Infantino clearly wants to see FIFA making billions so he and many others can pocket millions legally. But the only way for this to happen in a non-corrupt way, given that FIFA is non-profit and therefore requires a lot of questionable operations, is to turn FIFA into a business like NFL / MLS.
The problem with that is that it then it is no longer a sport, rather a... business.
CONCACAF join UEFA and reject FIFA's World Cup sell-off plan. https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/49488584/uefa-boycott... . By the end of this Gianni Infantino will only be left with the Africans .I am African and these Federations will do anything to keep him around because of the unprecedented amounts of corruption...
My own frustration isn't corruption per se, a state cannot exist without it - at least not for long, but how cheap African corruption is in general. Others may require considerable resources and billions perhaps. Not here. Just a few Land Rover discoverys for key officials and a scholarship for their kids in Europe is all that is required to sell a whole state. To say nothing of a sporting organization.
I actually think the CONCACAF statement shows that they could be on board… they’re just mad they weren’t consulted. Give them the cut they want and they might change their tune.
This statement is weak and wishy-washy compared to the blunt UEFA statement. Kudos to Europe. Here’s hoping CONCACAF can get brave enough to take the moral stance as well.
AFCON is already a thing and while it is decently popular it’s no where near the world cup or the euros. Part of that is that it takes place during the domestic club competitions though.
African teams are definitely up and coming. South Africa was surprisingly poor in the tournament but there were some decent performances by African teams, notably Morocco. Cape Verde also punched (or kicked?) way above their weight.
I am not sure a replacement for Infantino is enough. It seems like FIFA has a culture of corruption and Infantino is merely the latest manifestation of said culture. Some serious reform and restructuring seem needed.
Here’s a solution: bar FIFA from selling viewing rights to their competitions and allow any station or channel to stream for free. That would grow the global game.
Take away the money and FIFA doesn’t have much to bargain with. They need to remember they are a purely administrative organization.
Fifa is a reflection of the world. All members (nations) get a vote. Most countries are corrupt. Thank go there is still a bastion of democracy/fairness left in Uefa.
The world is a reflection of the laws of physics. When complex self propagating systems coexist in an environment with limited material competition arises, and corruption is simply one inevitable result of that.
I am all in favor of a global revolution to overthrow capitalism with a solidarity of workers of the world. But I think we can have a non-corrupt FIFA without one.
The Super League was a wonderful idea! Imagine watching the best teams in Europe playing each other multiple nights a week for months on end! Instead you’d rather watch 1 or 2 teams spend 10x more than anyone else and dominate the league every season. How is that fun or exciting? Would you rather watch a Bayern v Bremen match or a Bayern v Chelsea match? Or PSG, is it fun watching them not even bother playing their best guys in games against Lyon?
It makes no sense to me that people favored the (much) worse product because “tradition”.
Easy: it was going to be a (mostly) closed competition.
Competition gets boring real fast when it is always the same handful of teams. When there are no real consequences to losing, winning becomes meaningless.
Bayern v Chelsea matches stop being as interesting when every game is a Bayern v Chelsea match and most of them have no real impact either way. On the other hand, football becomes most interesting when it's a Bayern v Bremen and Bremen wins. People love an underdog after all, and nothing is more exciting than seeing an elite team take the game for granted and being punished for it.
The Super League is only a more interesting product from the "big name play ball" perspective. It is great when you want to make a fortune in tv rights and licensing, but it sucks for everyone who cares about football as a sport.
It's already an entity that makes billions that's run as a business even though it's nominally one of the few parts of the sport that isn't for profit, and it's not like they really need private equity to help them put ticket prices up, as the last World Cup showed.
Regardless of rhetoric about "not to be sold", the bigger issue is that this looks like a very bad financial arrangement for a sport that is awash with funds already so doesn't need to sell its future revenues off cheaply or learn how to make money from PE, but probably a good deal for Infantino and chums. Corruption at FIFA is nothing new, but a behind-closed-doors sweetheart deal for a large fraction of their future revenue was really pushing at boundaries ...
And Infantino had become so convinced of his own genius he thought that giving member states a fait accompli, a ticking clock and an indication that most of the money would go to states that voted yes (and a financial deal that would be an attractive bung to the 100 or so FIFA members with no chance of actually qualifying, but shrinks the future revenue stream for everyone else) would actually fly.
Plus UEFA already makes more money than FIFA, could happily organize a rival competition attracting more top teams from the rest of the world and sponsorship money if it came to that, and had a unique opportunity to flex where fans and clubs would be universally behind them...
Already is a highly corrupted profit machine. I am not against nor in favor of the proposed change. If EUFA is against is because they felt they are not being favored, it is not in favor of the sport.
Agreed, the tickets to the tournament this year were just outrageously priced. Football is historically a working class sport, but $1,000 to watch a team like DR Congo in the group stage is next level criminality. And it's only going to get worse from here.
FIFA looked at this World Cup as an experiment. They wanted to see whether turning the monetization knob all the way to 11 would encounter significant resistance or whether fans would still watch/attend. The US, with its plethora of expensive stadiums and lax regulatory environment for price gouging compared to Europe, was the perfect testing environment. They upped the number of teams to 48 to get more games, used dynamic ticket pricing, added hydration breaks for more commercials in markets that would allow it and added a few other income streams. All this more than doubled their profits because, and this is the important part going forward, fans didn’t push back. They complained, but the still came/watched.
So this will now be the new norm. Host countries will be ones where laws don’t prohibit gouging fans. They’ll come up with creative solutions to meet the rotation requirement like the upcoming host a couple games in South America farce that’s allowing them to go to Saudi Arabia after that. They’ll continue to push the boundaries of decency until they get sufficient pushback.
There was pushback if you look at per-team attendance situations, but there's more than enough people living in the US making a ton of money that can easily afford the crazy prices. It did lower how many people from some big football nations decide to follow their team around. Not just due to the prices, but the travel distances. Just consider the practical logistics for, say, Spain's run. 2 games in Atlanta (Cabo verde and Saudi Arabia), then go play Uruguay in Guadalajara, then Austria in SoFi/L.A, then Portugal in the Dallas metro, back to SoFi for Belgium, again to Arlington for France, and New Jersey for Argentina: That's a lot of travel and hotel changing, because there's no reasonable way to go to a game and come back in the same day.
For all the problems in Qatar's world cup, a fan could watch two games a day, live,because the stadiums were that close. The 2026 bid maximized distances about as much as one could, vs, say, at least limit it all to the west coast, which would still be a lot by normal standards, bout would mean fewer huge metros where you could dip your toe in and ask for a ton of money, as there'd be very few games there.
And again, we are talking a team that won, and was among the favorites to win from day 1, just not being able to fill 1/3rd of the stadium, or anything close.
There is no right and wrong here. Watching a bunch of guys kick a ball around is a completely optional activity. The stadium can accommodate x people, and x+n people want to watch the game.
Therefore, someone has to be left out. That can be decided multiple ways, but there is no philosophical reason that money being the deciding factor is wrong. We use that mechanism for almost everything else in the world. It's the worst system...except for all the others.
If the problem is the size of the wealth gap between people, that's wholly unrelated to sports game tickets, and in the purview of government policy.
You see it in England all the time where organized fan groups do push back and protest ending up with the owners walking back the suggested ticket increases.
I don’t disagree with what you’re saying but I said before any of this mess, and just dealing with the ticket purchasing experience, that this would be the last World Cup I attend.
It’s sad though. The World Cup, while imperfect, remains an event that brings the world together. We don’t have many of those left.
Not as much as the popular culture makes out. Association football (as opposed to folk football) was codified in English private schools such as Uppingham, and at Cambridge University. Working class people played very different forms of football at the time, including carrying the ball etc. Association football was the more genteel form of the game. It used to be the main sport at Eton College, not rugby.
It's wild how bad the experience is working for top level sports teams can be. Many (in the US at least) have an absolute lock on massive profits and value increasing like crazy ... but they operate like the cheapest small business that can't bother the new guy a chair that isn't broken.
Imagine being more money hungry than EA - a company which makes billions from gaslighting children into gambling money on getting their favourite players.
The point is not how much it made, it is how to transfer that wealth (whether 6B or 60B) out of a non-profit into someone else's account without looking like, or literally being, a criminal.
The new thing is trying to take the organization from a non-profit to a corporation. Mainly so the executives can increase their already large compensation apparently.
FIFA made $~15 billion USD this World Cup, roughly double what they made in Qatar in 2022. There are many low-hanging fruit that can be optimized to increase that revenue by 10x.
I didn't realize the commercial-block-sized "hydration breaks" were that profitable.
For a second, I thought the Americanization[1] of fùtbol would be done gradually and no one would complain as we'd be slowly boiled. I'm glad the corrupt bastards got greedy/impatient and took a big swing.
1. Sports primarily as a business, catering to owners first, sponsors second, broadcasters third, and then lastly, fans. IMO non-profit sports organizations are the best model for fans, who I identify the most with.
It is absolutely outrageous that FIFA unilaterally changed the structure of a football match (that’s been the same since the nineteenth century) with no consultation, just so they could show ads
Per-ticket prices were a big factor too. By turning it into an open bidding process, every ticket sold at close to its market value, and many above that.
> There are many low-hanging fruit that can be optimized to increase that revenue by 10x.
The $15 billion figure is for FIFA's ENTIRE 2023-2026 revenue cycle, so not just this World Cup. But the obvious "low-hanging fruit" was making the tournamenta lot larger (104 matches instead of Qatar's 64), so a lot more tickets, hospitality sales, ads etc
Also two 3 minute hydration breaks per match, giving broadcasters additional advertising windows.
Yeah, I can see them doubling that revenue by being even more extortionate with ticket prices and adding another 16 teams (as already planned to happen) to add more games.
But the only way they 10x is to start running more FIFA competitions, and that's when they encroach on UEFA's cash cows...
> As a result of today’s discussion, no UEFA national teams will participate in any FIFA competition for so long as these proposals remain alive, unless this proposal has been abandoned in its entirety and binding assurances have been given that FIFA will never again open its governance or competitions to private ownership.
This seems to have actual teeth. What's Infantino going to do to save face? No one cares about a world cup without the Europeans.
“Football’s future cannot be dictated by the expectations of those whose first duty is to maximise financial return.”
Very well said…replace the word football with internet/technology/web/research/university or so many others and you might understand why this single powerful phrase is so important.
First off, fire Infantino on the spot, just the same way they fired Blatter for corruption.
This last world cup was the worse I've ever seen since 1978, almost 50 years, and I've seen the good, the bad and the ugly. We all know billions are moved under the table, but money can never break rules and traditions, specially if they don't benefit fans and players above all
Did anybody ask the players about the hydration break? About increasing teams to 48, now to 64? More games is more possibility of injuries and benched players are no good for the show. So always be careful about wanting more golden eggs, the goose may be exhausted already
While I agree with your view on hydration breaks, I have to disagree that 48 teams was a bad thing. It led to wonderful stories like Cape Verde (and their goalie) who were competitive against Argentina. They wouldn’t even have qualified under the old system. We saw Congo almost beat England (again, a non-qualifier in the old days). Conversely, scoring goals is exciting and Germany’s 7-1 over Curaçao let us see some amazing goals.
More teams means more underdogs, more chances for greatness and more high points. I know it was purely for money, but I think the move to 48 teams really worked.
Cape Verde would have qualified for the World Cup even if there were 32 teams. Cape Verde topped its group, beating usual world cup teams like Cameroon.
The narrative that Cape Verde is a beneficiary of the 48-team setup is completely and utterly false.
Two teams with 1/4 of the world's potential customers did not make the cut for this year's tournament, more's the pity. The tournament will likely be expanded until these two teams can qualify.
I don’t know about China, but India has a lot of fans and had pretty good viewership.
Whether a national team qualifies isn’t that strongly correlated to whether the sport is popular. Most of south and Central America are as fanatical as Brazil or Argentina, but they were not in the tournament.
There are 200+ participating countries. Many of those are on his side, because they’re tiny and easy to bribe: a few million is significant for them and often that money can be siphoned into corrupt pockets.
That said, a World Cup without any of the 55 UEFA countries wouldn’t make sense commercially.
Past tense. Were on his side. He also just lost a unanimous vote with CONCACAF, the body representing many of the smallest islands least likely to ever qualify for the World Cup or actually generate money from football (and a small number of larger nations that will benefit significantly from his other pledges like more places for CONCACAF natons at the World Cup)
In addition to them all knowing that a World Cup without UEFA isn't going to happen, they also weren't impressed by being presented with a fixed offer and a ticking clock rather than an opening of negotiations....
Its not just tinyness and poorness of the countries – it is also the indifference of many nations. Just because, say Brunei has the same voice as France, it does not mean that the sport, or the national team's performance is important enough for their people to care or even notice if their representatives are selling their nation's voice to the highest bidder.
The heads of Football Associations of tiny countries who took enormous bungs to vote for him and then spent the money on some facilities but mostly themselves
I think the evil part is the [at any cost] part, the incentives are irrelevant. An AI that only wants to make paperclips isn't evil because of the paperclips.
> Sepp Blatter weighed in, writing on X: "The close relationship between the Fifa president and the US President [Donald Trump] has reached a financial dimension that is deeply damaging football. No-one has the right to sell our game."
Blatter was corrupt to the core but cared about the actual sport if you look at his record. This new president is like a james bond villian caricature like he actually wants to destroy the sport.
It's just yet another Donald Trump story, which are legion around here these days. The World Cup itself is also a hot topic right now, with Euros and Muricans trying to rage bait each other.
The moment external investors acquire ownership interests in FIFA competitions, football changes forever. Commercial return becomes a permanent obligation. Investor expectations become a daily pressure. From that moment onwards, every decision on the international calendar, every decision on competition formats and every decision shaping the future of football is no longer driven by what best serves the game, but by what best serves shareholders.
These words apply to any investment. It's worth considering as part of any business, including many of the businesses we're here to watch grow - the moment you have others involved as equity partners, the entire culture has to change. Do it consciously, or not at all.
> These words apply to any investment [...] the entire culture has to change
I think that's fatalistic. There are plenty of people and legal structures that limit the influence of investors to reasonable returns, most famously founders retaining control, or the public benefit corporation (like Veeva) or nonprofit (OpenAI as the counter-example showing how even structures are no guarantee). It's all part of setting up the systems to work with available people, within the business leader's ambit.
Why only now? UEFA should boycott the world cup, period. It should have been enough even before the Balogun nonsense. They have the best league and the best teams, they have the know how and could easily host the UEFA World Cup.
They could host a tournament without the pay-to-win arbitrary overruling of red cards and the clownish half time entertainment. Nobody would care about the FIFA World Cup.
Exactly! You would have a number of oil states competing, and that's it.
They have everything to win. It's opposite of the PGA/LIV situation, the breakout group have the stronger trademark and the better teams. It's baffling that UEFA didn't move in already when FIFA was too greedy even for EA, which is saying something.
Before you eulogize UEFA too much (ok, too late, you already did), answer me this.
Where did Infantino come from? Answer: UEFA
And for that matter, which continent did his predecessor Sepp Blatter start his football admin career in? Hint: he's not from Asia or Africa
Probably the most widely admired admin in big-time football right now is al-Khalifa, the head of PSG. A Qatari. You know - those guys who organized by common consent is considered the best World Cup in modern times (during which EUROPEAN teams were ostentatiously protesting on the pitch - while keeping VERY quiet WHEN playing a World Cup in a country who is still facilitating an ONGOING GENOCIDE) .
