By B4Ball
The Federation of International de Football Associations (FIFA) has existed since the year 1904 and was led through its initial years by Robert Guerin. Established on 21 May of that year, its core business was to oversee international competitions among national football associations of Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland, being the founding members.
From those 8 associations, FIFA today has a total of 211 member associations across all the continents. From just one competition at its founding, it now oversees 10 major international competitions, the crowning head of which is the FIFA World Cup (Men) and the FIFA Women’s World Cup. It grew its competing States in the FIFA World Cup (Men) from 8 teams to a 24-team format in this year’s edition of the event being co-hosted by North American States of Canada, Mexico and the United States.
The coffers of FIFA have also grown exponentially over the years. It became financially stable, with excess funds accruing in the lead up to the 2004 after turning the corner in 2001. By 2010, it had generated USD 1 billion in its coffers for the very first time in its history. Despite paying huge legal fees in 2015 when it was hit by scandals, it still turned in USD 1.1 billion as profit after the 2018 World Cup. By the time the 2022 World Cup ended, the organization had generated USD 3.9 billion in its cash reserves.
Although it claims to be neutral in politics (based on the provision of its statutes, with Article 15 of its Code of Ethics mandating officials to remain neutral)), some observers would argue that FIFA actually does dabble into that sphere (de facto, or de jure) as can be seen from some of its conduct and its actions. For example, the award of hosting rights for its competitions is cited by those who insist that FIFA is political, to show that this process often entails intense politicking. They also cite the action FIFA took by banning the Russian Federation from participating in international competitions following the latter’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
In the opinion of those belonging to this school, FIFA has even compounded matters by its inconsistent actions, typified by banning Russia but allowing Israel to continue participating in its competitions (when both countries appear to have committed the same acts of military aggression) even after the International Criminal Court—ICC—had indicted the President of the Russian Federation, as well as the Israeli Prime Minister and his erstwhile Minster of Defence. In the words of one commentator, this response in particular, suggests that FIFA is consistently inconsistent and undermines its credibility.
Those in this school also cite the acceptance of Mr. Gianni Infantino, President of FIFA, to serve on the Board of Peace recently established by President Donald J. Trump of the United States. Many consider the Board, initially tasked with rebuilding Gaza (but now having indeterminate ambitions according to various comments by President Trump), is increasingly looking like a political organization. Some argue that the criteria for appointing its members, its exact objectives and the legal basis on which it is to operate are all opaque (though it is mentioned in the United Nations Resolution 2803 as a welcome instrument for aiding the reconstruction of Gaza). For an organization like FIFA to willy nilly accept to serve on it when the issues highlighted above are unclear places the credibility and reputation of the organization at risk they affirm.
Another issue cited was the creation and award of a so-called FIFA Peace Prize, which had no precedence and was awarded to President Donald Trump. This, in the opinion of those who raise concerns about what they perceive as FIFA’s increasing tilt towards politics, was overtly political and diametrically opposed to the focus of FIFA as a football governing institution.
A small percentage of those who are openly raising these issues about FIFA’s reputation, credibility and orientation today worry that there is a risk that the organization may fracture. While many believe that this is an extreme position, those in this group raise the split in global boxing as an example, warning that FIFA must take steps to guard its reputation and credibility by pulling back from anything overtly political and controversial as not doing so could induce the kind of split that visited the boxing world decades ago.
They cite the National Boxing Association (NBA), founded in the United States in 1921, as the first ever global regulator of international boxing. It was reformed into the World Boxing Association (WBA) in 1962, due to its huge acceptance worldwide. However, with the advent of huge commercial gains and inconsistency in the conduct of the WBA, including in its rankings and adjudication of its contests, several other global boxing bodies were created, such as the World Boxing Council (WBC), the International Boxing Federation (IBF) and the World Boxing Organization (WBO). There are worries therefore that if FIFA continues on this path without re-asserting its neutrality and credibility, the regulation of international football might eventually experience the same split that boxing did.