Andy Burnham expressed the sentiments of numerous football fans by emphasizing that the World Cup is more than just a commodity; it is the premier competition in global sports and should not be up for sale.
UEFA echoed this sentiment, highlighting that the essence and governance of football should not be treated as tradable assets, emphasizing that FIFA does not have the authority to sell them. Despite this, Gianni Infantino appears set on selling a portion of the World Cup as if it were a property he is eager to cash in on.
FIFA is considering transferring the commercial operations of its major tournaments to a new company valued at £15 billion and potentially selling up to 21% of it to private investors, potentially raising £3.2 billion. Each of FIFA’s 211 member associations could be offered a stake worth around £15 million. Infantino is urging national federations to approve this move by tempting them with a significant financial windfall, labeling it a transformative opportunity. However, fans may view this as a compromising decision.
There used to be a clear distinction between profiting from the World Cup and relinquishing ownership of the machinery behind it. Infantino is now pushing to blur that line, essentially offering a sponsor the chance to redefine it.
He asserts that FIFA would retain control, but the recent World Cup illustrated the effects of such control: constant commercial interruptions during matches. The tournament witnessed hydration breaks that conveniently allowed FIFA to showcase sponsors’ products, turning the event into a marketing spectacle.
The lack of transparency surrounding the proposal has raised concerns. UEFA criticized the lack of consultation with Asian and North American bodies. Infantino’s secretive approach to shaping the future of the game without due consultation has sparked unease within the football community.
The potential involvement of Thrive Eternal, a company founded by Joshua Kushner, brother of Jared Kushner, Donald Trump’s son-in-law, has only intensified apprehensions. The intertwining of FIFA with individuals linked to the Trump administration has sparked skepticism and allegations regarding the motives behind the deal.
Critics, including US Congressman Jamie Raskin, have called for scrutiny of the relationship between FIFA and Trump, suggesting possible improprieties. Despite mounting scrutiny and opposition, Infantino has dismissed critics’ concerns, portraying them as baseless attacks.
The proposed deal threatens the integrity of football by potentially commercializing the World Cup further, leading to increased demands from investors for more games, interruptions, and higher costs for fans. Infantino’s legacy could be tarnished by these actions, as he risks being remembered as the man who compromised the essence of the World Cup for personal gain.
Ultimately, Infantino should be held accountable for his handling of the World Cup, as its custodian, not its owner. The sanctity of the tournament should be preserved, and any attempts to commercialize it extensively must be resisted to maintain its essence and appeal to fans worldwide.