And from reports, he doesn't want to touch FIFA with a 10 foot barge pole.
Europe had managed to keep the lions share of footballs global revenues to itself, while keeping Africa as basically a "football nursery" where teenagers get almost trafiked across Europe before 90% are discarded.
This is one of the reasons why a (corrupt, mendacious & sly) Infantino had some support across Africa & Asia. Because he played off that imbalance. Rather like one mafioso giving you "protection" against another mafia mob.
Just saying, Europe & UEFA arent necessarily the angels in any of this ...
Hard to think of a modern institution as corrupt as fifa. That may not bother too many people because it’s not their government, but I just think it stinks
FIFA has been monstrously corrupt since at least as far back as the 1970s (Havelange).
I backslid this year, but did completely boycott watching in 2018 and 2022. Russia is a pariah state and should never have been allowed to host, and Qatar was manifestly unsuitable.
The only difference this year is that the bribery and political favors were out in the open.
There are levels to it. Sepp Blatter was notoriously corrupt, but Infantino makes his "envelope full of cash under the table" style of corruption look amateurish.
The US has used force to unilaterally remove two heads of state this year, and is enforcing a blockade on Cuba that is wreaking havoc in an attempt to remove a third head of state.
That Russia is worse should not shield the US from criticism.
In the Dictator's Handbook the authors argued that FIFA and IOC function similar to autocratic dictatorships because there is a small group of people who are essential to power. Therefore it is rational to buy them rather than do the right thing by the fans (who have very little power). As cold as the reasoning is, the explanation stuck with me.
Their suggestion is to open up the power structure, e.g. to all past players/Olympians.
Interestingly, both FIFA and IOC are headquartered in Switzerland, a country that is ranked by Transparency International as one least corrupt countries in the world… Draw you own conclusions.
Until recently Swiss banks were pretty famously a great place to do the kind of banking needed for global scale corruption. They still sort of are as long as none of the parties have told the bank that they are American.
Switzerland might not be corrupt, but they are fine with enabling it.
One of the least corrupt countries, whose attorney general had secret meetings with Infantino when in charge of an investigation of corruption in FIFA.
A common factor seems rather that international sports orgs are often very corrupt. Would be interesting to understand why it happens systematically. Lack of good governance structures must be part of it.
I think fundamental issue is that only people who want power, money or influence get involved at highest levels. For rest operating at grass roots or slightly higher and having local impact is more important. Farther you move from there more power hungry and less passionate about underlying thing the people get.
How was it a shit show? I’m genuinely curious. I attended 5 games (Atlanta, LA and Dallas) and was a fantastic experience minus the process to get tickets.
Not OP, but I would guess: "hydration breaks" to inject commercials, half-time shows that felt alien to much of the core audience, and various rule-bending shenanigans (Ronaldo, Balogun).
Hydration breaks a tad weird. Half time shows were pretty subtle, didn’t change the length of the break except for the final. There’s no soccer competition without someone complaining about refereeing. Def always things to improve but I had fun, all people around me seemed to have fun. I flew in an out and always was either public transportation or uefa provided shuttles… It was really well run. Not something you can call a “shit show”
Oh boy, how could I forget about the Iranian team, and the other players/referees/staff that were rejected or stuck at the airport for hours ? It was worse than a sh-t show actually.
> There’s no soccer competition without someone complaining about refereeing.
Yeah, but most of them go without president calling Infantino to change the referee verdict. All the while the president says "I dont even know the game".
> It was really well run. Not something you can call a “shit show”
I can. Oh and not allowing referee in due to his race and mistreating teams due to politics.
Soccer is a legitimate name for the sport. Football is properly the name of a whole group of sports OR in a local context the locally most popular type of football.
It's very weird for one type of football to try to claim the name all for itself globally.
An argument I've heard is that since hydration breaks can affect the game, if you are going to have them they should be mandatory and at the same time in all games in a tournament rather than doing them like they did when they were originally introduced in 2014. Then they were only done in games when the conditions on the field got dangerous.
Telling of what? I imagine if you're running around like eg Ronaldo would be during a game, it doesn't matter how air conditioned the space is, he'd still need to hydrate, on account of all the running that happens. I'm no football expert, but I'm lead to believe that does happen during matches.
I think your attitude, which is all too common, is that we should do things according to the "footballing nations" without any other consideration for the rest of the world. North America is part of the world.
The US itself is far and away the world's biggest sporting nation, and many there see football's informality and cynicism as antiquated and, honestly, embarrassing. The world outside of the US wants to protect "their" game, though it's not theirs to begin with, ignoring the existing, systematic issues with it, even making contrived arguments about the word "soccer" itself.
FIFA's shenanigans off-the-field were a problem, but they're not unique to the World Cup nor its location. I'd argue the last Copa America and Cup of Nations had worse issues with officiating/corruption.
The Iranian team’s treatment is a prime example. The Somalian ref being denied entrance is another. And the Balogun red card is a double example (it shouldn’t have been a red card in the first place, but the precedent that the President of the host country can get a call overturned is even worse).
I am the last person to defend FIFA - I love the UEFA's stance here - but only Balogun's suspension can be pinned on FIFA. Those other things are down to USA politics. Bad, for sure, not really down to FIFA.
Other than those awful hydration breaks, they didn't ruin it much. I didn't love the extended half time in the final, but I was only hate watching Argentina anyway so didn't care much. Better to have the standard interval but not egregious to extend in the final. Overall it was a good tournament, a proper "feast of football" as we used to say. Some fine-tuning to do with the VAR but even then there weren't as many egregiously unfair calls as in years past. (Croatia's disallowed goal being a memorable example because it was so rare.) Many, many good games and some memorable moments - Cape Verde!
besides a significantly more common 4-3-3, I can't think of anything I particularly found entertaining - the waterworks, the extra VARs, the super special offside line. That's no feast. (and I can continue)
First, it was a new formula of the tournament with more teams which explains the headlines about a someone setting a new record every 2 days.
Second, the hydration (ads!) breaks were clearly used to tweak some tactics, player positionning, etc, making it another half-time. It's a strategic opportunity. Why not introduce a 2 min drill, then ? - yuck- That's not football.
Third, I won't talk about that specific red card or that penalty kick, but the fact that players and staff complained so much about the refereeing issues hurts the trust we can have into the game as a whole.
The 27 min half time was only in the final. Every world cup introduces changes that will stick or not (e.g golden goal rule). Hydration breaks probably won’t stay.
I’ve followed the sport all my life and referee complains I would say less than usual.
I like having more teams. Might even extend to 64 next time.
These are difference of opinion. Nothing singles out this world cup as a “shit show” as the OP. It was a great experience to me and pretty much anyone I encountered in the stadiums.
- The number of teams expanding weakened the group stage to a point of being ignorable
- The extraordinary pricing of the tickets
- "Hydration breaks" to cater for TV advertising
- The US red card being rescinded after a phone call from an interested party
- Argentina's free pass throughout
FIFA has been corrupt since the days of João Havelange, although his stance was broadly to bring football to more countries and just needed a way to finance that (enter stage left, Coca-Cola, and stage right, Adidas and ISL), but it started getting really wild after him.
It's gone unchecked. There was talk of the English FA pulling out of UEFA and FIFA some years ago, as there was a perception the soul of the game had been tarnished by both orgs.
This is a good first step, and I hope FIFA gets itself sorted. I hope UEFA also gets its house in order.
Ticket prices for all events anywhere will not come back down unless we make international travel harder. There were Taylor Swift fans who flew to every concert of one of her tours. When I attended the Hungaroring Grand Prix every single person seemed to be visiting from outside Hungary. Hosting in the wealthiest country of size of course made this worse but I predict ticket prices for popular events will only keep going up and up.
This bit was kind of baffling to me. Like, the US has a bunch of large stadiums. Presumably they sometimes get used for stuff. How is it not a constant disaster?
There’s a medium sized (50k capacity) stadium near me, and even _with_ a train station with a train each way every ten minutes right beside it, and within easy walking distance of about five high capacity bus routes, it’s always a bit of a shitshow when a big event finishes. I’ve no idea how it could work _at all_ if you’re just depending on buses and cars, which a bunch of the US stadiums seemed to be.
I believe a big issue was that significant amounts of parking were closed at each of the host stadiums for "security reasons", fan watch areas, etc. When they did some overhead shots of the stadiums, you could see tons of empty parking lot space.
For local NFL games in a bigger stadium that, most people attending do drive, but do not park at the stadium, rather nearby, then walk the rest of the way. This spreads out the traffic over a much larger set of roads.
Yes. I was there at the france-spain match. Flew in in the morning was directed to the shuttles by super nice volunteers. Reasonable lines that were mostly in the shade and they were handling free water bottles.
I can't agree with that. Host countries share their culture through the World Cup. South Africa had vuvuzelas, Qatar put a bisht on the winning captain's shoulders, and the USA had a half-time show.
"Players are entitled to an interval at half-time, not exceeding 15 minutes; a short drinks break (which should not exceed one minute) is permitted at the interval of half-time in extra time. Competition rules must state the duration of the half-time interval and it may be altered only with the referee’s permission."
My interpretation is it is 15 minutes unless the referee allows something else.
I'm almost too afraid to ask but what the hell...what makes a good half-time show?
I ask in earnest. I'm not American. I know there's a huuugggee buzz on who gets to do the Superbowl half-time show. But they all look the same to me: overly-polished extravagant pop performances. That can be an insult or a compliment depending on your mood but I say that as a fact. That description applies to the WC half-time show too so I don't see what makes it bad. Maybe you can accuse it of being even more over-the-top and garishly extravagant but does that make it bad?
Bad Bunny's half-time show seems to be generally considered good. Well, he's a good performer definitely and performed his show well. But what makes that different from the universally-panned WC one?
For the record, Bad Bunny isn't even in my daily playlist. I do have Coldplay but Chris Martin was so peripheral to the WC spectacle I didn't even notice him during the live broadcast.
It feels to me there's something else merited here other than just the performance itself. Bad Bunny, given his background and off-stage activism, was largely seen as a political statement. The WC show just seems too foreign for the core non-Northern American market.
I watched the WC final in a noisy bar. During the halftime the bar had its own entertainment while a muted Justin Bieber playing his guitar emoted on the big screen. I've since watched it in Youtube and I still don't get the universal disdain for it. Maybe they should've called in a bunch of Eurovision performers?
The football itself wasn't bad, it was all the other stuff - prices, unfair treatment for Iran, hydration breaks, the whole Balogun thing, the pre-game and half-time shows at the final, Trump photo-bombing the Spanish celebration, etc. Every WC has its own problems and some of these things will be forgotten about soon, but it definitely seemed more ruthlessly commercialised than ever before.
Maybe the way that Infantino nakedly advanced political favors for Trump (the f×××ing peace prize, Folarin f×××ing Balogun) and now wants a fat slice of payback?
I'm sorry, but this is an incredibly silly comment. The "shit show" was systemic at the strategic level. Of course, people who went to see a game had a good time, the "shit show" is at the competition level.
- 48 teams is too much. 32 is a great sweet spot. 48 is ridiculous, it genuinely felt like too many games.
- The completely inconsistent application of VAR was scandalous. I've always been a huge opponent of VAR in soccer, and I really feel vindicated. It felt like it was only used for very pointed decisions. Either you use VAR to make no mistakes at all, or you don't use it.
- The "h2o breaks" were stupid as f. They were clearly only implemented to fit in more commercial breaks.
- as usual, getting the tickets is always a nightmare, but it's been like that for 20+ years
There was some good football, I'm not even bothered by the pre/mid-game shows. There were a lot of good things, but honestly it did feel like it was in spite of everything that was done to make it unbearable.
How and when VAR should be applied is an ongoing contentious discussion not exclusive to the World Cup.
I actually loved the 48 teams. It will probably expand to 64 next cup. More people tune in, nice surprises, upsets, cinderella stories.
Access and price of tickets has been a problem for a long time and getting worse for every live event. Not exclusive to the World Cup.
There are obviously things to improve but the game and experience for people watching and attending was pretty amazing. Leaving in the US I ve had fantastic interactions with strangers everywhere for weeks.
If that’s what a “shit show” is I’m looking forward to more ha ha
I say let the coaches have the right to initiate a VAR review. They inform an official they want a certain moment/decision/action reviewed. As long as the review gets resolved in their favor, they can keep invoking VAR. This would disincentivize review spamming, disrupting play. If there are too many VAR calls in a game, you can squarely blame the ref.
Coaches get in the face of the officials already anyway. This just gives the action a chance at being productive rather than an opportunity to get a red card.
Yes, this is based on the derided review system of Olympic Taekwondo. It's horrible in a fight sport but football is a ball game; somebody tell Paredes and Paraguay please.
And corporate UX/Design teams are eager to modernize those cards; yes they're already flat, but canary yellow is so last century and some glass effects or abolishing the rounded corners will be the next thing.
In the local minor league hockey games near me the power play (the man advantage resulting from a penalty) is usually sponsored by an electric company. The announcers say things like "..and with that cross-check they're on a TXU Energy Power Play!"
“Looks like this is a card. He already has a yellow (sponsored by Qatar Airwaves), and may be looking at his second. YES! he is receiving is second yellow, this time sponsored by Universal Studio, and here is the red card. Sponsored by Red Bull. He is leaving this game and his team mates one down.”
Second commentator: “It is true, Red Bull gives you wings. In this case, the wings only take you to the shower room.”
I follow a local team and don’t really follow the larger picture, but injuries are sponsored, i always thought that would produce a perverse incentive.
EDIT: not sure why i’m getting downvoted, they post up the injured player on the screens with a private medical company prominently displayed.
So, how many countries will be left to participate in these competitions if FIFA doesn't change course? What about if even more national associations from non-European countries get involved?
Because in the 2026 world cup, every single team except Argentina in the quarter-finals onwards was a member of UEFA. And even in the earlier rounds, it was probably like 50 or so percent of them...
If neither side backs down before 2030, you may as well just call off the next World Cup. Especially given that two out of three hosts would also not be participating...
I think the mandatory ad break introduced by FIFA at the World Cup was also too much for most football people, not just fans. Changed too much, broke the dynamics, basically the sport became a game of 4 quarters instead of 2 halves. These two things combined together are just over the top and unacceptable (UEFA already said they won't use these mandatory ad breaks anywhere)
This is the closest where I can see a future where we have a rugby union / rugby league like schism.
Of all the things wrong with the World Cup, the most inconsequential ones - hydration breaks and the final half-time show - have attracted the most griping.
Changing the pauses of the game alters the momentum and, as consequence, the results. How is that “inconsequential”? There have been cases of corrupted referees before, but violating the Laws of the Game in plain sight is an unprecedented attack on the sport.
I can agree that it definitely makes it a different game/playstyle but I'm still not sure if it's guaranteed worse. Putting ads during the break is obviously bad and a cash grab but from a gameplay perspective, it's not clear that a short break during the half is necessarily worse.
I think hydration breaks can be defensible as long as they are a) conditionally triggered by pre-existing criteria that is b) created by an honest assessment of player welfare independent of economic considerations.
I can't say I think the halftime show is a big deal at all though.
Every rule in sports is arbitrary, that's not an argument. If you want to do it properly, ask about the spirit of the game, not the laws - and there's clearly a conflict there.
Disrupting the pace of the game twice as many times, oftenly during critical moments is inconsequential to you? You don't sound like quite a sports person.
By this reasoning, are regular football fans really "sports people?" They tolerate wildly inconsistent officiating and diving (and other forms of unsportsmanlike conduct) that occur at every level of the game. Disrupting the pace would be the least of my worries.
