7/30/2026 at 6:48:04 PM
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.
by brunoborges
7/30/2026 at 8:13:37 PM
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...by madradavid
7/30/2026 at 8:46:37 PM
CONCACAF statement: https://www.concacaf.com/competitions/concacaf/news/statemen...by Vinnl
7/31/2026 at 12:21:43 AM
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.
by afavour
7/30/2026 at 9:10:50 PM
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.by skywhopper
7/31/2026 at 8:45:21 AM
Yeah, they just rejected the proposal. Meanwhile, UEFA is boycotting the game until those plans are DEFINITELY abandoned. I am wondering whether UEFA could even ask for a change in FIFA statute to ensure it can never be proposed again.by Departed7405
7/31/2026 at 9:07:58 AM
FTA: "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." (emphasis mine)by wongarsu
7/30/2026 at 11:54:33 PM
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.by vagrantJin
7/31/2026 at 5:46:59 AM
That’s not Africa only. When a corruption scandal comes up (bribing, lobbying), I’m often surprised at how cheap it was to buy the official. It’s often in the 10–50k eur region.by ornornor
7/31/2026 at 12:08:20 PM
Sure but keep in mind that for a lot of countries soccer isn't that big of a deal. There are a lot of countries in fifa and they all have equal voting power.Some island in the Caribbean has equal say compared to Spain for example.
That's why it's so easy. Bribe the people in the countries where the people don't care about soccer.
by hvb2
7/31/2026 at 7:24:35 AM
The average person is remarkably bad with money. It should not surprise us that politicians are no exception.by jurgenburgen
7/31/2026 at 8:58:21 AM
You’d think that for risking jail time etc the price would be much higher.by ornornor
7/31/2026 at 11:27:33 AM
That goes to show they probably don’t fear being caught at all.by brabel
7/31/2026 at 12:25:19 PM
Because they don't fear being punished.by Integrape
7/31/2026 at 10:07:45 AM
You know how it is: 10k here, 30k there... and there is a few M in a swiss bank account (or whatever the modern hiding place is).by bornfreddy
7/31/2026 at 12:25:34 PM
Who would have thought crypto/btc prime use would be corruption (bribery, ransoms, influence, extortion)? A lot I wager.by le-mark
7/31/2026 at 5:10:27 PM
everyone. everyone would have thought. and did.the silk road was riding high long before crypto ads were running during superbowls
by red-iron-pine
7/31/2026 at 3:09:01 PM
the crypto hater mantra from day one was "this is just for drugs, bribery and money laundering". the only word I object to in that statement is "just".by ratelimitsteve
7/31/2026 at 9:44:38 AM
I assume the politicians are kept in a very carefully managed microcosm so that they actually think they're making the best choices for their nation, because all other options have been hidden from them or misrepresented.by londons_explore
7/31/2026 at 3:28:21 AM
It's not cheap to them. You have to adjust for purchasing power - the US dollar goes a lot farther in most African countries than it does in the US. That Land Rover, if sold on the open market, could yield enough for a Nigerian live the rest of their life in Lagos without having to work. An equivalent-purchasing-power bribe in the US would be on the order of several million USD.by 10000truths
7/31/2026 at 1:23:33 AM
What do you mean that "a state cannot exist without [corruption]"?by fifilura
7/31/2026 at 2:23:20 AM
Assuming they meant it as in it's unavoidable.We should still be frustrated by it, but I think I get what they were getting at.
by doomboiardee
7/31/2026 at 2:54:34 PM
When you tie money to power (i.e. capitalism) people will use money to buy more power, and their power the gain more money.This is a feature of capitalism, not a bug. The system is working as intended.
