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...
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.
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.
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 as business first, catering to owners first, sponsors second, broadcasters, and then lastly fans. IMO non-profit sports organizations are the best model for fans, who I identify the most with.
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.
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.
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
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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”
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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 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 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?
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.
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).
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.
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?
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?
> 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.
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.
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.
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 already 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)
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.
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.
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)
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
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
The problem with that is that it then it is no longer a sport, rather a... business.
UEFA letter is spot on.
Now if only that could put a dent in Infantino reelection...
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.
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.
But there's always a breaking point... hopefully.
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.
Got friends working for them as developers. They ran away. In months
A private company answers only to shareholders.
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-...
They are no strangers to certain aspects of it. /s
Interesting parallels to OpenAI.
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 as business first, catering to owners first, sponsors second, broadcasters, and then lastly fans. IMO non-profit sports organizations are the best model for fans, who I identify the most with.
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".
The game was already hurt this world cup with the flow destroying „hydration breaks“ to sell more ads.
That said, a World Cup without any of the 55 UEFA countries wouldn’t make sense commercially.
Depending on whether the South American teams show up…
(Though AFAIK they haven’t yet threatened a boycott.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_cup_winners.svg
Sepp Blatter for crying out loud.
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...
I think it’s important to clarify the incentives at play, people are rarely evil for the sake of being evil
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.
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
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.
IOC is about the only organisation that comes close to it I think.
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!
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 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.
Also the treatment of the Iranian team was comically awful.
Ahhhh, you're American!
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!
There was nothing egregious and it was widely attended.
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.
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.
Now if only it had been a good half-time show...
Second commentator: “It is true, Red Bull gives you wings. In this case, the wings only take you to the shower room.”
EDIT: not sure why i’m getting downvoted, they post up the injured player on the screens with a private medical company prominently displayed.
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 can't say I think the halftime show is a big deal at all though.
Every single break time decision in football is arbitrary already.
This is like saying “customers aren’t worried enough about the corporate process - they only care about the end product!”
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.
I'd say this is very, very common knowledge in huge parts of the world. It's not something only enthusiasts and purists know.
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.
This is the thing that is too much? I just don't get it. The entire thing is a spectacle to sell ads.
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.
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?
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.
… 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.
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.
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.
Infantino has been a disgrace, I hope they manage to get rid of him, but I have very little hope.
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.
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).
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.
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.
Besides, your tally of sports incomes is wrong since you didn't include UEFA revenue, which is also football money, in the count.
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)
>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
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.
It's one of the only things left whose purpose is not just to make as much money as possible.
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...
I don't care what american billionaires make with nhl/nfl/..., hands fucking off of football.
The NFL makes much less money than nVidia The world has gone mad! That's just insane.
Maybe fans would prefer that it stayed that way.. making just enough money to keep the sport going, without the profit motive.
* 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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Remember that when (FIFA president) Blatter was investigated for corruption, (UEFA president) Platini was also banned.
Infantino who seems to oscillate between Qatar and Switzerland I assume has a rather strenuous connection to the rest of Europe
Hold my beer
FIFA is a repulsive pit of corruption but UEFA isn't much better.
Remember Blatter and Platini?
This was barely 10 years ago, it's not ancient history.
Platini is still suing Infantino now.
[1]: https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/44397617/ex-fifa-chie...
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.
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.