I don't mean to be disrespectful but this is a dumb statement. Do you think splitting each half in 2 quarters doesn't have an impact on how the game is played?
Everything has an impact on how the game is played. For example Mexico played their games at 6000 feet above sea level, giving them a big advantage. Even the ball moves differently in thinner air.
At least with hydration breaks, everyone got them and they were the same for everyone. I know sports fans don't like change. If everything else about this WC was perfect I'd say "Fine, go ahead, complain". But this is the tiniest, most meaningless thing to moan about nearly 3 weeks after the tournament is done.
the mandatory ad breaks were usa-level bullshit that never happened before, not even when they were playing in the fucking desert (and that world cup should have been boycotted too, but for different reasons.)
a few years ago when the momentum was moving towards tennis, some european clubs proposed a "super league" comprising of only the elite teams, the purpose was again to maximize ad profits (and i should go back to check who actually proposed it, who they were affiliated with). That time they were suggested not to proceed, or else they would be boycotted from all other events, the players too. That was also a good decision.
football (not handegg) it already corrupt enough as it is, and too much money is flowing into it, it's incredible and heart warming that there is still some dignity left in the associations.
Why would non-fans even care? It was a 3 minute break, non-fans would not have any idea that you were going for 2 halves to 4 "quarters". I think this is the kind of thing purists care about but most people don't, most don't even know it is new.
I'm most certainly not a football fan, but I definitely know that a match consists of two 45 minute (and then some) halves. It's pretty much equivalent to a non motor enthusiast knowing that there are usually four wheels on a car.
I'd say this is very, very common knowledge in huge parts of the world. It's not something only enthusiasts and purists know.
Sure, but they aren't leaving the field. There are plenty of stoppages in game already which take as much time. In that sense it's nothing new. Do non-fans view it as changing to 4 "quarters"? I'm not sure most people would care. This is what I mean it's the kind of thing that football purists care about but it's a very small thing.
The breaks change the game more than you’d think, especially when the coach gets to have a strategy session with the whole team. Completely changed the momentum in several games.
I don't know... I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you're from a country where football isn't very popular. I don't think you realize just how many fans there are. How utterly ingrained it is in the culture of many countries. "non-fans" make up a minuscule minority of the population of at least Europe, and as far as I understand it South America and parts of Africa too. Not sure about Asia (varies wildly between countries, I suppose), but according to [0] it's estimated that about 3.5 billion people are considered football fans.
This is certainly something many people I know have cared a lot about - and again, I'm not a football enthusiast myself, but still the vast majority of the people I know are, because, not being one really is an outlier.
> There are plenty of stoppages in game already which take as much time.
Well. Not really. And those "stoppages" are part of the game. Actually watching the players quarrel with the referee and whatnot is something football fans want to do. It's not comparable.
> non-fans would not have any idea that you were going for 2 halves to 4 "quarters"
… By non-fans do you mean people who have literally never heard of football, or something? I’m very far from a fan, no interest at all. But, I mean, I know there are two halves. Everybody knows that.
There still are 2 halves. Framing it as quarters is the entire thing. There are numerous things throughout a game which will cause the game to be paused just as long, which is why there is stoppage time.
except during that time players aren’t huddling around the manager and the rest of the coaching staff. all of whom have their ipads out to discuss stats breakdowns and instruct players on changing tactics and strategies.
that’s what effectively made the hydration breaks turn it into a game of four quarters. lost count of the number of times teams completely changed their strategy after the breaks and went on to score goals etc.
you make the players drink the water from the centre of the field with no coaching staff present then it would have less of an impact. but there’s still an impact as all players can huddle together and discuss things together in a way they normally wouldn’t be able to without a severe stoppage ie a delay going on 5-10+ minutes, which is usually rare.
Europe is full of people who are not fans, but will still hear all about the games when their country plays, because it's basically impossible to avoid. Chat groups, work banter, waiting rooms, everybody will be talking about it ALL THE TIME. There is a base level of knowledge for the sport everybody shares. Maybe it's the same with American Football in the US? As a European, I still have no idea what that is even remotely about.
A game having two main uninterrupted halves is one of those foundational facts. Players train for being able to play for that long without getting too thirsty to continue.
In almost every part of the world, all people know some basic things about football (and I do mean the one where you kick a ball with the foot), like it has two halves of 45 minutes.
The original post mentioned people that weren't fans, though. Who are we talking about that are "football people" but not fans. I'm not trying to be dense, I just don't know which audience this is.
USA is the exception here. In most countries, even people who are not football fans are pretty aware of how it works.
I don't often watch football outside the world cup. I don't support any teams. But I know how football is meant to be played, and I was definitely annoyed about the hydration breaks.
Does USA have people that don't follow american football but will watch the Superbowl? Would those people notice if there were three times as many breaks as usual?
> Does USA have people that don't follow american football but will watch the Superbowl? Would those people notice if there were three times as many breaks as usual?
Well...many if not most of the people who don't follow NFL and watch the Super Bowl are watching it for the half time show and ads, so more breaks would make them happy, heh.
Look, most people around the world are not full time fans and only tune to the national final in their country or the world cup. But in any country where soccer is popular, the basic rules are something everyone knows from kindergarten.
It's the same way that Americans know what pitchers, catchers, and batters are in baseball even if they've never picked up a bat or a glove and only go to baseball games to eat hot dogs and get drunk on overpriced beer. Soccer has two halves like baseball has nine innings,a nd the vast majority of people do not want to mess with that.
A secondary reason that they don't want to mess with it is the perception that these hydration breaks are not organic (because it's always been acceptable for players to grab a drink fo water and there are ample opportunities to do so during a regular game), but that the breaks were imposed on the game to facilitate ad breaks in American TV broadcasts. Much of the world is tired of doing things differently just because the Americans want it.
It's still two halves there is just another short stoppage time in which players stay on the field, the same as every foul, goal, and variety of other timing based decisions in football.
Why don't you just say: I know nothing about football ( and I dont care much), please enlighten me?
- Football is not a game of easy scoring, often you have to build momentum, by relentlessly putting pressure on the other team. It's more important than in other sports, because in football a weaker team can easily earn a draw against a stronger team if the later fails to do just that.
Your attacks ( and defense efforts) must compound. It's almost like building a narrative inside the head of the players and inside the head of the spectators before a goal gives everyone a release one way or the other.
Moreso than in other sports where you have a lot of scoring happening. Football is closer to watching an epic drama.
Now it's true that dynamics can change on a dime. But you often have to earn that change ( like by having a skilled player who attracts fouls ).
Having regular breaks makes it almost like watching another sport.
- In most of Europe and South America even people who don't watch regular league games have an intuitive expectation of how a game should be played. And they care.
Especially when it comes to national teams because it's often a big part of the national lore. ( It's like the offside rule. Even people who despise the game end up being experts )
I wouldn’t know, I haven’t watched a single football match since 2018. As for short stoppage time, football use to have much less than, say, rugby. Was it different this year?
I think motorsports is going to fade away over time. Especially in car racing the technology got so advanced, that it's starting to get more and more boring.
If/When self driving cars become widely available, it might start to feel absurd and artificial.
I used to watch most F1 races as a kid. But it just doesn't feel interesting anymore.
I secretly hope that Infantino goes ahead with it anyway. UEFA and others will form something new. Something that replaces the incredibly broken and corrupted FIFA with a de-facto and de-jure non-profit governing body.
Then you would have two corrupt organizing bodies.
Something similar happened with FIDE (chess) in the Kasparov years. I believe FIDE is still headquartered in a dodgy dictatorship in Central-asia-stan.
And I've lost count how many global boxing organizations there are, seemingly in competition with each other to minimize sporting legitimacy and financial transparency.
I want to know what kind of outcomes were put forward in front of him, because otherwise he looks like the biggest fool of the decade (a rich one at that).
Wow!
Goes off to have Claude look at the FIFA governance charter. This guy is so done!
The same UEFA that added redundant matches and teams to the Champions League for money, and that came up with the Nations League because they wanted to extract more money from the national teams?
The Super League was decidedly not UEFA's - UEFA even announced sanctions against the organisers (though I think those were repealed by a court), because it was going to compete with UEFA's leagues.
I don't follow any sport, but I actually don't understand why UEFA and FIFA are non-profits when all the American leagues (MLB, NBA, NFL) are for-profit corporations. It seems to work well in America.
Does it? Who does it work out well for? Franchises continuously extort tax-payer funds for stadia,some team switches host cities every few years, and the for-profit corporations are legal cartels that decides who gets to own a team. The number of ad-breaks is horrendous to anyone who's watched sports elsewhere.
"Use tax money to build us a new stadium, or we will relocate to Vegas. Do you want to be known by the voters as the governor who gave up our beloved sportsball team? No? Then better pay up."
Because they were designed to be decentralised federations, atop the footballing body in each country. More generally, the US is the most capitalist country, whereas the rest of the world does automatically see capitalism as justified, superior or inevitable.
Lastly, football is a grassroots participation sport that is seen by its fans as more of a religion than a conventional act of entertainment. Of course, religion in the US is also often for-profit, but hopefully you get the point.
MLB & NFL only changed to for-profit organisations somewhat recently (2007, 2015). afaict NBA has always been for-profit.
Internationally the standard is non-profits. Most sports have both their international organisations and highest standard of play organisations as non-profits - football, tennis, golf, cricket. The international components of baseball, american football, and basketball are all non-profits (though they are lower standards of play than the US internal leagues).
Good calls. Honestly, the last World Cup already had way too many unwatchable matches before the quarterfinals. And the hydration pauses to sell more ads. And that halftime show during the final.
International companies and institutions parking their money in Switzerland genuinely have as much to do with Europe as Russian Oligarchs in London have with the United Kingdom. The country's always been a financial haven for oligarchs, it doesn't tell you much about the rest of the continent.
Infantino who seems to oscillate between Qatar and Switzerland I assume has a rather strenuous connection to the rest of Europe
When I first came here 15 years ago it was always more about "Bay Area Startup News" than Hacker News, it has definitely always had a heavy capitalist slant. I'd go as far as to say it has more anti-capitalist sentiment now than it ever has had before.
Football/soccer is one place where Europe can easily flex their muscles against American capitalism and corruption. Good on them for saying it loud and clear.
I'm not convinced. There's plenty of large clubs in Europe owned by foreign capital and those clubs have already tried to push a pan-European league for themselves. I can see the FIFA using those teams as leverage to gain a foothold in Europe without UEFA.
* e.g. Manchester City, Liverpool, Chelsea, Paris SG, AC Milan and Inter Milan -- in Spain, individual clubs can't be owned by private equity but the La Liga corporation is)
Greed is ruining football. Granted, this happened before that
already, we also saw this in olympics in general - but FIFA
now pushed this onto a new level. This is trying to leech off
of people now. After all, without people there would be no FIFA.
They are leeching here.
Yes, but isn't football already overly commercialised? Why is advertising for sports betting or alcohol any better than the FIFA issue? UEFA should take a look at itself, too.
FIFA made ludicrous amounts of money as a non profit running the last World Cup and want to transition to a for profit corporation to make even more.
UEFA representing the European nations with the most competitive teams and many of the biggest stars, just told them good luck running a World Cup without us.
UEFA's reach affects the remaining 3/10 and beyond. Nearly the same fraction of world cup players (68%) earn their livelihoods playing for European league teams- including many players representing non-European countries at the World Cup.
Right, IIRC they basically banned everybody in Trinidad from FIFA and relocated the HQ.
It didn't help that Chuck Blazer just looked like a pedophile. Not sure if it's a coincidence that he lived in Trump tower. He had two apartments there, one for his cats.
The FA's worldwide don't need FIFA, they can set up a new world tournament. You will get a lot of poor nations who stick with FIFA for the cash but at the end of the day without European teams the world cup and FIFA will have minimal value. 5 of the last 6 world cup winners were european and it will only get more biased towards Europe. Argentina post Messi have no chance, and Brazil are the furthest away from winning than they ever have been.
Spain have a far more youthful side, who can easily win again. France will come back, as will England. Argentina have few players coming through and many stars will have retired by the next tournament, even youthful Alvarez will be 30 next time out.
FAs coming together and creating a new FIFA will just mean you get another organization that is exactly as corruption-ridden as FIFA. There's no point starting fresh if you don't fix the underlying problem.
like so many corrupt organizations lately, FIFA has been getting away with it for a long time and they overplayed their hand. this was a long time coming and i'm really glad to see it.
I find the UEFA standpoint a little disingenuous since commercial interests have been a top priority in football (soccer) for decades. Claiming that allowing investors to participate will hurt the sport are at the very least a misrepresentation of the current situation.
Although I disagree with his methods and goals I enjoy watching the way Infantino uses power play to stack the cards in his favor.
The only way for the UEFA to reclaim authority would be to demand two-thirds voting rights. The model of "one country, one vote" clearly works to UEFA's disadvantage even though its clubs contribute the majority of FIFA's income.
The super league wasn't UEFA's doing at all. The top clubs themselves tried to break away and self-organize, and they ultimately won some concessions from UEFA (new CL format, more CL money to the big teams)
FIFA is just upholding western values. Profit, exploitation and money over everything else. They with FIA and likes are just showing the world what truly matters for western world.
According to aljazeera's article, "the core investor would be a New York venture capital investment firm created by Joshua Kushner, the brother of US President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner."
Why is this out of the gate bad? Note that this is not taking FIFA to private equity, but creating an investors owned subsidiary to run events and commercial operations where the non profit arm will still own 80% of it. With the right protections it could help FIFA make more money and reinvest in the sport, particularly women’s football. FIFA currently makes 40% of what the NHL makes, not the NFL, not NBA. Soccer is by far the most popular sport on the planet, the fact that it makes a lot less money than hockey is insane.
Why is it bad to sell 20% of the biggest tournament in the world to a private company lead by people involved with the most corrupt administration in the history of the US? The model has been working fine for decades, why does it matter that it makes less than american sports?
Ha! Model has been working for American s.. more and more we are seeing signs of a falling empire. Not reading the room - I mean global - temperature is nothing new to the US foreign policy office. They’ve done it for decades, but these days the confidence in leadership has fully eroded trust. Before there may have been closed door jokes made US leaderships expense, now it’s out and in public.
Market Strategists are going to study this one. It’s a potential inflection point. Cant think of any other event or entity as globally galvanizing that football.
The most beloved, most watched sport in the world making less than the American/Canadian hockey league is a commercial failure. Non profits are generally inefficient at running businesses. With the right guardrails a private arm that knows how to run a business could help FIFA make a ton of money. And yes a lot of rich guys will become even richer too, so what?
But FIFA is the governing body of a sport, not a business.
Hearing you say this is like hearing someone say that the United Nations is a commercial failure.
Its purpose is to regulate and administer international football on behalf of its member associations, enforce compliance with its regulations, organise international competitions to relieve the member associations of the hassle, administer anti-doping programmes and related integrity measures (lol), and, through its membership of IFAB, help determine and promote the consistent application of the Laws of the Game worldwide. Its revenues only exist to support those functions.
Is there a need for it to have profit motive? Would the world be better if it decided it should have one? I don't see how the answer could be yes to either question.
The mention of guardrails is a little Onion-esque given the organisation and people in question
The UN is a poor analogy. The UN does not operate a large commercial business like FIFA which exploits the World Cup, Libertadores and other events. The only strong similarity they have is their non profit status. You should have used the IOC as analogy.