Luckily capitalism is not the only system available to us, and we can find a system which is not inherently corrupt.
by runarberg
7/31/2026 at 3:15:07 PM
I think that's not capitalism, that's human nature. On every possible power structure you can think of, there will be people available to compromise on their moral principles if given the right incentives to do so. Under capitalism that's easily money, under other systems it might be something else. You can work to mitigate or detect and deter it (the amount of effort put on that is what makes the difference between limited and widespread corruption). You cannot hope to eliminate it entirely.by p91paul
7/31/2026 at 8:21:28 PM
IIRC a British MP was caught on camera accepting like $5k bribe. Imagine most US governors and congresspeople would need any more that that either.by queenkjuul
7/31/2026 at 11:14:47 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_toleranceby librasteve
7/30/2026 at 8:24:17 PM
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...
by conradfr
7/30/2026 at 9:00:27 PM
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.by runarberg
7/30/2026 at 9:07:18 PM
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.by jamesblonde
7/31/2026 at 12:13:09 PM
> Thank go there is still a bastion of democracy/fairness left in UefaDo you know who Platini is?
This is only because Europe cares about soccer. If this was basketball, ice hockey or baseball then I don't think Europe would care and would be the country to bribe
by hvb2
7/30/2026 at 10:05:24 PM
Still there are plenty of world wide organizations that are less corrupt than fifa.by plufz
7/30/2026 at 11:11:10 PM
I'm actually not even sure I can think of an organisation more corrupt. Maybe the IOC is up there?by tialaramex
7/31/2026 at 6:43:09 AM
The FIA (motorsport governing body) is giving them a run for their money. Recently removed presidency term limits and made several other rule changes to prevent challengers. And like FIFA, despite the majority opinion seeming to be against the corruption the decisions get rubber stamped anyway.by basisword
7/30/2026 at 11:18:13 PM
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.by darepublic
7/30/2026 at 9:20:51 PM
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.by runarberg
7/30/2026 at 10:03:54 PM
[dead]by retr0rocket
7/31/2026 at 4:04:58 AM
> Thank go there is still a bastion of democracy/fairness left in UefaTo be a bit cynical on this, I'm going to say that UEFA is worried the international scene will infringe on the European league scene.
They've found something to be outraged about, but the reality is more about the threat to their own bottom line than it is about the international game.
by LanceH
7/31/2026 at 10:18:27 AM
This is probably at least partially true. And they know that if they get together with South America, they can easily replace FIFA with another governing structure.by bornfreddy
7/30/2026 at 11:22:19 PM
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.
by mcmcmc
7/31/2026 at 1:58:03 AM
> That would grow the global game.The game is already as global as it gets, 1.5bn people watched the wc final…
by bdangubic
7/31/2026 at 2:17:35 PM
> The game is already as global as it getsThere is a tiny bit of room for expansion. https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/c5y03dermmeo:
“Football is almost non-existent on this Pacific island. Nauru has never fielded a team in an official international match and it has just one – hard sand – pitch.
While there is interest in big Premier League matches, and children wear Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo kits, any attempts to actually play football tend to be mocked, unless it's Aussie rules.”
(Nauru is about 21 km², 21,000 people)
by Someone
7/31/2026 at 7:22:55 AM
So a minority of the human population?by jurgenburgen
7/31/2026 at 1:12:49 PM
~2bn are under 12, ~1bn are over 65 so not really a minority :)by bdangubic
7/31/2026 at 7:54:40 AM
Now consider time zones.by illliillll
7/31/2026 at 8:21:44 AM
Standard Eastern Tribeby actionfromafar
7/30/2026 at 9:34:35 PM
> It seems like FIFA has a culture of corruptionI 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.
by zimpenfish
7/31/2026 at 3:39:11 AM
Reminiscent of the resource curse, the observation that many countries "blessed" with an abundance of natural resources actually fare pretty badly (including lots of corruption).by FabHK
7/30/2026 at 10:54:35 PM
FIA has entered the roomby sizzzzlerz
7/30/2026 at 11:05:55 PM
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”.
by bluedevil2k
7/31/2026 at 1:17:42 AM
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.
by crote
7/31/2026 at 3:32:12 AM
That’s the same justification my German friend made. I guess it’s American viewpoint vs European. The Super League would have been like the NFL in the US, where every team can beat any other any given night. That’s much more appealing to me, but to each their own.by bluedevil2k
7/31/2026 at 4:05:36 AM
The NFL is so balanced not because it’s a “super” league but because every team has the same salary cap. The best team and the worst team all have to spend essentially the exact same amount of money on their players, ensuring that no team can buy their way to the top.Even there it’s still not really true that the best team can lose to the worst team in any given night. The best team is generally favored a lot and justifiably so. In soccer teams can also be quite mismatched and a lucky goal by the worse team can be the only score and win the match.
