UEFA and FIFA Are at Loggerheads
Dette innlegget er også tilgjengelig i:
At an extraordinary meeting of the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA), it was decided that all countries affiliated with UEFA would boycott all events organized by the International Federation of Association Football (FIFA). Relations between UEFA and FIFA have long been strained. Following FIFA’s announcement after this year’s World Cup that it wants private investors to be involved in the World Cup, UEFA drew a line in the sand. What are the conflicts between FIFA and UEFA? What consequences will a boycott have?
The Conflicts Between UEFA and FIFA
There is a wide gap between what Europe wants and what FIFA wants. The best countries in the world are from Europe, as are the best and richest clubs. UEFA wants the clubs and countries with the best players to receive a greater share of the revenue. They also want the players’ workload to be taken into account. That is why UEFA opposes the creation of a Club World Cup. For the same reason, they also opposed the expansion of the World Cup. UEFA believes that the expansion to 48 teams resulted in even more matches for the players—especially those who play in Europe.
Europe also believes that South America is getting too large a share relative to the number of member countries. Six out of a total of 10 countries in South America qualified through the South American qualifiers. UEFA is also strongly opposed to the awarding of FIFA’s Peace Prize to Donald Trump. A Peace Prize with absolutely no legitimacy. Europe believes this was a so-called Peace Prize intended to curry favor with the U.S. president ahead of the World Cup. This is an example of FIFA’s high-handed leadership style, which has characterized the organization since Gianni Infantino took over as president in 2016. Gianni Infantino is also accused of bribing smaller soccer nations with money to secure sufficient support from the more than 200 member nations.
2026 World Cup: Many Conflicts
During and after the 2026 World Cup, the conflicts have deepened even further. Perhaps the most controversial incident was when the United States’ sent-off player, Folarin Balogun, received a red card, but the decision was overturned after Donald Trump called Folarin Balogun. The player was thus able to play in the U.S. team’s next match against Belgium. The rules are clear: a player who is sent off must serve a suspension of at least one match.
But the controversy began even before the World Cup, when it was announced that each half would be paused for 3 minutes to give the players a drink break. FIFA cited the hot weather as the reason. But UEFA believed the entire break was intended to allow for a commercial break on TV in the middle of each half. What happened after Spain defeated Argentina in the World Cup final has also received a great deal of attention. Argentine players attacked the Spanish players, and there were incidents of fighting, kicking at Spanish players, and shoving. FIFA has not taken any action against this behavior since the incident. Normally, this would have resulted in several red cards for Argentine players.
No to the Sale of Soccer’s Skeleton
UEFA has rejected Gianni Infantino and FIFA’s attempt to allow private investors to profit from the product. Gianni Infantino’s plan is to let JPMorgan Chase play a central role in FIFA’s project. Jared Kushner is closely tied to the Trump family and collaborates with JPMorgan Chase on major financial projects.
Soccer as we know it today originated in Europe. It is also in Europe that the major leagues are based. Today’s soccer was created and shaped by the working class. Fans play a vital role in today’s soccer. UEFA believes that selling off parts of the World Cup is like selling the very soul of the game. That is what makes soccer so unique and popular. Soccer belongs to the fans, the clubs, and the clubs’ national associations. UEFA believes that selling the rights to the World Cup would mean turning a blind eye to money and the enrichment of the wealthy, which goes against the core spirit of soccer.
Consequences of the UEFA boycott
The most likely outcome is that FIFA and Gianni Infantino will have to provide UEFA with the guarantees that UEFA is demanding. These are guarantees that the World Cup will never be sold, in whole or in part, to private investors.
A World Cup without European countries is completely unthinkable. If FIFA were to organize such a tournament, it would be very second-rate. In this year’s World Cup, 6 of the 8 participating nations were from Europe. Spain was the winner. A World Cup without powerhouses like Spain, Germany, England, and France is unthinkable. Europe has so many strong soccer nations that even those not mentioned here are among the world’s best. For example, Norway and Switzerland. A boycott would hit women’s soccer just as hard. Europe would not participate in women’s soccer or the U-20 World Cup either. The same applies to the highly controversial Club World Cup. In the Club World Cup, it was almost impossible to understand who had qualified to participate. Major clubs like Liverpool and Barcelona (then the reigning champions in England and Spain) were not allowed to participate.
Another possible outcome is that UEFA might decide to hold the European Championship every two years. In that case, the World Cup would face direct competition if FIFA chooses to hold a tournament without most of the top national teams.
Wealthy investors are likely to get cold feet even now. They should think carefully before asking: What is the World Cup without Europe? How much return can we expect on our investment? The answer is obvious. A World Cup without Europe has no value.
Sources:
BBC: UEFA to boycott World Cups if FIFA’s plans are approved