FIFA controls the largest event, so it should be the driving force for revenue but it’s not. But even if you add UEFA the whole thing still less profitable than an American professional and barely surpasses hockey. By the way, UEFA crying about this while they are the owners, regulators and revenue distributors is pretty crazy. It seems to me they are more concerned about not being able to hop on the FIFA deal themselves.
Do you not understand that FIFA and UEFA are a small component of the actual revenue of football? They are not all of football. This is not complicated.
> The most beloved, most watched sport in the world making less than the American/Canadian hockey league is a commercial failure.
Fortunately the English top division alone makes a similar amount to NHL (from a quarter of the matches) and the English second tier makes a similar amount to the Super Bowl[1], which is why football's governing body doesn't particularly need lessons on how to commercialize stuff from people in the United States who probably also don't understand football's financial centre of gravity, but will happily buy commercialization rights for a quadrennial tournament if sold to them in a backroom deal at a sufficiently low price...
[1]yes, I know the Super Bowl is only the one game. But if you can compare a 1400 game annual league to a 104 game quadrennial tournament, then I can compare an entire season to a single big game :D)...
You are comparing apple and oranges, it makes no sense.
> Soccer is by far the most popular sport on the planet, the fact that it makes a lot less money than hockey is insane.
Soccer makes much much more money than the NHL, it just doesn't all go to FIFA because the vast majority of matches are not organized by FIFA.
The premier league alone makes more than the NHL and that's just one of the european countries. La ligua, bundesliga also each make close to what the NHL makes with much smaller populations.
The fair comparison to FIFA is the IIHF. They make $35M for the hockey world championships vs 15B for the football world cup, you are slightly off, a rounding error.
> FIFA currently makes 40% of what the NHL makes, not the NFL, not NBA.
FIFA holds one significant money-making tournament for a month every 4 years (all due respect to the Women's World Cup in terms of prestige, but its revenue is a small fraction of the Men's World Cup). The NHL runs 6 months a year annually.
Closer to 10 months actually - Oct (Sept if you include the pre-season) through June.
But just to add on for comparison, the NHL has 1312 regular season games. Plus 4 rounds of best-of-7 playoff series with 16 teams making the playoffs. Let's say an average of 5.75 games per round, that's 86 playoff games bringing us to ~1400 games per year.
Over 4 years, that's 5600 games. The FIFA World Cup had 104 games this year. It's actually pretty impressive that the WC can even make 40% while hosting < 2% of the games that the NHL has. Or put another way, 1 WC game is equivalent to 54 NHL games - 2/3 of one team's full regular season.
That’s part of their poor commercial vision. Even the World Cup brings less revenue than one season of the NBA. Doesn’t even make sense to compare it with the NFL.
Again, it doesn't last as long as one season of the NBA or play as many games.
A single NBA season has over 1200 games - over 12 times as many games as the most recent World Cup (104). And that was already the largest-ever WC. Does the NBA have 12x the revenue of the WC?
> Even the World Cup brings less revenue than one season of the NBA
This isn't even true btw. The 2026 WC made $15b and the 2025-26 NBA season made $14.3 billion. [1][2]
Most of the WC's participating teams represent places poorer than the places NBA teams hail from.
You can't run the World Cup like the NBA. That's not how the sport works.
The Qatar World Cup tournament was obviously such a thing. The place had the money to build all the stadiums, but has never qualified legitimately and is a tiny country. Thousands of people died building those stadiums in Qatar.
Plus there is advertising all over the players' clothing, the pitch, the pitchside hoardings etc. There is high rent advertising in every break. Even more so since theze silly hydration breaks.
don't be naive. Never in the history of humanity did corrupt billionaire pedophiles do anything help the sport/fans/women/..... They want a piece to get the foot in the door. 10 years from now, we wont even recognise football anymore.
I don't care what american billionaires make with nhl/nfl/..., hands fucking off of football.
Association football is more marketable than certain North American sports. For a start, the jerseys are covered in sponsors, even the shorts, socks and shoes. American football and basketball, for whatever reason, haven't done that yet.
It looks like this world cup may have introduced shirt sponsorship to US and Canadian sports. Soon their shirts will resemble Formula One drivers'. In return, association football will keep hydration breaks etc.
Cue UEFA's leadership being replaced in the next year or two. FIFA has had a taste of the amount of money involved in professional sports. There's no going back.
50 of the 55 member UEFA states took the floor to express their outrage at FIFA, this is not a matter of UEFA leadership being out of touch. The vast majority of the confederation is ready to walk.
I understand that this is a principled stand by UEFA, no doubt about it. But the amount of money in the offering is too large for the clubs (and their superstars) to snub their noses at it. When it comes down to money, principles are the first to be bought and sold.
I don't think you do understand, because the nation associations involved (not clubs) have resoundingly rejected this plan. First UEFA has announced their complete boycott, now CONCACAF has rejected it. This is DOA and Infantino just gave the delegation a huge reason to run a candidate against him in the upcoming elections.
FIFA has been spectacularly corrupt since at least thd 1970s, and UEFA is not far behind.
When Blatter was kicked out of FIFA for corruption, the USA provided a legal venue for the investigation. Between Infantino and Trump you would think that is off the table.
Infantino clearly wants to see FIFA making billions so he and many others can pocket millions legally. But the only way for this to happen in a non-corrupt way, given that FIFA is non-profit and therefore requires a lot of questionable operations, is to turn FIFA into a business like NFL / MLS.
The problem with that is that it then it is no longer a sport, rather a... business.
UEFA letter is spot on.
CONCACAF join UEFA and reject FIFA's World Cup sell-off plan. https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/49488584/uefa-boycott... . By the end of this Gianni Infantino will only be left with the Africans .I am African and these Federations will do anything to keep him around because of the unprecedented amounts of corruption...
My own frustration isn't corruption per se, a state cannot exist without it - at least not for long, but how cheap African corruption is in general. Others may require considerable resources and billions perhaps. Not here. Just a few Land Rover discoverys for key officials and a scholarship for their kids in Europe is all that is required to sell a whole state. To say nothing of a sporting organization.
CONCACAF statement: https://www.concacaf.com/competitions/concacaf/news/statemen...
I actually think the CONCACAF statement shows that they could be on board… they’re just mad they weren’t consulted. Give them the cut they want and they might change their tune.
By comparison UEFA sounds a lot stronger.
This statement is weak and wishy-washy compared to the blunt UEFA statement. Kudos to Europe. Here’s hoping CONCACAF can get brave enough to take the moral stance as well.
However, all all-Africa World Cup won't find too many takers.
AFCON is already a thing and while it is decently popular it’s no where near the world cup or the euros. Part of that is that it takes place during the domestic club competitions though.
African teams are definitely up and coming. South Africa was surprisingly poor in the tournament but there were some decent performances by African teams, notably Morocco. Cape Verde also punched (or kicked?) way above their weight.
While the football business is horrible it's nice that this may fail like the Super League.
Now if only that could put a dent in Infantino reelection...
I am not sure a replacement for Infantino is enough. It seems like FIFA has a culture of corruption and Infantino is merely the latest manifestation of said culture. Some serious reform and restructuring seem needed.
Here’s a solution: bar FIFA from selling viewing rights to their competitions and allow any station or channel to stream for free. That would grow the global game.
Take away the money and FIFA doesn’t have much to bargain with. They need to remember they are a purely administrative organization.
Fifa is a reflection of the world. All members (nations) get a vote. Most countries are corrupt. Thank go there is still a bastion of democracy/fairness left in Uefa.
Still there are plenty of world wide organizations that are less corrupt than fifa.
I'm actually not even sure I can think of an organisation more corrupt. Maybe the IOC is up there?
The world is a reflection of the laws of physics. When complex self propagating systems coexist in an environment with limited material competition arises, and corruption is simply one inevitable result of that.
I am all in favor of a global revolution to overthrow capitalism with a solidarity of workers of the world. But I think we can have a non-corrupt FIFA without one.
> It seems like FIFA has a culture of corruption
I think any large multi-national organisation that deals with handing out events that generate vast sums of money inevitably succumbs to the rot.
See also: the IOC.
FIA has entered the room
The Super League was a wonderful idea! Imagine watching the best teams in Europe playing each other multiple nights a week for months on end! Instead you’d rather watch 1 or 2 teams spend 10x more than anyone else and dominate the league every season. How is that fun or exciting? Would you rather watch a Bayern v Bremen match or a Bayern v Chelsea match? Or PSG, is it fun watching them not even bother playing their best guys in games against Lyon?
It makes no sense to me that people favored the (much) worse product because “tradition”.
Easy: it was going to be a (mostly) closed competition.
Competition gets boring real fast when it is always the same handful of teams. When there are no real consequences to losing, winning becomes meaningless.
Bayern v Chelsea matches stop being as interesting when every game is a Bayern v Chelsea match and most of them have no real impact either way. On the other hand, football becomes most interesting when it's a Bayern v Bremen and Bremen wins. People love an underdog after all, and nothing is more exciting than seeing an elite team take the game for granted and being punished for it.
The Super League is only a more interesting product from the "big name play ball" perspective. It is great when you want to make a fortune in tv rights and licensing, but it sucks for everyone who cares about football as a sport.
> unprecedented amounts of corruption...
Yes I hear about that a lot. Yuk
But I also hear that FIFA puts a lot of resources into developing the game in African countries.
I am asking: Is that true in your experience?
And strangely a very high percentage of those resources get converted into mansions and yachts
Nobody specified what game.
Both can be - and seem to be - true.
Who told you that? FIFA?
It's already an entity that makes billions that's run as a business even though it's nominally one of the few parts of the sport that isn't for profit, and it's not like they really need private equity to help them put ticket prices up, as the last World Cup showed.
Regardless of rhetoric about "not to be sold", the bigger issue is that this looks like a very bad financial arrangement for a sport that is awash with funds already so doesn't need to sell its future revenues off cheaply or learn how to make money from PE, but probably a good deal for Infantino and chums. Corruption at FIFA is nothing new, but a behind-closed-doors sweetheart deal for a large fraction of their future revenue was really pushing at boundaries ...
And Infantino had become so convinced of his own genius he thought that giving member states a fait accompli, a ticking clock and an indication that most of the money would go to states that voted yes (and a financial deal that would be an attractive bung to the 100 or so FIFA members with no chance of actually qualifying, but shrinks the future revenue stream for everyone else) would actually fly.
Plus UEFA already makes more money than FIFA, could happily organize a rival competition attracting more top teams from the rest of the world and sponsorship money if it came to that, and had a unique opportunity to flex where fans and clubs would be universally behind them...
The experience interacting with FIFA is so terrible already. I can only imagine how much worse it would be if it turned into a profit machine.
Already is a highly corrupted profit machine. I am not against nor in favor of the proposed change. If EUFA is against is because they felt they are not being favored, it is not in favor of the sport.
Agreed, the tickets to the tournament this year were just outrageously priced. Football is historically a working class sport, but $1,000 to watch a team like DR Congo in the group stage is next level criminality. And it's only going to get worse from here.
FIFA looked at this World Cup as an experiment. They wanted to see whether turning the monetization knob all the way to 11 would encounter significant resistance or whether fans would still watch/attend. The US, with its plethora of expensive stadiums and lax regulatory environment for price gouging compared to Europe, was the perfect testing environment. They upped the number of teams to 48 to get more games, used dynamic ticket pricing, added hydration breaks for more commercials in markets that would allow it and added a few other income streams. All this more than doubled their profits because, and this is the important part going forward, fans didn’t push back. They complained, but the still came/watched.
So this will now be the new norm. Host countries will be ones where laws don’t prohibit gouging fans. They’ll come up with creative solutions to meet the rotation requirement like the upcoming host a couple games in South America farce that’s allowing them to go to Saudi Arabia after that. They’ll continue to push the boundaries of decency until they get sufficient pushback.
There was pushback if you look at per-team attendance situations, but there's more than enough people living in the US making a ton of money that can easily afford the crazy prices. It did lower how many people from some big football nations decide to follow their team around. Not just due to the prices, but the travel distances. Just consider the practical logistics for, say, Spain's run. 2 games in Atlanta (Cabo verde and Saudi Arabia), then go play Uruguay in Guadalajara, then Austria in SoFi/L.A, then Portugal in the Dallas metro, back to SoFi for Belgium, again to Arlington for France, and New Jersey for Argentina: That's a lot of travel and hotel changing, because there's no reasonable way to go to a game and come back in the same day.
For all the problems in Qatar's world cup, a fan could watch two games a day, live,because the stadiums were that close. The 2026 bid maximized distances about as much as one could, vs, say, at least limit it all to the west coast, which would still be a lot by normal standards, bout would mean fewer huge metros where you could dip your toe in and ask for a ton of money, as there'd be very few games there.
And again, we are talking a team that won, and was among the favorites to win from day 1, just not being able to fill 1/3rd of the stadium, or anything close.
Like for live music tickets prices it's hard to collectively do the right thing and boycott. There's just too many people.
But there's always a breaking point... hopefully.
There is no right and wrong here. Watching a bunch of guys kick a ball around is a completely optional activity. The stadium can accommodate x people, and x+n people want to watch the game.
Therefore, someone has to be left out. That can be decided multiple ways, but there is no philosophical reason that money being the deciding factor is wrong. We use that mechanism for almost everything else in the world. It's the worst system...except for all the others.
If the problem is the size of the wealth gap between people, that's wholly unrelated to sports game tickets, and in the purview of government policy.
You see it in England all the time where organized fan groups do push back and protest ending up with the owners walking back the suggested ticket increases.
I don’t disagree with what you’re saying but I said before any of this mess, and just dealing with the ticket purchasing experience, that this would be the last World Cup I attend.
It’s sad though. The World Cup, while imperfect, remains an event that brings the world together. We don’t have many of those left.
"Football is historically a working class sport"
Not as much as the popular culture makes out. Association football (as opposed to folk football) was codified in English private schools such as Uppingham, and at Cambridge University. Working class people played very different forms of football at the time, including carrying the ball etc. Association football was the more genteel form of the game. It used to be the main sport at Eton College, not rugby.
For Infantino, they reckon his salary can go from 6M to 60M under this new org…
Infantino & Trump are just corrupt. Neck to neck with officials in African governments.
Infantino & Trump's corruption is literally driven by greed. not the good greed - but just bad, power hungry insatiable greed.
Infantino should call Altman
Don’t give them stupid ideas.
Or Madoff, SBF, Weinstein, etc
FIFA is also a terrible employer
Got friends working for them as developers. They ran away. In months
It's wild how bad the experience is working for top level sports teams can be. Many (in the US at least) have an absolute lock on massive profits and value increasing like crazy ... but they operate like the cheapest small business that can't bother the new guy a chair that isn't broken.
Based on the quality of their World Cup ticketing website, I’m not surprised. That was the worst ticketing experience I’ve ever endured.
Are you talking about EA or FIFA?
Yes.
They also got so greedy that even EA couldn't deal with them anymore and they ended up destroying the Fifa videogame franchise
Imagine being more money hungry than EA - a company which makes billions from gaslighting children into gambling money on getting their favourite players.
Seems like this is the era of using NFP to make money through spinoff corporations.
These people looked at OpenAI and went "Hey, I can run corruption like that too!"
true lmao
They just made $15bn.
and part of the proposal is to get Fifa to borrow and take on debt lol it's peak capitalism
Which is clearly not enough.
The point is not how much it made, it is how to transfer that wealth (whether 6B or 60B) out of a non-profit into someone else's account without looking like, or literally being, a criminal.
A nonprofit can be questioned about how it pays people.