by dpark
7/31/2026 at 2:07:12 PM
I agree with you, but I think it’s worth pointing out that the NFL is balanced because they tried to make it balanced - the salary cap, draft, revenue sharing, etc. are all outcomes of that plan, not the prime motivators themselves.by Starman_Jones
7/31/2026 at 6:46:03 AM
Another large part is the draft. Worst team gets first pick goes a long way to levelling the playing field.by basisword
7/31/2026 at 1:46:10 PM
As a lapsed NY Jets fan, I disagree -- competent ownership and management is required more than good draft picks. To wit: Tom Brady was drafted at 199 overall, but the Jets' last two QB picks (Zach Williams and Sam Darnold) are both journeyman-level players.I'm more of a hockey guy, which has a much stricter salary cap than the NFL, and the Edmonton Oilers are instructive here: they had a bunch of first overall picks 10 years ago (including multiple franchise players), but the team itself wasn't competitive until management changed and could build a cohesive team.
by ascagnel_
7/31/2026 at 3:19:35 PM
Bad management will certainly tank a team, but he’s right. The draft structure also helps to even out the teams.In the NFL, winning is more about quality management and coaching (and some luck) than anything else. Which is a good thing. Leagues where winners are decided mostly on who is able to spend the most on players are lopsided and kind of lame.
by dpark
7/31/2026 at 6:18:29 AM
The NFL is an association of billionaires that captured a sport and created rules to keep scarcity going and not let either of them ruin it for the others. In football we already have oil magnates buying individual clubs here and there, but at least they are very diluted among the real clubs.by vasco
7/31/2026 at 8:49:57 AM
In the Champions League the top, let’s say, 16 teams can all beat each other, so that part of the NFL experience is still there. The thing is that these top 16 teams change every year and there is no clear definition which clubs are top teams at the moment. But that’s the charm of it.Football is very tribal. People want to dream that their local club have a shot to participate and maybe win the Champions league. Think of Leicester and Girona. In the Netherlands there is now a club called NEC and they have a shot to qualify for it, and that by itself is a historic moment for the club.
by enaaem
7/31/2026 at 11:33:02 AM
Exactly. Look at Bodø/Glimt from northern Norway. In 2017 they played in Norwegian 2. division and in 2020 they played AC Milan in the Europa League and won the top division in Norway and it's only been better since. BUT, this too will end at some point and another team will take their spot at the top. Maybe my team that has been struggling for decades will get their shit together and start winning something? That is much more exciting than seeing the same 10-20 money doped teams play matches all over the world to generate even more money.by Thlom
7/31/2026 at 8:33:28 PM
> every team can beat any other any given nightI know this has been an NFL slogan for decades but i actually feel like it's less true in the NFL than in a lot of other sports--soccer included.
I also think US leagues could really benefit from the idea of relegation
by queenkjuul
7/31/2026 at 11:47:56 AM
You mean, its the dullest.Imagine never having any relegation risk for being crap. Without divisions and removal of risk, what's the point?
Without the chance to work at a lower level and through simply being good, getting a team promoted how are you supposed to inspire? NFL, is both the least and the most American sport there is.
by happymellon
7/31/2026 at 1:45:15 PM
PSG has won 8 of the last 10 Ligue 1. Bayern 9 of the last 10 Bubdesliga. Barcelona/Real Madrid 9 of the last 10 La Liga.That’s exciting? There’s 50+ teams in those leagues that stand NO shot of ever winning a championship, ever. The argument I’ve seen in this thread is either 1) it’s thrilling when my favorite average team upsets the backups of one of the powerhouses and 2) it’s exciting to get relegated and then come back.
You know what’s even more exciting…winning a championship. And every August every NFL fan starts with the hope and belief that this is their year. NFL has Leicester-lite situations every few years. Patriots were worst 2 years ago, lose in the championship the next year.
