World Cup sale fiasco raises questions about FIFA’s role

FIFA president Gianni Infantino's plan to sell a 20% stake in a subsidiary company set up to run the World Cup and other FIFA competitions has caused great controversy. 

Professor James Reade, sports economist at the University of Reading, questions the role of FIFA as a governing body, and suggests an alternative to the proposed private equity plan. 

For interviews, contact the University of Reading Press Office on 0118 378 5757 or pressoffice@reading.ac.uk

Watch Professor James Reade on France24: FIFA's $20bn World Cup gambit: Private equity, profiteering 'against real essence of football'

Professor James Reade said: “FIFA is the global governing body for football, with more members than the United Nations, but arguably the widespread perception of what FIFA is there for is quite vague. 

“The fiasco over the proposed sale of a slice of the World Cup suggests a more clearly defined role for FIFA is necessary, and more transparency in how all decisions are being made. FIFA need not necessarily organise the World Cup – after all, should a regulator have monopoly rights over global competition?

FIFA’s seemingly fumbled handling of its greatest product, the World Cup, seems indicative of further attempts to exploit the commercial value of the sport. The extravaganza in North America this summer appears to have whet the appetite of potential private equity investors with close links to the US president. 

“While generating revenue is essential for any sport to remain in a professionalised state, the worry is that this plan is a step too far. This summer, political interference by President Trump led to on-field disciplinary measures being distorted to favour the host nation. This raises the possibility that FIFA does not have the best interests of the game at heart and under this new private equity plan, would be susceptible to political and commercial interference. 

“Perhaps a change in the FIFA World Cup dynamic is in order. The FFE plan proposed to sell 21% of the World Cup to private equity in an opaque manner, but FIFA instead could contract with potential World Cup organisers in an open, transparent manner.

“The economics of mega events like the World Cup suggests little if any net benefit to hosts and indeed the absence of willing hosts for recent editions of major tournaments does suggest some reconsideration may be needed. Added to that, while such economic studies have begun to consider fan welfare, player welfare has not necessarily been factored in; with FIFA’s Club World Cup adding to an already very hectic schedule, increasingly there appears to be a need for a wider consideration of the welfare of less well represented groups.

“With domestic football associations and leagues seemingly unable to co-ordinate in the necessary way to ensure the welfare of all actors is taken into account, and with questions regarding who regulates a global regulator like FIFA, England’s recently established Independent Football Regulator is an interesting innovation in this space. Many aspects of its remit very obviously are motivated by fan welfare – increased need for consultation on club badge and colours changes, for example.

“With the UEFA boycott and supporting statements from other confederations, the current plan of Gianni Infantino is surely dead. But an alternative will come, and perhaps something more radical, with the good of the game being at the forefront rather than private equity returns.”