A private company answers only to shareholders.
bingo
> and many others
Trump and Kushners
"Joshua Kushner is now the kingpin in driving the sale of the World Cup to investors and family ties are tight around the project"[1]
1. https://www.theguardian.com/football/2026/jul/30/fifas-sale-...
> UEFA
They are no strangers to certain aspects of it. /s
What's new? I thought it has been known as a big-money thing for some time now.
The new thing is trying to take the organization from a non-profit to a corporation. Mainly so the executives can increase their already large compensation apparently.
Interesting parallels to OpenAI.
FIFA made $~15 billion USD this World Cup, roughly double what they made in Qatar in 2022. There are many low-hanging fruit that can be optimized to increase that revenue by 10x.
I didn't realize the commercial-block-sized "hydration breaks" were that profitable.
For a second, I thought the Americanization[1] of fùtbol would be done gradually and no one would complain as we'd be slowly boiled. I'm glad the corrupt bastards got greedy/impatient and took a big swing.
1. Sports primarily as a business, catering to owners first, sponsors second, broadcasters third, and then lastly, fans. IMO non-profit sports organizations are the best model for fans, who I identify the most with.
It is absolutely outrageous that FIFA unilaterally changed the structure of a football match (that’s been the same since the nineteenth century) with no consultation, just so they could show ads
Don’t watch. I watched the last 10 minutes of the tournament and it was enough.
There were 40% more games than the last World Cup, which is a lot of extra broadcast rights and ticket revenues...
Per-ticket prices were a big factor too. By turning it into an open bidding process, every ticket sold at close to its market value, and many above that.
Above? I don't know anything about these particular auctions, but how could any auction arrive at a price above market value?
And they took a 15% commission on both sides of every aftermarket transaction. I’ve never seen such an overtly avaricious “marketplace”.
Off in the distance, an app store rings its 30% bell.
The difference that FIFA ran the whole tournament now. There was no Local Organizing Committee (LOC) like with every single previous event.
> There are many low-hanging fruit that can be optimized to increase that revenue by 10x.
The $15 billion figure is for FIFA's ENTIRE 2023-2026 revenue cycle, so not just this World Cup. But the obvious "low-hanging fruit" was making the tournamenta lot larger (104 matches instead of Qatar's 64), so a lot more tickets, hospitality sales, ads etc
Also two 3 minute hydration breaks per match, giving broadcasters additional advertising windows.
That's your "optimization".
Yeah, I can see them doubling that revenue by being even more extortionate with ticket prices and adding another 16 teams (as already planned to happen) to add more games.
But the only way they 10x is to start running more FIFA competitions, and that's when they encroach on UEFA's cash cows...
FIFA has announced they plan to officially sell off everything to private investors, dropping all pretense of being a steward of a common good.
What's wrong with making billions? Will this hurt the game somehow?
We've seen the start with "hydration breaks" and a 30 minute half-time.
Investors calling to change red cards because the best players should play, etc
Instead of just various penis challenged nation leaders doing so...
Yes.
The game was already hurt this world cup with the flow destroying „hydration breaks“ to sell more ads.
nothing wrong, but did we really need ticket prices to go from 100 to 1000 if they weren't struggling financially?
Yes it will hurt the game. Americans already have the NFL if they want to watch commercials. Leave soccer alone.
> As a result of today’s discussion, no UEFA national teams will participate in any FIFA competition for so long as these proposals remain alive, unless this proposal has been abandoned in its entirety and binding assurances have been given that FIFA will never again open its governance or competitions to private ownership.
This seems to have actual teeth. What's Infantino going to do to save face? No one cares about a world cup without the Europeans.
“Football’s future cannot be dictated by the expectations of those whose first duty is to maximise financial return.” Very well said…replace the word football with internet/technology/web/research/university or so many others and you might understand why this single powerful phrase is so important.
To my knowledge there's a lot of infrastructure NFP that have not sold their assets: the NICs, IETF, FSF/GNU, Debian, WikiMedia (sort of)
First off, fire Infantino on the spot, just the same way they fired Blatter for corruption.
This last world cup was the worse I've ever seen since 1978, almost 50 years, and I've seen the good, the bad and the ugly. We all know billions are moved under the table, but money can never break rules and traditions, specially if they don't benefit fans and players above all
Did anybody ask the players about the hydration break? About increasing teams to 48, now to 64? More games is more possibility of injuries and benched players are no good for the show. So always be careful about wanting more golden eggs, the goose may be exhausted already
While I agree with your view on hydration breaks, I have to disagree that 48 teams was a bad thing. It led to wonderful stories like Cape Verde (and their goalie) who were competitive against Argentina. They wouldn’t even have qualified under the old system. We saw Congo almost beat England (again, a non-qualifier in the old days). Conversely, scoring goals is exciting and Germany’s 7-1 over Curaçao let us see some amazing goals.
More teams means more underdogs, more chances for greatness and more high points. I know it was purely for money, but I think the move to 48 teams really worked.
Cape Verde would have qualified under the 32 team cup as well.
Agreed with both you and parent on the commercial, I mean hydration, breaks. What a disaster.
More teams means only big nations can be the host venue.
Cape Verde would have qualified for the World Cup even if there were 32 teams. Cape Verde topped its group, beating usual world cup teams like Cameroon.
The narrative that Cape Verde is a beneficiary of the 48-team setup is completely and utterly false.
next time fifa will introduce the pee break 10 minutes after the hydration break
Two teams with 1/4 of the world's potential customers did not make the cut for this year's tournament, more's the pity. The tournament will likely be expanded until these two teams can qualify.
Why bother? If it’s not a popular sport there already, the viewership wouldn’t be worth the cost
I don’t know about China, but India has a lot of fans and had pretty good viewership.
Whether a national team qualifies isn’t that strongly correlated to whether the sport is popular. Most of south and Central America are as fanatical as Brazil or Argentina, but they were not in the tournament.
This is so highly unusual even sports-allergic HN wants to discuss it. It's like a religious schism in some sense.
It's about brazen corruption in one of the world's most famous institutions. Taking an interest in it isn't as irrational as all that.
I don’t know whos on Infantinos side on this
There are 200+ participating countries. Many of those are on his side, because they’re tiny and easy to bribe: a few million is significant for them and often that money can be siphoned into corrupt pockets.
That said, a World Cup without any of the 55 UEFA countries wouldn’t make sense commercially.
Past tense. Were on his side. He also just lost a unanimous vote with CONCACAF, the body representing many of the smallest islands least likely to ever qualify for the World Cup or actually generate money from football (and a small number of larger nations that will benefit significantly from his other pledges like more places for CONCACAF natons at the World Cup)
In addition to them all knowing that a World Cup without UEFA isn't going to happen, they also weren't impressed by being presented with a fixed offer and a ticking clock rather than an opening of negotiations....
Its not just tinyness and poorness of the countries – it is also the indifference of many nations. Just because, say Brunei has the same voice as France, it does not mean that the sport, or the national team's performance is important enough for their people to care or even notice if their representatives are selling their nation's voice to the highest bidder.
But the USA men might finally do well!
Depending on whether the South American teams show up…
I like this map:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_cup_winners.svg
Two world wars and one world cup...
I’ve bad news for you: Concacaf has also unanimously spoken against the plan. :-)
(Though AFAIK they haven’t yet threatened a boycott.)
The heads of Football Associations of tiny countries who took enormous bungs to vote for him and then spent the money on some facilities but mostly themselves
Trump and his family.
His son in law is running the investment firm https://apnews.com/article/world-cup-fifa-investors-kushner-...
In turn Trump wants to nominate Infantino for Secretary General of UN https://www.euronews.com/2026/07/22/trumps-pick-for-the-next...
There is nothing this family does not see as an opportunity for corruption. Comically evil.
as an opportunity for profit*
I think it’s important to clarify the incentives at play, people are rarely evil for the sake of being evil
I think the evil part is the [at any cost] part, the incentives are irrelevant. An AI that only wants to make paperclips isn't evil because of the paperclips.
The thing is though, they’re already outrageously rich.
At some point you genuinely are just being dodgy purely for the love of the game
'I don't want to do evil things! But they so well, what choice do I have?!'
And it is so blatant to everyone except the republicans.
Republicans should be called the anti-Democrats at this point.
Kushner
> Sepp Blatter weighed in, writing on X: "The close relationship between the Fifa president and the US President [Donald Trump] has reached a financial dimension that is deeply damaging football. No-one has the right to sell our game."
Sepp Blatter for crying out loud.
Blatter was corrupt to the core but cared about the actual sport if you look at his record. This new president is like a james bond villian caricature like he actually wants to destroy the sport.
Who better to recognize corruption?
That's like John Gotti saying Al Capone was corrupt.
It takes one to know one, yep.
Game recognizes game.
The companies that want a piece of FIFA, I assume.
Edit: I just realized you meant who here on hn, in which case I assume the hardcore capitalists/libertarians. But they can speak for themselves.
On HN? The capitalist/libertarian/Elon posters, Meta employees, etc.
It's just yet another Donald Trump story, which are legion around here these days. The World Cup itself is also a hot topic right now, with Euros and Muricans trying to rage bait each other.
> Do it consciously
Yes
> These words apply to any investment [...] the entire culture has to change
I think that's fatalistic. There are plenty of people and legal structures that limit the influence of investors to reasonable returns, most famously founders retaining control, or the public benefit corporation (like Veeva) or nonprofit (OpenAI as the counter-example showing how even structures are no guarantee). It's all part of setting up the systems to work with available people, within the business leader's ambit.
Why only now? UEFA should boycott the world cup, period. It should have been enough even before the Balogun nonsense. They have the best league and the best teams, they have the know how and could easily host the UEFA World Cup.
They could host a tournament without the pay-to-win arbitrary overruling of red cards and the clownish half time entertainment. Nobody would care about the FIFA World Cup.
Fork it!
UEFA is not an angel, they generate far more money than FIFA from TV rights, sponsorships, and tickets. They also just don't want to ever lose that.
Doesn’t the majority of that go back to the clubs that make it to European competitions though?
Here is the UEFA business model according to their statements.
https://www.uefa.com/running-competitions/financial-distribu...
97% returns to the club and 9.3% is ear marked for football development programs.
Some of the money is utilized as reimbursement to clubs that did not manage to qualify.
PS Treating HN like a search engine is not constructive. No flak tho, I also do this sometimes.
Isn't it a non profit too ? But you seem to imply it's going into individual's pockets ?
And run it on exactly the same dates as any FIFA matches.
Exactly! You would have a number of oil states competing, and that's it.
They have everything to win. It's opposite of the PGA/LIV situation, the breakout group have the stronger trademark and the better teams. It's baffling that UEFA didn't move in already when FIFA was too greedy even for EA, which is saying something.
Before you eulogize UEFA too much (ok, too late, you already did), answer me this.
Where did Infantino come from? Answer: UEFA
And for that matter, which continent did his predecessor Sepp Blatter start his football admin career in? Hint: he's not from Asia or Africa
Probably the most widely admired admin in big-time football right now is al-Khalifa, the head of PSG. A Qatari. You know - those guys who organized by common consent is considered the best World Cup in modern times (during which EUROPEAN teams were ostentatiously protesting on the pitch - while keeping VERY quiet WHEN playing a World Cup in a country who is still facilitating an ONGOING GENOCIDE) .
And from reports, he doesn't want to touch FIFA with a 10 foot barge pole.
Europe had managed to keep the lions share of footballs global revenues to itself, while keeping Africa as basically a "football nursery" where teenagers get almost trafiked across Europe before 90% are discarded.
This is one of the reasons why a (corrupt, mendacious & sly) Infantino had some support across Africa & Asia. Because he played off that imbalance. Rather like one mafioso giving you "protection" against another mafia mob.
Just saying, Europe & UEFA arent necessarily the angels in any of this ...
About time
Hard to think of a modern institution as corrupt as fifa. That may not bother too many people because it’s not their government, but I just think it stinks
FIFA has been monstrously corrupt since at least as far back as the 1970s (Havelange).
I backslid this year, but did completely boycott watching in 2018 and 2022. Russia is a pariah state and should never have been allowed to host, and Qatar was manifestly unsuitable.
The only difference this year is that the bribery and political favors were out in the open.
There are levels to it. Sepp Blatter was notoriously corrupt, but Infantino makes his "envelope full of cash under the table" style of corruption look amateurish.
Even in the festering pit of slime that is FIFA, Infantino stands out for his festeringdom and slimitude.
Qatar may not be a pariah state but it should be.
Why?
Russia a pariah state, as opposed to the US. Good thing freedom won and the US was allowed to host.
When’s the last time the US forcibly annexed land from a neighboring country? Crimea is Ukrainian
The US has used force to unilaterally remove two heads of state this year, and is enforcing a blockade on Cuba that is wreaking havoc in an attempt to remove a third head of state.
That Russia is worse should not shield the US from criticism.
The US forcibly annexed Venezuelan oil six months ago
I mean, they are trying
What an excellent example of the most Russian thing of all: whataboutism.
Whataboutism doesn’t make the what about claim untrue.
> Hard to think of a modern institution as corrupt as fifa
IOC is about the only organisation that comes close to it I think.
In the Dictator's Handbook the authors argued that FIFA and IOC function similar to autocratic dictatorships because there is a small group of people who are essential to power. Therefore it is rational to buy them rather than do the right thing by the fans (who have very little power). As cold as the reasoning is, the explanation stuck with me.
Their suggestion is to open up the power structure, e.g. to all past players/Olympians.
Interestingly, both FIFA and IOC are headquartered in Switzerland, a country that is ranked by Transparency International as one least corrupt countries in the world… Draw you own conclusions.
Until recently Swiss banks were pretty famously a great place to do the kind of banking needed for global scale corruption. They still sort of are as long as none of the parties have told the bank that they are American.
Switzerland might not be corrupt, but they are fine with enabling it.
One of the least corrupt countries, whose attorney general had secret meetings with Infantino when in charge of an investigation of corruption in FIFA.
A common factor seems rather that international sports orgs are often very corrupt. Would be interesting to understand why it happens systematically. Lack of good governance structures must be part of it.
I think fundamental issue is that only people who want power, money or influence get involved at highest levels. For rest operating at grass roots or slightly higher and having local impact is more important. Farther you move from there more power hungry and less passionate about underlying thing the people get.
The Corruption Perception Index only ranks the public sector.
bribery until recently was legal in Switzerland.
The Olympic Committee comes pretty close, maybe even ahead of FIFA.
> Hard to think of a modern institution as corrupt as fifa.
<Formula 1 has joined the chat>
I'm so happy to see they care enough to take a stand. The last World Cup was a sh-t show. I expect the LA olympics to be no better.
How was it a shit show? I’m genuinely curious. I attended 5 games (Atlanta, LA and Dallas) and was a fantastic experience minus the process to get tickets.
Not OP, but I would guess: "hydration breaks" to inject commercials, half-time shows that felt alien to much of the core audience, and various rule-bending shenanigans (Ronaldo, Balogun).
Hydration breaks a tad weird. Half time shows were pretty subtle, didn’t change the length of the break except for the final. There’s no soccer competition without someone complaining about refereeing. Def always things to improve but I had fun, all people around me seemed to have fun. I flew in an out and always was either public transportation or uefa provided shuttles… It was really well run. Not something you can call a “shit show”
Balogun and Ronaldo red card overturns had nothing to do with "refereeing". It was clear corruption and favouritism.
Also the treatment of the Iranian team was comically awful.
Oh boy, how could I forget about the Iranian team, and the other players/referees/staff that were rejected or stuck at the airport for hours ? It was worse than a sh-t show actually.