I will give credit to the Premier League - they’re doing it right. As mentioned, too 15-20 teams are competitive and could win a title in a given year. You know why it’s the best league - they set up a revenue sharing model similar to US leagues. Equal chance of winning = most excitement for fans of the entire league.
by bluedevil2k
7/31/2026 at 6:50:26 AM
Putting all of the ethical issues aside, do you know how fucking boring this would be?by m4tthumphrey
7/31/2026 at 1:38:37 PM
You can fuck right off trying to create a closed league where only a "chosen" few clubs take part.It might just be an entertainment spectacle to you but for others it's very tied into local identity.
The idea that outside money men should be allowed to come in and destroy open competition is highly offensive to me.
The best years in football are when a smaller club gets a run of luck and beats the big boys. Or when one of the super clubs gets relegated and their fans have experience a season or two in the lower leagues.
You're not taking that away from us without a fight!
by Lio
7/31/2026 at 6:21:10 PM
Americans (Kushner et al.) looked at an opportunity to make money and found a willing ally in Infantino, and they took it.I am Asian. Our country FA is corrupt as hell too. The way I read this, FIFA needs a yes from roughly half of the member nations to go forward with this. Yes to a offer (not promise) to receive $20m. I can totaly see the top brass of our FA, 10-20 people at most, looking at this as an opportunity to earn easy several million bucks and voting yes.
by esalman
7/30/2026 at 10:51:59 PM
However, all all-Africa World Cup won't find too many takers.by sizzzzlerz
7/30/2026 at 11:23:17 PM
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.by pirates
7/30/2026 at 11:35:53 PM
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.by nephihaha
7/31/2026 at 4:23:42 PM
South Africa performed above its traditional level just in reaching the second round, which it has not done before.by _djo_
7/31/2026 at 2:25:40 AM
CONCACAF extremely weak. They didn't even say they'll boycott. They're likely just as corrupt as the other countries and may still vote it through, they're just sad they were not consulted.by freely0085
7/31/2026 at 7:01:34 AM
CONCACAF and UEFA almost always vote together, but they are far outnumbered by every other region and FIFA only needs a majority vote for a rule to pass. You're excluding about half of the planet by only mentioning Africa.by dataengineer56
7/31/2026 at 9:26:49 AM
CONCACAF and UEFA together is 96 out of 211 votes. They've since being joined by the Asian Football Confederation for a large majority against. And no reason to suspect the bung Infantino offers for voting in his direction is anywhere near enough to sway CONMEBOL.The African confederation is actually marginally smaller than the European one. It also has no shortage of internal disagreements, brings in very little revenue, and the bigger nations are ultimately going to look at where the money is and see that it isn't trying to plough ahead without Europe, Asia or the United States.
CONCACAF was actually one of Infantino's best hopes, a mixture of the US, a few nations that hugely benefited from Infantino's other world cup reforms and a few that have no realistic prospect of World Cup football but would love $40m in return for voting a particular way...
by notahacker
7/31/2026 at 9:16:57 AM
Since AFC have now joined them[0][1], FIFA no longer have the votes for this to pass.[0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/ce345l6kg6ro - "Uefa - the body that governs European football - has 55 votes. Concacaf, which oversees football in North, Central America and the Caribbean, has 35 and Asia has 46." which only leaves 75 votes from the 211 and he'd need 106.
[1] I've no idea why the BBC doesn't properly capitalise UEFA or CONCACAF. I assume it's either some weird style guide or the subeditors are having another day off.
by zimpenfish
7/31/2026 at 9:54:09 AM
On the capitalization, it seems the BBC will always use title case for acronyms (Nasa, Nato) and all caps for initialisms (ATM, SNP). I did try to search for SQL to see if the Beeb thinks it should be read as Sequel or Es-que-el, but their search refuse to show exact results and keeps giving me articles about the Scottish National Party instead.by mediumdeviation
7/31/2026 at 4:45:33 PM
From their style guide:"Where you would normally pronounce the abbreviation as a string of letters - an initialism - use all capitals with no full stops or spaces (eg FA, UNHCR). However, our style is to use lower case with an initial cap for acronyms where you would normally pronounce the set of letters as a word (eg Maga, Sars, Aids, Nasa, Opec, Apec)."
