in them which - to be fair - they have facilitated by truncating the European Qualifiers to six matches plus playoffs. There is still the June window annually and the March window in even years when most UEFA teams are available for friendlies which is about the right proportion of the calendar which should be devoted to friendlies. If some other confederations don't develop their national team competition frameworks, that's not UEFA's fault. Through those three MoUs, UEFA is working with CAF, Concacaf and OFC to develop football in a sustainable way around the world because - ultimately - it's in the general interest for the game to grow globally. The key is that it must be done in harmony with the parts of the world where football is already more developed, which I believe most people would say isn't unreasonable. When it comes to seeking support from other continents on important FIFA matters, I expect Europe to have more support from other parts of the world than many people would expect. That's why I'm confident the Conmebol proposal to expand the WC to 64 teams won't pass.
I've no real argument against anything you've said. It pretty much sums up history. I just think UEFA would need to get some more runs on the board in working with other confederations before they will get a lot of support. Something to back up promises made in signing MOU's. We shall see.
More talk from South America about expanding 2030 to 64 teams. What do they get out of it? Almost all of their teams qualify anyway so extra places go elsewhere. Any extra money is divided by more nations and thus they probably get a smaller share. The only reason is that they think they would host more matches. Maybe 3 whole groups rather than 3 matches. A very short term reason to push expansion. Although they're lacking in World Cup standard stadiums to do so. Most are old and dominated by standing areas. Some other political manoeuvres could be related. Is the idea of holding the final in Morocco a bargaining chip to get Spain to back expansion? Final at the Bernabeu or Camp Nou but extra matches held in South America. FIFA is a mess. Deliberately so.
Conmebol have said that expansion is only for 2030 so it's for the extra group stage games as far as they're concerned, as you say short-term thinking indeed.
Spanish football is celebrating its second World Cup victory in its history. And from the United States came not only proof of the level reached by Luis de la Fuente 's team – now World and European champions – but also the unity of the Spanish football institutions. At the top of this pyramid is Javier Tebas (La Liga president), who has not spared criticism of FIFA's head Gianni Infantino . "FIFA does things as it wants , for what it wants, for its own interests, certainly not for football ," Tebas began in an interview with La Gazzetta dello Sport, speaking about the introduction of the hydration break . "And so if they need a 27-minute break, they do it . Hydration breaks are a lie. We have them in La Liga, but only when it's really hot. Here, the pitches in Dallas, Los Angeles, and Atlanta had air conditioning ; I had to put on a sweater in the stands. It was a lie, a commercial break. And then there was the Balogun case." "This was proof that we are governed by an institution that does and decides what it wants when it wants , following only its own interests without thinking, let alone consulting, the rest of football ," Tebas continued. "And in many cases, it acts in a way that damages football . It's difficult to change things, because there are active accomplices in the system who collaborate with these types of decisions, and passive accomplices who remain silent, don't report them, and do nothing to prevent certain things from happening again. They criticise the system at the bar over a coffee, or on the phone in private conversations, but then do nothing to put an end to all this. The suspension of the American player's suspension (Balogun, ed.) is an extremely serious matter: they were lucky because Belgium eliminated the USA, because otherwise they could have created a scandal that could have cost Infantino his job. Since Belgium won, they managed to bury the matter. But these things are just the tip of the iceberg. The Super League ruling gave FIFA and UEFA a lot of power, confirming their monopoly. But they should have used this monopoly to work with the various players in our industry and for the good of football, with general and regulatory transparency, and consensual decisions. Not to do what FIFA is doing. We have repeatedly denounced the calendar issue . And now they want to have a 64-team World Cup . This hypothesis is increasingly concrete in view of the 2030 edition, which Spain will co-organise with Portugal and Morocco, with some matches also being played in Argentina, Uruguay, and Paraguay, to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the first World Cup, held in Uruguay and won by the Celeste. "Increasing the number of national teams makes no sense ," Tebas comments dryly. "The football industry is not just the World Cup, which is the most important event, but not everything can revolve around the World Cup. It is the national competitions that support football . They are destroying the football industry, the one that generates tens of thousands of jobs for an event that lasts 40 days and which only a minority of players attend. Are the best players there? Of course, but they are also in our leagues. We need fewer national teams and more protection for national football, at all levels. They don't realise this, they make irresponsible decisions ." Finally, a comment on Infantino: "In my opinion, I think he should leave; his time has passed . But he has the support of the system, of the federations; there's not much else to add. There's no opposition candidate; no one wants to run to lose. This is the system, and it's a system that's sick from the source . He shouldn't stay, but the state of things means he won't go. These days here in America, I've heard a lot of people against Infantino, who don't agree with what he's doing. They say it, but then they don't do anything . I don't know which is worse, silence or complicity, because those who stay silent are perfectly aware of the damage that football is suffering ." (Calcio e Finanza)
I remember when FIFA expanded both senior tournaments to 48 teams. FIFA Council approved expansion, done away from any FIFA Congress; there was no vote, no negotiations. - January 2017: 2026 WC to field 48 teams - May 2025: 2031 WWC to field 48 teams Same approach when FIFA inserted ARG+PAR+URU as *2030 WC invited hosts*: done away from any FIFA Congress, no vote, no negotiations. And I say no negotiations because Conmebol has nothing that it can give ROW feds to be awarded those commemoration matches. So, where do we get the idea that UEFA is buying ROW support against a 64-team WC expansion, when no individual federation will be allowed to vote on expansion?
Uefa agrees to boycott Fifa competitions if World Cup sell-off plans proceed: https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...petitions-if-world-cup-sell-off-plans-proceed Very pleased to see decisive action against Infantino’s never-ending agenda of commercialisation and self-enrichment.
There have also been Concacaf and AFC statements against the proposals. I'm against it because it is asset stripping and taking money now at the expense of long term revenue. It is the sort of thing a business that is in trouble resorts to rather than a thriving profitable enterprise. Some of the AFC and Concacaf opposition is because the process isn't open and undoubtedly undervalues FIFA competitions. It is shockingly bad Governance even if raising short term money was necessary, which it isn't.
Former USSF head Carlos Cordeiro has resigned from FIFA over the proposed sell-off. https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...tion-sell-off-plan?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
FIFA needs a former player at the top. Someone who is more invested in the sport and less in the business. I wish Platini had not gotten into hot water with that “consulting” gig. But that looks like small potatoes compared to the destruction wrought by Infantino and friends every day.