Blame the US for that one, not FIFA.
Blame FIFA for giving the contest to the US to host
> There’s no soccer competition without someone complaining about refereeing.
Yeah, but most of them go without president calling Infantino to change the referee verdict. All the while the president says "I dont even know the game".
> It was really well run. Not something you can call a “shit show”
I can. Oh and not allowing referee in due to his race and mistreating teams due to politics.
> There’s no soccer competition
Ahhhh, you're American!
Soccer is a legitimate name for the sport. Football is properly the name of a whole group of sports OR in a local context the locally most popular type of football.
It's very weird for one type of football to try to claim the name all for itself globally.
BTW I am not American.
I’m spanish living in the US
Here to give you the occasional reminder that Irish people (sauf a few weirdos in Dublin) also call the sport soccer.
Most Irish people (save a few in Dublin) are basically Americans.
The fact that you had 'hydration breaks' in enclosed, fully air-conditioned stadiums is very telling.
I was in one of those enclosed stadiums. It was not air conditioned. It was hot as hell, above 30c the entire game.
It was 14C in the Azteca though.
An argument I've heard is that since hydration breaks can affect the game, if you are going to have them they should be mandatory and at the same time in all games in a tournament rather than doing them like they did when they were originally introduced in 2014. Then they were only done in games when the conditions on the field got dangerous.
Seems like the wrong spot to optimize for fairness / equal playing conditions when the weather itself affects the game in so many more ways.
I can't remember this sports without a hydration break (half time). So they've been mandatory for a long time.
Not all stadiums were enclosed
Telling of what? I imagine if you're running around like eg Ronaldo would be during a game, it doesn't matter how air conditioned the space is, he'd still need to hydrate, on account of all the running that happens. I'm no football expert, but I'm lead to believe that does happen during matches.
Also a funny trump red card
I think your attitude, which is all too common, is that we should do things according to the "footballing nations" without any other consideration for the rest of the world. North America is part of the world.
The US itself is far and away the world's biggest sporting nation, and many there see football's informality and cynicism as antiquated and, honestly, embarrassing. The world outside of the US wants to protect "their" game, though it's not theirs to begin with, ignoring the existing, systematic issues with it, even making contrived arguments about the word "soccer" itself.
FIFA's shenanigans off-the-field were a problem, but they're not unique to the World Cup nor its location. I'd argue the last Copa America and Cup of Nations had worse issues with officiating/corruption.
This is the most american centric take I’ve seen all week! Bravo!
There are many other nations with just as much influence in sports outside of the US. The only difference being that the US doesn’t care about them.
Football is a global game, everyone’s, not another thing for the US to dictate and ruin.
The Iranian team’s treatment is a prime example. The Somalian ref being denied entrance is another. And the Balogun red card is a double example (it shouldn’t have been a red card in the first place, but the precedent that the President of the host country can get a call overturned is even worse).
I am the last person to defend FIFA - I love the UEFA's stance here - but only Balogun's suspension can be pinned on FIFA. Those other things are down to USA politics. Bad, for sure, not really down to FIFA.
Other than those awful hydration breaks, they didn't ruin it much. I didn't love the extended half time in the final, but I was only hate watching Argentina anyway so didn't care much. Better to have the standard interval but not egregious to extend in the final. Overall it was a good tournament, a proper "feast of football" as we used to say. Some fine-tuning to do with the VAR but even then there weren't as many egregiously unfair calls as in years past. (Croatia's disallowed goal being a memorable example because it was so rare.) Many, many good games and some memorable moments - Cape Verde!
> proper "feast of football" as we used to say.
besides a significantly more common 4-3-3, I can't think of anything I particularly found entertaining - the waterworks, the extra VARs, the super special offside line. That's no feast. (and I can continue)
Despite all the bad things, I once again loved the whole tournament. Can’t wait for the next one.
First, it was a new formula of the tournament with more teams which explains the headlines about a someone setting a new record every 2 days.
Second, the hydration (ads!) breaks were clearly used to tweak some tactics, player positionning, etc, making it another half-time. It's a strategic opportunity. Why not introduce a 2 min drill, then ? - yuck- That's not football.
Third, I won't talk about that specific red card or that penalty kick, but the fact that players and staff complained so much about the refereeing issues hurts the trust we can have into the game as a whole.
And that 27 min half-time... Seriously ?!
The 27 min half time was only in the final. Every world cup introduces changes that will stick or not (e.g golden goal rule). Hydration breaks probably won’t stay.
I’ve followed the sport all my life and referee complains I would say less than usual.
I like having more teams. Might even extend to 64 next time.
These are difference of opinion. Nothing singles out this world cup as a “shit show” as the OP. It was a great experience to me and pretty much anyone I encountered in the stadiums.
So it's OK if FIFA breaks the rules of the game "only in the final"? (yes, I know FIFA says they didn't but their reading of Law 7.2 is not plausible)
>Hydration breaks probably won’t stay.
It was already introduced in the local women league...
Referee complaints are common, but I can't remember a case where a disqualified player was allowed to play in last world cups.
Covert bullshit, like the Moreno care in South Korea, sure, but brazenly ignoring the rules like what happened with Balogun? I cannot remember it.
- The number of teams expanding weakened the group stage to a point of being ignorable
- The extraordinary pricing of the tickets
- "Hydration breaks" to cater for TV advertising
- The US red card being rescinded after a phone call from an interested party
- Argentina's free pass throughout
FIFA has been corrupt since the days of João Havelange, although his stance was broadly to bring football to more countries and just needed a way to finance that (enter stage left, Coca-Cola, and stage right, Adidas and ISL), but it started getting really wild after him.
It's gone unchecked. There was talk of the English FA pulling out of UEFA and FIFA some years ago, as there was a perception the soul of the game had been tarnished by both orgs.
This is a good first step, and I hope FIFA gets itself sorted. I hope UEFA also gets its house in order.
Ticket prices for all events anywhere will not come back down unless we make international travel harder. There were Taylor Swift fans who flew to every concert of one of her tours. When I attended the Hungaroring Grand Prix every single person seemed to be visiting from outside Hungary. Hosting in the wealthiest country of size of course made this worse but I predict ticket prices for popular events will only keep going up and up.
The ticket prices and scalping (sorry, authorized re-selling to find the market clearing price) were robbery.
Sports people (I was listening to Bill Simmons) rated it pretty highly.
There was nothing egregious and it was widely attended.
The way that the Iran team was only allowed into the USA on match days was a disgrace.
Refusing entry to a Somali referee on the spurious grounds of links to terrorism was a disgrace.
The overturning of Falorin Balogun's ban was a disgrace.
The ticket prices were a disgrace. The transport to the stadiums was a shambles.
I could go on.
> The transport to the stadiums was a shambles.
This bit was kind of baffling to me. Like, the US has a bunch of large stadiums. Presumably they sometimes get used for stuff. How is it not a constant disaster?
There’s a medium sized (50k capacity) stadium near me, and even _with_ a train station with a train each way every ten minutes right beside it, and within easy walking distance of about five high capacity bus routes, it’s always a bit of a shitshow when a big event finishes. I’ve no idea how it could work _at all_ if you’re just depending on buses and cars, which a bunch of the US stadiums seemed to be.
I believe a big issue was that significant amounts of parking were closed at each of the host stadiums for "security reasons", fan watch areas, etc. When they did some overhead shots of the stadiums, you could see tons of empty parking lot space.
For local NFL games in a bigger stadium that, most people attending do drive, but do not park at the stadium, rather nearby, then walk the rest of the way. This spreads out the traffic over a much larger set of roads.
Acres upon acres of parking lots.
Ticket prices cannot go down unless you just want more money for scalpers. It's a simple function of supply and demand
I attended games in Dallas and was shocked at how well the city / FIFA handled transportation. Especially for a city that usually has none.
Yes. I was there at the france-spain match. Flew in in the morning was directed to the shuttles by super nice volunteers. Reasonable lines that were mostly in the shade and they were handling free water bottles.
Which of those were FIFA’s fault?
The World Cup final is supposed to be a war and the half time show turned it into a clown fest.
I can't agree with that. Host countries share their culture through the World Cup. South Africa had vuvuzelas, Qatar put a bisht on the winning captain's shoulders, and the USA had a half-time show.
Now if only it had been a good half-time show...
The difference is that they broke the fundamental rules such that 15-min half time breaks to stick a half time show in.
"Players are entitled to an interval at half-time, not exceeding 15 minutes; a short drinks break (which should not exceed one minute) is permitted at the interval of half-time in extra time. Competition rules must state the duration of the half-time interval and it may be altered only with the referee’s permission."
My interpretation is it is 15 minutes unless the referee allows something else.
I'm almost too afraid to ask but what the hell...what makes a good half-time show?
I ask in earnest. I'm not American. I know there's a huuugggee buzz on who gets to do the Superbowl half-time show. But they all look the same to me: overly-polished extravagant pop performances. That can be an insult or a compliment depending on your mood but I say that as a fact. That description applies to the WC half-time show too so I don't see what makes it bad. Maybe you can accuse it of being even more over-the-top and garishly extravagant but does that make it bad?
Bad Bunny's half-time show seems to be generally considered good. Well, he's a good performer definitely and performed his show well. But what makes that different from the universally-panned WC one?
For the record, Bad Bunny isn't even in my daily playlist. I do have Coldplay but Chris Martin was so peripheral to the WC spectacle I didn't even notice him during the live broadcast.
It feels to me there's something else merited here other than just the performance itself. Bad Bunny, given his background and off-stage activism, was largely seen as a political statement. The WC show just seems too foreign for the core non-Northern American market.
I watched the WC final in a noisy bar. During the halftime the bar had its own entertainment while a muted Justin Bieber playing his guitar emoted on the big screen. I've since watched it in Youtube and I still don't get the universal disdain for it. Maybe they should've called in a bunch of Eurovision performers?
Because it became literally a show.
Hydration breaks in air-conditioned stadiums?
A half-time show?
Football is more than just the world cup or the Championship league. It’s also about the local leagues or village clubs.
They all play the dame game and Fantino in his greed is ruining it.
Which fan could afford to watch all the games of his team?
The football itself wasn't bad, it was all the other stuff - prices, unfair treatment for Iran, hydration breaks, the whole Balogun thing, the pre-game and half-time shows at the final, Trump photo-bombing the Spanish celebration, etc. Every WC has its own problems and some of these things will be forgotten about soon, but it definitely seemed more ruthlessly commercialised than ever before.
The fact a ban was overturned as a political favour.
Maybe the way that Infantino nakedly advanced political favors for Trump (the f×××ing peace prize, Folarin f×××ing Balogun) and now wants a fat slice of payback?
I'm sorry, but this is an incredibly silly comment. The "shit show" was systemic at the strategic level. Of course, people who went to see a game had a good time, the "shit show" is at the competition level.
- 48 teams is too much. 32 is a great sweet spot. 48 is ridiculous, it genuinely felt like too many games. - The completely inconsistent application of VAR was scandalous. I've always been a huge opponent of VAR in soccer, and I really feel vindicated. It felt like it was only used for very pointed decisions. Either you use VAR to make no mistakes at all, or you don't use it. - The "h2o breaks" were stupid as f. They were clearly only implemented to fit in more commercial breaks. - as usual, getting the tickets is always a nightmare, but it's been like that for 20+ years
There was some good football, I'm not even bothered by the pre/mid-game shows. There were a lot of good things, but honestly it did feel like it was in spite of everything that was done to make it unbearable.
How and when VAR should be applied is an ongoing contentious discussion not exclusive to the World Cup.
I actually loved the 48 teams. It will probably expand to 64 next cup. More people tune in, nice surprises, upsets, cinderella stories.
Access and price of tickets has been a problem for a long time and getting worse for every live event. Not exclusive to the World Cup.
There are obviously things to improve but the game and experience for people watching and attending was pretty amazing. Leaving in the US I ve had fantastic interactions with strangers everywhere for weeks.
If that’s what a “shit show” is I’m looking forward to more ha ha
I say let the coaches have the right to initiate a VAR review. They inform an official they want a certain moment/decision/action reviewed. As long as the review gets resolved in their favor, they can keep invoking VAR. This would disincentivize review spamming, disrupting play. If there are too many VAR calls in a game, you can squarely blame the ref.
Coaches get in the face of the officials already anyway. This just gives the action a chance at being productive rather than an opportunity to get a red card.
Yes, this is based on the derided review system of Olympic Taekwondo. It's horrible in a fight sport but football is a ball game; somebody tell Paredes and Paraguay please.
It's only a matter of time before there are sponsors on the Yellow and Red cards...
And corporate UX/Design teams are eager to modernize those cards; yes they're already flat, but canary yellow is so last century and some glass effects or abolishing the rounded corners will be the next thing.
It'll be nice to have that precedent in place when we finally institute the Hunger Games.
Guaranteed slots to the tournaments for patrons
In the local minor league hockey games near me the power play (the man advantage resulting from a penalty) is usually sponsored by an electric company. The announcers say things like "..and with that cross-check they're on a TXU Energy Power Play!"
Hawkeye in GAA games is sponsored by Specsavers.
The red card for covering your mouth while talking to an opponent is brought to you by Telegram.
“Looks like this is a card. He already has a yellow (sponsored by Qatar Airwaves), and may be looking at his second. YES! he is receiving is second yellow, this time sponsored by Universal Studio, and here is the red card. Sponsored by Red Bull. He is leaving this game and his team mates one down.”
Second commentator: “It is true, Red Bull gives you wings. In this case, the wings only take you to the shower room.”
“And that’s the second State Farm Yellow Card for Haaland!”
I follow a local team and don’t really follow the larger picture, but injuries are sponsored, i always thought that would produce a perverse incentive.
EDIT: not sure why i’m getting downvoted, they post up the injured player on the screens with a private medical company prominently displayed.
Because there is no incentive for the players?
Who do you think is incentivized and how does that cause a player to get injured?
So, how many countries will be left to participate in these competitions if FIFA doesn't change course? What about if even more national associations from non-European countries get involved?
Because in the 2026 world cup, every single team except Argentina in the quarter-finals onwards was a member of UEFA. And even in the earlier rounds, it was probably like 50 or so percent of them...
If neither side backs down before 2030, you may as well just call off the next World Cup. Especially given that two out of three hosts would also not be participating...
Africa, South America and Middle East football and maybe Oceania federations support it. North and Central American, Asian and Europe do not.
That's broad strokes as each member has an individual vote.
I think the mandatory ad break introduced by FIFA at the World Cup was also too much for most football people, not just fans. Changed too much, broke the dynamics, basically the sport became a game of 4 quarters instead of 2 halves. These two things combined together are just over the top and unacceptable (UEFA already said they won't use these mandatory ad breaks anywhere)
This is the closest where I can see a future where we have a rugby union / rugby league like schism.
Oh and guess who is behind the investment group: https://apnews.com/article/world-cup-fifa-investors-kushner-...
I agree completely with your assessment of the water breaks, but the games were extremely entertaining and I watched as much as I could.
Of all the things wrong with the World Cup, the most inconsequential ones - hydration breaks and the final half-time show - have attracted the most griping.
Changing the pauses of the game alters the momentum and, as consequence, the results. How is that “inconsequential”? There have been cases of corrupted referees before, but violating the Laws of the Game in plain sight is an unprecedented attack on the sport.
I can agree that it definitely makes it a different game/playstyle but I'm still not sure if it's guaranteed worse. Putting ads during the break is obviously bad and a cash grab but from a gameplay perspective, it's not clear that a short break during the half is necessarily worse.