(Under "acronym": https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsstyleguide/a )
by johneth
7/31/2026 at 8:24:15 AM
Nobody is going to watch a worldcup if south America joins this boycott.by ganzsz
7/31/2026 at 11:02:28 AM
Wondering about this. 10 years ago it was true but Brazil are a shadow of their former selves, and Argentina without the likes of Messi and Aguero aren't the same. I know they reached the final but Messi almost had the golden boot.Wouldn't be surprised to see Africa surpass South America in the next decade
by dwedge
7/31/2026 at 8:53:47 AM
UEFA leaving already leaves a pretty big gaping hole in any future FIFA tournament, since it'd exclude Spain (1st), England (3rd), France (4th), Norway (5th), Belgium (6th), Switzerland (joint 7th), Portugal (13th), Netherlands (17th), Germany (18th), Croatia (20th), Sweden (27th), Austria (28th), Bosnia and Herzegovina (29th).That's 75% of the final four and of the quarterfinals, 44% of the round of 16. Then if you add CONCACAF into the mix, it comes to 63% of the RO16.
by Hamuko
7/31/2026 at 9:50:42 AM
Having Scotland back in the tournament was great, and the Tartan Army generated a lot of positive press, and was relatively well behaved.by nephihaha
7/31/2026 at 9:27:58 AM
Yeah but good luck having World Cup without any european country...by mikkom
7/31/2026 at 9:49:01 AM
Yes, it's just been won by one! For me one of the gaping holes in this tournament was Italy. That would have been unthinkable years ago. It is strange seeing New Zealand there but not Russia, but there are political reasons for that.by nephihaha
7/31/2026 at 7:50:11 AM
FIFA can't really exist in any way similar to it's current form without UEFA> You're excluding about half of the planet by only mentioning Africa.
It's the half of the planet that nobody cares about when it comes to football.
by illliillll
7/31/2026 at 8:48:06 AM
The issue is every federation - whether they never qualified for the world cup or won final(s) - gets one vote. This has become a big issue, with any proposal to give more money (even if that entails compromising on key principles) to federations (by making more money) is almost certain to pass because of very poor FAs that need it / want it desperately.by Departed7405
7/31/2026 at 9:14:30 AM
Yeah, but if UEFA stays true to their word, passing this proposal is guaranteed to lead to the end of a FIFA-led world cup. They have the votes to privatize the world cup, but in doing so would destroy the very thing they are trying to privatize, and likely destroy FIFA as a wholeMeanwhile UEFA can just get together with South America and form a new governing body for a new world cup
by wongarsu
7/31/2026 at 6:28:56 AM
“The effort is being bankrolled by Joshua Kushner, the brother of Jared Kushner, U.S. President Donald Trump's son-in-law.”Ah. This boondoggle makes sense now.
by JumpCrisscross
7/31/2026 at 6:27:35 AM
Honestly no one care about United States, Canada and Mexico in soccer. These countries are irrelevant.by aucisson_masque
7/31/2026 at 7:07:48 AM
I'm not an American but FIFA certainly care about the US and Mexico.The US is a vast market. It's played a lot in the US as well. The MLS also not a tiny league. Football is also huge in Mexico.
Hugo Sanchez was truly a legend. Among many.
by sien
7/31/2026 at 11:39:22 AM
The US just hosted as main host again after only 30 years. Brazil waited from 1950 to 2014 to host again, a full 64 years, and it’s arguably one of the countries most cared about in soccer.by brabel
7/31/2026 at 2:10:31 PM
Hosting the tournament has nothing to do with it. America is a lucrative market, and on top of that, FIFA can get away with charging insane ticket prices. I'm Canadian and soccer is my primary sport. Unfortunately, on a global level, nobody really cares about Canada or US when it comes to soccer.by parthdesai
7/31/2026 at 6:38:53 AM
Mexico are decentby hdgvhicv
7/31/2026 at 6:29:15 AM
They’re massively relevant when it comes to sponsorship. The U.S. alone represents like 40% of global discretionary income and ad spend.by JumpCrisscross
7/30/2026 at 8:56:18 PM
> 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?
by worik
7/30/2026 at 9:56:39 PM
And strangely a very high percentage of those resources get converted into mansions and yachtsby ifwinterco
7/30/2026 at 11:09:58 PM
Nobody specified what game.by ethbr1
7/31/2026 at 2:31:31 AM
Look, it is pretty bullshit if you ask me.So it used to be that there were pre-tournament games, to qualify.