I think hydration breaks can be defensible as long as they are a) conditionally triggered by pre-existing criteria that is b) created by an honest assessment of player welfare independent of economic considerations.
I can't say I think the halftime show is a big deal at all though.
They should also not be used an excuse for teams to be coached as a group.
Who gets to decide what “the Laws of the Gane” are in the FIFA World Cup?
The IFAB, just like in any other event. The Laws of the Game are codified, and FIFA has insufficent voting power to change them unilaterally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_the_Game_(association_...
How does it violate the laws of the game?
Every single break time decision in football is arbitrary already.
Every rule in sports is arbitrary, that's not an argument. If you want to do it properly, ask about the spirit of the game, not the laws - and there's clearly a conflict there.
Disrupting the pace of the game twice as many times, oftenly during critical moments is inconsequential to you? You don't sound like quite a sports person.
By this reasoning, are regular football fans really "sports people?" They tolerate wildly inconsistent officiating and diving (and other forms of unsportsmanlike conduct) that occur at every level of the game. Disrupting the pace would be the least of my worries.
I don't mean to be disrespectful but this is a dumb statement. Do you think splitting each half in 2 quarters doesn't have an impact on how the game is played?
Everything has an impact on how the game is played. For example Mexico played their games at 6000 feet above sea level, giving them a big advantage. Even the ball moves differently in thinner air.
At least with hydration breaks, everyone got them and they were the same for everyone. I know sports fans don't like change. If everything else about this WC was perfect I'd say "Fine, go ahead, complain". But this is the tiniest, most meaningless thing to moan about nearly 3 weeks after the tournament is done.
the mandatory ad breaks were usa-level bullshit that never happened before, not even when they were playing in the fucking desert (and that world cup should have been boycotted too, but for different reasons.)
a few years ago when the momentum was moving towards tennis, some european clubs proposed a "super league" comprising of only the elite teams, the purpose was again to maximize ad profits (and i should go back to check who actually proposed it, who they were affiliated with). That time they were suggested not to proceed, or else they would be boycotted from all other events, the players too. That was also a good decision.
football (not handegg) it already corrupt enough as it is, and too much money is flowing into it, it's incredible and heart warming that there is still some dignity left in the associations.
The VAR calls 5 minutes after the fact were the most bothersome thing to me
Good thing you don’t watch Premier League. The World Cup VAR was snappy in comparison.
… and the 9+’ stoppage for every match.
> the most inconsequential ones
This is like saying “customers aren’t worried enough about the corporate process - they only care about the end product!”
There was extensive coverage and discussion of Trump getting the Balogun red card overturned.
Thank you! An actual problem!
Why would non-fans even care? It was a 3 minute break, non-fans would not have any idea that you were going for 2 halves to 4 "quarters". I think this is the kind of thing purists care about but most people don't, most don't even know it is new.
I'm most certainly not a football fan, but I definitely know that a match consists of two 45 minute (and then some) halves. It's pretty much equivalent to a non motor enthusiast knowing that there are usually four wheels on a car.
I'd say this is very, very common knowledge in huge parts of the world. It's not something only enthusiasts and purists know.
Sure, but they aren't leaving the field. There are plenty of stoppages in game already which take as much time. In that sense it's nothing new. Do non-fans view it as changing to 4 "quarters"? I'm not sure most people would care. This is what I mean it's the kind of thing that football purists care about but it's a very small thing.
The breaks change the game more than you’d think, especially when the coach gets to have a strategy session with the whole team. Completely changed the momentum in several games.
I don't know... I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you're from a country where football isn't very popular. I don't think you realize just how many fans there are. How utterly ingrained it is in the culture of many countries. "non-fans" make up a minuscule minority of the population of at least Europe, and as far as I understand it South America and parts of Africa too. Not sure about Asia (varies wildly between countries, I suppose), but according to [0] it's estimated that about 3.5 billion people are considered football fans.
This is certainly something many people I know have cared a lot about - and again, I'm not a football enthusiast myself, but still the vast majority of the people I know are, because, not being one really is an outlier.
[0] https://www.topendsports.com/world/lists/popular-sport/fans....
> There are plenty of stoppages in game already which take as much time.
Well. Not really. And those "stoppages" are part of the game. Actually watching the players quarrel with the referee and whatnot is something football fans want to do. It's not comparable.
“I’m not sure what the big deal about tripling the number of tire changes in the race is.”
> non-fans would not have any idea that you were going for 2 halves to 4 "quarters"
… By non-fans do you mean people who have literally never heard of football, or something? I’m very far from a fan, no interest at all. But, I mean, I know there are two halves. Everybody knows that.
I think by non fans they just mean americans, it’s almost impossiible to not be aware of the basic rules outside of there.
There still are 2 halves. Framing it as quarters is the entire thing. There are numerous things throughout a game which will cause the game to be paused just as long, which is why there is stoppage time.
There aren’t usually numerous 5-minutes pauses in a football match, no.
except during that time players aren’t huddling around the manager and the rest of the coaching staff. all of whom have their ipads out to discuss stats breakdowns and instruct players on changing tactics and strategies.
that’s what effectively made the hydration breaks turn it into a game of four quarters. lost count of the number of times teams completely changed their strategy after the breaks and went on to score goals etc.
you make the players drink the water from the centre of the field with no coaching staff present then it would have less of an impact. but there’s still an impact as all players can huddle together and discuss things together in a way they normally wouldn’t be able to without a severe stoppage ie a delay going on 5-10+ minutes, which is usually rare.
Why would anyone be in favour of more ad breaks?
I'm not arguing for ad breaks, I'm saying non-fans would not even be aware this is something new.
This is the thing that is too much? I just don't get it. The entire thing is a spectacle to sell ads.
Europe is full of people who are not fans, but will still hear all about the games when their country plays, because it's basically impossible to avoid. Chat groups, work banter, waiting rooms, everybody will be talking about it ALL THE TIME. There is a base level of knowledge for the sport everybody shares. Maybe it's the same with American Football in the US? As a European, I still have no idea what that is even remotely about.
A game having two main uninterrupted halves is one of those foundational facts. Players train for being able to play for that long without getting too thirsty to continue.
In almost every part of the world, all people know some basic things about football (and I do mean the one where you kick a ball with the foot), like it has two halves of 45 minutes.
On the other hand, it gives a chance for fans to turn off the TV when the game isn’t great
No one really gives a shit what Americans who don't follow football think, though.
The original post mentioned people that weren't fans, though. Who are we talking about that are "football people" but not fans. I'm not trying to be dense, I just don't know which audience this is.
USA is the exception here. In most countries, even people who are not football fans are pretty aware of how it works.
I don't often watch football outside the world cup. I don't support any teams. But I know how football is meant to be played, and I was definitely annoyed about the hydration breaks.
Does USA have people that don't follow american football but will watch the Superbowl? Would those people notice if there were three times as many breaks as usual?
> Does USA have people that don't follow american football but will watch the Superbowl? Would those people notice if there were three times as many breaks as usual?
Well...many if not most of the people who don't follow NFL and watch the Super Bowl are watching it for the half time show and ads, so more breaks would make them happy, heh.
Look, most people around the world are not full time fans and only tune to the national final in their country or the world cup. But in any country where soccer is popular, the basic rules are something everyone knows from kindergarten.
It's the same way that Americans know what pitchers, catchers, and batters are in baseball even if they've never picked up a bat or a glove and only go to baseball games to eat hot dogs and get drunk on overpriced beer. Soccer has two halves like baseball has nine innings,a nd the vast majority of people do not want to mess with that.
A secondary reason that they don't want to mess with it is the perception that these hydration breaks are not organic (because it's always been acceptable for players to grab a drink fo water and there are ample opportunities to do so during a regular game), but that the breaks were imposed on the game to facilitate ad breaks in American TV broadcasts. Much of the world is tired of doing things differently just because the Americans want it.
Most football non-fans absolutely know that a football match is supposed to be two halves.
It's still two halves there is just another short stoppage time in which players stay on the field, the same as every foul, goal, and variety of other timing based decisions in football.
Why don't you just say: I know nothing about football ( and I dont care much), please enlighten me?
- Football is not a game of easy scoring, often you have to build momentum, by relentlessly putting pressure on the other team. It's more important than in other sports, because in football a weaker team can easily earn a draw against a stronger team if the later fails to do just that.
Your attacks ( and defense efforts) must compound. It's almost like building a narrative inside the head of the players and inside the head of the spectators before a goal gives everyone a release one way or the other. Moreso than in other sports where you have a lot of scoring happening. Football is closer to watching an epic drama.
Now it's true that dynamics can change on a dime. But you often have to earn that change ( like by having a skilled player who attracts fouls ). Having regular breaks makes it almost like watching another sport.
- In most of Europe and South America even people who don't watch regular league games have an intuitive expectation of how a game should be played. And they care.
Especially when it comes to national teams because it's often a big part of the national lore. ( It's like the offside rule. Even people who despise the game end up being experts )
I wouldn’t know, I haven’t watched a single football match since 2018. As for short stoppage time, football use to have much less than, say, rugby. Was it different this year?
Yes. Very much so. They added in so called hydration breaks in the middle of the halves for extra revenue.
Rugby stoppages are beginning to get ridiculous but they aren't doing them for advertising yet.
This would only be true if they did not allow the hydration breaks to be used as a group coaching opportunity.
Somewhere in this fetid swamp of corruption, you just know the trump crime syndicate has its greasy hands on the pie.
> If approval is granted, Fifa says Thrive Eternal is expected to lead the proposed investor group for FFE.
> Thrive is an American venture capital firm founded by Joshua Kushner - the brother of US President Donald Trump's son-in-law Jared.
Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c5y67zrrdddo
I thought I smelled something.
I'm speechless...
*hands on a peace of the pie
The European motorsports clubs should learn with UEFA and rollback the sale of the FIA to the Saudis.
I think motorsports is going to fade away over time. Especially in car racing the technology got so advanced, that it's starting to get more and more boring.
If/When self driving cars become widely available, it might start to feel absurd and artificial.
I used to watch most F1 races as a kid. But it just doesn't feel interesting anymore.
I secretly hope that Infantino goes ahead with it anyway. UEFA and others will form something new. Something that replaces the incredibly broken and corrupted FIFA with a de-facto and de-jure non-profit governing body.
Then you would have two corrupt organizing bodies.
Something similar happened with FIDE (chess) in the Kasparov years. I believe FIDE is still headquartered in a dodgy dictatorship in Central-asia-stan.
And I've lost count how many global boxing organizations there are, seemingly in competition with each other to minimize sporting legitimacy and financial transparency.
"The investment fund Fifa is dealing with - Thrive Capital - is led by Josh Kushner, the brother-in-law of Trump's daughter Ivanka." https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cjejl274xx8o
FIFA is famously corrupt. But now they don't bother trying to try to hide the corruption.
Think of it this way. Should this proposal take effect, football will become the sporting world's equivalent to modern day Las Vegas.
I want to know what kind of outcomes were put forward in front of him, because otherwise he looks like the biggest fool of the decade (a rich one at that).
Wow!
Goes off to have Claude look at the FIFA governance charter. This guy is so done!
Europe, united at long last!
It's a pity that those letters are not sent for many many other things.
drop the second F in FIFA and change Infantino to Mohammed Ben Sulayem and it sounds familiar.
The same UEFA that added redundant matches and teams to the Champions League for money, and that came up with the Nations League because they wanted to extract more money from the national teams?
Funnily enough it was Infantino who lead the introduction of the Nations League.
And attempted to hive off the best teams into a super league, even though this would have destroyed national leagues across the continent.
The Super League was decidedly not UEFA's - UEFA even announced sanctions against the organisers (though I think those were repealed by a court), because it was going to compete with UEFA's leagues.
It's crazy that as despicable an organization as UEFA is, they're still far better than FIFA.
Infantino has been a disgrace, I hope they manage to get rid of him, but I have very little hope.
I don't follow any sport, but I actually don't understand why UEFA and FIFA are non-profits when all the American leagues (MLB, NBA, NFL) are for-profit corporations. It seems to work well in America.
> It seems to work well in America.
Does it? Who does it work out well for? Franchises continuously extort tax-payer funds for stadia,some team switches host cities every few years, and the for-profit corporations are legal cartels that decides who gets to own a team. The number of ad-breaks is horrendous to anyone who's watched sports elsewhere.
How exactly do they extort tax-payer funds?
"Use tax money to build us a new stadium, or we will relocate to Vegas. Do you want to be known by the voters as the governor who gave up our beloved sportsball team? No? Then better pay up."
Because they were designed to be decentralised federations, atop the footballing body in each country. More generally, the US is the most capitalist country, whereas the rest of the world does automatically see capitalism as justified, superior or inevitable.
Lastly, football is a grassroots participation sport that is seen by its fans as more of a religion than a conventional act of entertainment. Of course, religion in the US is also often for-profit, but hopefully you get the point.
MLB & NFL only changed to for-profit organisations somewhat recently (2007, 2015). afaict NBA has always been for-profit.
Internationally the standard is non-profits. Most sports have both their international organisations and highest standard of play organisations as non-profits - football, tennis, golf, cricket. The international components of baseball, american football, and basketball are all non-profits (though they are lower standards of play than the US internal leagues).
American sports leagues are also non-profit organizations. Profits go to the individual teams. So no, FIFA should not be run by private equity firms.
Are they? Their revenues are limited and they can’t really extend their influence outside USA. Meanwhile European games are watched globally
If FIFA was opensource now would be time to fork it.
Good calls. Honestly, the last World Cup already had way too many unwatchable matches before the quarterfinals. And the hydration pauses to sell more ads. And that halftime show during the final.
It was incredibly entertaining and I watched as many games as I could.
Yeah it was a disaster really.
It seems like Europe, yet again, have to stand up for ethics, morality and try to deflect corruption. It's so tiresome.
It’s standing up for football. Far more important.
This is UEFA we are talking about.
Remember that when (FIFA president) Blatter was investigated for corruption, (UEFA president) Platini was also banned.
...and Infantino was the UEFA secretary under Platini before taking Blatter's place as head of FIFA.
It's almost like you cut the head off a snake, and it grows back a slimier and more poisonous head.
Well, FIFA is also an European organization. Swiss, to be exact.
It’s located in Switzerland, but it’s a global organization and has really close ties with the US president
Sorry to be a pedant, while switzerland is in the european landmass, it is not a member of the EU.
Sorry to be a pedant too but no one said EU.
You don't understand, good things come from the EU, bad things come from those filthy non-EU Europeans.
International companies and institutions parking their money in Switzerland genuinely have as much to do with Europe as Russian Oligarchs in London have with the United Kingdom. The country's always been a financial haven for oligarchs, it doesn't tell you much about the rest of the continent.
Infantino who seems to oscillate between Qatar and Switzerland I assume has a rather strenuous connection to the rest of Europe
Maybe. But we take football quite seriously.
Isn't Infantino European?
Swiss.
USA vs Australia grand final!
CONCACAF rejected the proposal too.
Maybe it will be Senegal vs Socceroos?
This whole thread is full of people that cannot conceive a model where profit is not the goal
Welcome to HN. It wasn’t always this way, but it sure is now!
When I first came here 15 years ago it was always more about "Bay Area Startup News" than Hacker News, it has definitely always had a heavy capitalist slant. I'd go as far as to say it has more anti-capitalist sentiment now than it ever has had before.
should wind FIFA up and create a less corrupt world body.
Outstanding. I hope the muscle through and make it happen.
UEFA should take over the World Cup.
This is. Very well written letter.
Football/soccer is one place where Europe can easily flex their muscles against American capitalism and corruption. Good on them for saying it loud and clear.
I'm not convinced. There's plenty of large clubs in Europe owned by foreign capital and those clubs have already tried to push a pan-European league for themselves. I can see the FIFA using those teams as leverage to gain a foothold in Europe without UEFA.
* e.g. Manchester City, Liverpool, Chelsea, Paris SG, AC Milan and Inter Milan -- in Spain, individual clubs can't be owned by private equity but the La Liga corporation is)
This is a joke, right? I can’t think of any league as blatantly corrupt as FIFA on any level.
What are you on about? FIFA is not a league and certainly not in charge of european football
Play dirty football, win dirty prizes.
I don't even like football and I want to see Infantino go down.
Greed is ruining football. Granted, this happened before that already, we also saw this in olympics in general - but FIFA now pushed this onto a new level. This is trying to leech off of people now. After all, without people there would be no FIFA. They are leeching here.
Good to see some "balls" can still be found
Yes, but isn't football already overly commercialised? Why is advertising for sports betting or alcohol any better than the FIFA issue? UEFA should take a look at itself, too.
You can be against more than one thing.
Okay, got to admit I did _not_ have “Trump breaks the World Cup” on my bingo card.
E is for everything TTD
I mean he breaks everything, so....
ELI5? What are the factors and implications?
FIFA made ludicrous amounts of money as a non profit running the last World Cup and want to transition to a for profit corporation to make even more.
UEFA representing the European nations with the most competitive teams and many of the biggest stars, just told them good luck running a World Cup without us.
There is no World Cup without UEFA.
UEFA is Europe basically. So like the nexus of modern football
7/10 of the currently top ranked national teams are UEFA members.
UEFA's reach affects the remaining 3/10 and beyond. Nearly the same fraction of world cup players (68%) earn their livelihoods playing for European league teams- including many players representing non-European countries at the World Cup.
An even funnier fact is that players who play for clubs in Europe (UEFA) won't be allowed to represent their countries.
I wonder if this might lead to UEFA and othe similar orgs simply banding together to create their own FIFA.
CONCACAF too
Right, IIRC they basically banned everybody in Trinidad from FIFA and relocated the HQ.
It didn't help that Chuck Blazer just looked like a pedophile. Not sure if it's a coincidence that he lived in Trump tower. He had two apartments there, one for his cats.
The FA's worldwide don't need FIFA, they can set up a new world tournament. You will get a lot of poor nations who stick with FIFA for the cash but at the end of the day without European teams the world cup and FIFA will have minimal value. 5 of the last 6 world cup winners were european and it will only get more biased towards Europe. Argentina post Messi have no chance, and Brazil are the furthest away from winning than they ever have been.
There will be no cash for the poor nations without the European teams competing.
> Argentina post Messi have no chance
Hold my beer
Spain have a far more youthful side, who can easily win again. France will come back, as will England. Argentina have few players coming through and many stars will have retired by the next tournament, even youthful Alvarez will be 30 next time out.
FAs coming together and creating a new FIFA will just mean you get another organization that is exactly as corruption-ridden as FIFA. There's no point starting fresh if you don't fix the underlying problem.
like so many corrupt organizations lately, FIFA has been getting away with it for a long time and they overplayed their hand. this was a long time coming and i'm really glad to see it.
I wonder how often this guy's name is mispronounced as "Infantilo".
Europe is where all the money is made in football. UEFA just want more of the pie.
FIFA is a repulsive pit of corruption but UEFA isn't much better.
Remember Blatter and Platini?
Blatter was president of FIFA, not UEFA.
Yes, and when Blatter was investigated for corruption both he and Platini, president of UEFA, were banned.
This was barely 10 years ago, it's not ancient history.
Platini is still suing Infantino now.
In even more recent history, both were cleared by a court of wrongdoing [1]. Infantino is clearly worse in every respect.
[1]: https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/44397617/ex-fifa-chie...
Who can decide the precedence of a louse and a flea?
And Infantino has been in high leadership in UEFA (not president), then FIFA
Wow! You have my respect, UEFA.
..
You seem to believe things that bring people joy are a waste of human potential. Please explain. Are we only meant to be machines that produce 16/7?
I wish sports would be sports, business be business, and politics politics. Whenever they mix, it is for the worse.
I find the UEFA standpoint a little disingenuous since commercial interests have been a top priority in football (soccer) for decades. Claiming that allowing investors to participate will hurt the sport are at the very least a misrepresentation of the current situation.
Although I disagree with his methods and goals I enjoy watching the way Infantino uses power play to stack the cards in his favor.
The only way for the UEFA to reclaim authority would be to demand two-thirds voting rights. The model of "one country, one vote" clearly works to UEFA's disadvantage even though its clubs contribute the majority of FIFA's income.
They’re not against the economics of it. It’s carefully worded against private governance.
Yes, it's a stretch to believe that UEFA is objecting strictly on a point of principle.
UEFA seems to think people have forgotten that they tried to buy off top teams from the national organizations into a European super league.
In effect they did it anyway with CL.
The super league wasn't UEFA's doing at all. The top clubs themselves tried to break away and self-organize, and they ultimately won some concessions from UEFA (new CL format, more CL money to the big teams)
I think they meant the original idea of the European Super League from the 1980s (that preceded the Champions League)
Good. Good riddance.
FIFA is just upholding western values. Profit, exploitation and money over everything else. They with FIA and likes are just showing the world what truly matters for western world.
Put it this way - Europeans don't generally call themselves from "the West" in 2026 - it's an American geopolitical fantasy.
To be fair, China and Russia participate in the fantasy.
American values, not western.
US values, from the culture of the last 40 years.
We're really going to act like the entire world doesn't have issues with this.
Given this is a worldwide institution dealing with this, I think you are both casting the new too small.
Famously before either the US or Western world, these values were never celebrated.
Or maybe not, since it's Europe who are objecting here?
Yet it’s the very west uefa protesting.. right
[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49112089
According to aljazeera's article, "the core investor would be a New York venture capital investment firm created by Joshua Kushner, the brother of US President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner."
Welcome. Not a dupe if some time has passed between submissions without much discussion or upvotes. And this is the source.
Dupe of a dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49108292
Welcome. Not a dupe if some time has passed between submissions without much discussion or upvotes. And this is the source.
Why is this out of the gate bad? Note that this is not taking FIFA to private equity, but creating an investors owned subsidiary to run events and commercial operations where the non profit arm will still own 80% of it. With the right protections it could help FIFA make more money and reinvest in the sport, particularly women’s football. FIFA currently makes 40% of what the NHL makes, not the NFL, not NBA. Soccer is by far the most popular sport on the planet, the fact that it makes a lot less money than hockey is insane.
Why is it bad to sell 20% of the biggest tournament in the world to a private company lead by people involved with the most corrupt administration in the history of the US? The model has been working fine for decades, why does it matter that it makes less than american sports?
Ha! Model has been working for American s.. more and more we are seeing signs of a falling empire. Not reading the room - I mean global - temperature is nothing new to the US foreign policy office. They’ve done it for decades, but these days the confidence in leadership has fully eroded trust. Before there may have been closed door jokes made US leaderships expense, now it’s out and in public.
Market Strategists are going to study this one. It’s a potential inflection point. Cant think of any other event or entity as globally galvanizing that football.
The most beloved, most watched sport in the world making less than the American/Canadian hockey league is a commercial failure. Non profits are generally inefficient at running businesses. With the right guardrails a private arm that knows how to run a business could help FIFA make a ton of money. And yes a lot of rich guys will become even richer too, so what?
But FIFA is the governing body of a sport, not a business.
Hearing you say this is like hearing someone say that the United Nations is a commercial failure.
Its purpose is to regulate and administer international football on behalf of its member associations, enforce compliance with its regulations, organise international competitions to relieve the member associations of the hassle, administer anti-doping programmes and related integrity measures (lol), and, through its membership of IFAB, help determine and promote the consistent application of the Laws of the Game worldwide. Its revenues only exist to support those functions.
Is there a need for it to have profit motive? Would the world be better if it decided it should have one? I don't see how the answer could be yes to either question.
The mention of guardrails is a little Onion-esque given the organisation and people in question
The UN is a poor analogy. The UN does not operate a large commercial business like FIFA which exploits the World Cup, Libertadores and other events. The only strong similarity they have is their non profit status. You should have used the IOC as analogy.
> help FIFA make a ton of money
It's a non-profit. So who cares? Why is more money automatically good?
> making less than the American/Canadian hockey league is a commercial failure
They aren't alike. The NHL doesn't happen once every 4 years.
The point of Fifa is not to make money. The point of it is to further the interests of the sport.
Besides, your tally of sports incomes is wrong since you didn't include UEFA revenue, which is also football money, in the count.
FIFA controls the largest event, so it should be the driving force for revenue but it’s not. But even if you add UEFA the whole thing still less profitable than an American professional and barely surpasses hockey. By the way, UEFA crying about this while they are the owners, regulators and revenue distributors is pretty crazy. It seems to me they are more concerned about not being able to hop on the FIFA deal themselves.
FFS this is getting fucking tiresome.
Do you not understand that FIFA and UEFA are a small component of the actual revenue of football? They are not all of football. This is not complicated.
> The most beloved, most watched sport in the world making less than the American/Canadian hockey league is a commercial failure.
Fortunately the English top division alone makes a similar amount to NHL (from a quarter of the matches) and the English second tier makes a similar amount to the Super Bowl[1], which is why football's governing body doesn't particularly need lessons on how to commercialize stuff from people in the United States who probably also don't understand football's financial centre of gravity, but will happily buy commercialization rights for a quadrennial tournament if sold to them in a backroom deal at a sufficiently low price...
[1]yes, I know the Super Bowl is only the one game. But if you can compare a 1400 game annual league to a 104 game quadrennial tournament, then I can compare an entire season to a single big game :D)...
> The most beloved, most watched sport in the world making less than the American/Canadian hockey league is a commercial failure.
Soccer leagues make a total of about 5-6x as much as the NHL. The Premier League alone makes 25% more than the NHL.
guardrails, yea pedotrump pissed all over existing guardrails in this wc. and you want to sell him a piece of fifa :D
Good thing it's a sport and not a commercial operation then!
> a commercial failure
Not everything has to have the teeth of capitalism continually biting down harder and harder. Plateaus are ok (and this is nowhere near a plateau)
You are comparing apple and oranges, it makes no sense.
> Soccer is by far the most popular sport on the planet, the fact that it makes a lot less money than hockey is insane.
Soccer makes much much more money than the NHL, it just doesn't all go to FIFA because the vast majority of matches are not organized by FIFA.
The premier league alone makes more than the NHL and that's just one of the european countries. La ligua, bundesliga also each make close to what the NHL makes with much smaller populations.
The fair comparison to FIFA is the IIHF. They make $35M for the hockey world championships vs 15B for the football world cup, you are slightly off, a rounding error.
> FIFA currently makes 40% of what the NHL makes, not the NFL, not NBA.
FIFA holds one significant money-making tournament for a month every 4 years (all due respect to the Women's World Cup in terms of prestige, but its revenue is a small fraction of the Men's World Cup). The NHL runs 6 months a year annually.
Closer to 10 months actually - Oct (Sept if you include the pre-season) through June.
But just to add on for comparison, the NHL has 1312 regular season games. Plus 4 rounds of best-of-7 playoff series with 16 teams making the playoffs. Let's say an average of 5.75 games per round, that's 86 playoff games bringing us to ~1400 games per year.
Over 4 years, that's 5600 games. The FIFA World Cup had 104 games this year. It's actually pretty impressive that the WC can even make 40% while hosting < 2% of the games that the NHL has. Or put another way, 1 WC game is equivalent to 54 NHL games - 2/3 of one team's full regular season.
That’s part of their poor commercial vision. Even the World Cup brings less revenue than one season of the NBA. Doesn’t even make sense to compare it with the NFL.
Again, it doesn't last as long as one season of the NBA or play as many games.
A single NBA season has over 1200 games - over 12 times as many games as the most recent World Cup (104). And that was already the largest-ever WC. Does the NBA have 12x the revenue of the WC?
> Even the World Cup brings less revenue than one season of the NBA
This isn't even true btw. The 2026 WC made $15b and the 2025-26 NBA season made $14.3 billion. [1][2]
Most of the WC's participating teams represent places poorer than the places NBA teams hail from.
You can't run the World Cup like the NBA. That's not how the sport works.
1. https://www.sportico.com/leagues/basketball/2025/nba-revenue...
2. https://www.theguardian.com/football/2026/jul/18/fifa-record...
So what. The point of the World Cup is a worldwide celebration of soccer, interchange of culture. It belongs to the people.
It's one of the only things left whose purpose is not just to make as much money as possible.
The Qatar World Cup tournament was obviously such a thing. The place had the money to build all the stadiums, but has never qualified legitimately and is a tiny country. Thousands of people died building those stadiums in Qatar.
Plus there is advertising all over the players' clothing, the pitch, the pitchside hoardings etc. There is high rent advertising in every break. Even more so since theze silly hydration breaks.
NHL/NFL/NBA are national leagues, the FIFA world cup a tournament that takes place every four years. You’re comparing apples and pears.
As a pundit - more 'water works', the addition in the last world cup was beyond lame.
>FIFA currently makes 40% of what the NHL makes,
That's entirely irrelevant, if FIFA even makes zero - most of the money is in the local leagues. FIFA is just there for the world cup
> Soccer is by far the most popular sport on the planet, the fact that it makes a lot less money than hockey is insane.
Maybe fans would prefer that it stayed that way.. making just enough money to keep the sport going, without the profit motive.
> Soccer is by far the most popular sport on the planet, the fact that it makes a lot less money than hockey is insane.
The NFL makes much less money than nVidia The world has gone mad! That's just insane.
don't be naive. Never in the history of humanity did corrupt billionaire pedophiles do anything help the sport/fans/women/..... They want a piece to get the foot in the door. 10 years from now, we wont even recognise football anymore.
I don't care what american billionaires make with nhl/nfl/..., hands fucking off of football.
Association football is more marketable than certain North American sports. For a start, the jerseys are covered in sponsors, even the shorts, socks and shoes. American football and basketball, for whatever reason, haven't done that yet.
It looks like this world cup may have introduced shirt sponsorship to US and Canadian sports. Soon their shirts will resemble Formula One drivers'. In return, association football will keep hydration breaks etc.
Cue UEFA's leadership being replaced in the next year or two. FIFA has had a taste of the amount of money involved in professional sports. There's no going back.
50 of the 55 member UEFA states took the floor to express their outrage at FIFA, this is not a matter of UEFA leadership being out of touch. The vast majority of the confederation is ready to walk.
I understand that this is a principled stand by UEFA, no doubt about it. But the amount of money in the offering is too large for the clubs (and their superstars) to snub their noses at it. When it comes down to money, principles are the first to be bought and sold.
I don't think you do understand, because the nation associations involved (not clubs) have resoundingly rejected this plan. First UEFA has announced their complete boycott, now CONCACAF has rejected it. This is DOA and Infantino just gave the delegation a huge reason to run a candidate against him in the upcoming elections.
FIFA has been spectacularly corrupt since at least thd 1970s, and UEFA is not far behind.
When Blatter was kicked out of FIFA for corruption, the USA provided a legal venue for the investigation. Between Infantino and Trump you would think that is off the table.
Expect some kind of back door deal.