A lot of countries... they wouldn't qualify. They'd play an ample amount of pre-tournament games though.
Now, you seen more countries qualify, and you see countries who used to not qualify, dropping ASAP (in the deathmatch 16th matches, right after poule).
So what did we get out of that? A few matches during the tournament, and they were quite frankly meaningless.
These countries which made it to deathmatch 1/16th gained nothing. It is a scam, a trick. They think they gained fame, but they really have not, since the barrier to get to the deathmatch has been lowered.
Furthermore, if you follow a corrupt scheme, you can ensure a country like Argentina is going to have the least chance to end up with strong opponents.
No, mr. Infantino. We need less corruption in FIFA, not more.
* We don't want a drink break to watch commercials..
* ..or a 30 min break with a bunch of actors (who sing with autotune) when your own rules say it may only be a 15 min break.
* We don't want red cards commutated or revoked.
* We don't want star players not getting yellow or red card, when other players are getting one for the same foul.
* We don't want a yellow card being reversed, then given to an opponent, based on 'identity mismatch'.
* We don't want to see racism or political statements.
* We don't want to see rugby, we want to see football.
* We want to see fair-play, with a meaningful VAR which can be called by the captain or coach of each team twice (getting back their call if agreed on).
You don't need a for-profit in your chain to fix the above. You need a non-profit with a non-corrupt chair, and you've proven you're not fit. Red card for you, mr. Infantino. You're out, arrivederci.
by Fnoord
7/31/2026 at 12:02:27 PM
> or a 30 min break with a bunch of actors (who sing with autotune)Madonna and Shakira were actually doing playback. BTS and Timberlake at least were singing live.
by darkwater
7/31/2026 at 4:19:00 AM
> Now, you seen more countries qualify, and you see countries who used to not qualify, dropping ASAP (in the deathmatch 16th matches, right after poule).> So what did we get out of that? A few matches during the tournament, and they were quite frankly meaningless.
The answer for FIFA is of course money. More countries, more games, more money.
But the non-cynical answer is that all of those countries got to see their teams play 3 World Cup games. Some got to see more than that. I would bet that many of those countries’ citizens are very happy with the expanded tournament, and good for them. We also got Cape Verde this year, who many people around the world were excited for.
by dpark
7/31/2026 at 3:27:47 AM
>>* We want to see fair-play, with a meaningful VAR which can be called by the captain or coach of each team twice (getting back their call if agreed on).I am not sure what your problem with Argentina is, but with a meaningful VAR, Cucurella would have been sent off and Enzo Fernandez would have stayed on the pitch. I am sick of the anti-Argentina racist campaign. Just follow the amount of yellow and red cards they were given in their last three games in the WC.
by opinologo
7/31/2026 at 4:28:26 AM
Fernandez deserved each of his yellow cards. Especially the second for that reckless and dangerous tackle.Cucurella did not violate the rule. He touched his mouth for an instant. The rule is not “if you ever touch your mouth you get ejected”, which is why VAR didn’t do anything and neither did the ref on the field.
I generally have nothing against Argentina but they were wildly outplayed in the last game, they were disrespectful, and Messi’s appeal to the ref to try to get Cucurella ejected was shameful.
by dpark
7/31/2026 at 6:46:07 AM
Argentina’s post match antics should be enough to ban them for 5 yearsby hdgvhicv
7/31/2026 at 8:49:05 PM
Sore-ass losers picking fights after the game because they couldn't score in 120 minutes?Crybabies. Ban Argentina from FIFA for years after that debacle.
by queenkjuul
7/31/2026 at 7:27:51 AM
It's not illegal to cover your mouth. It's only illegal in "heated exchanges".by Thlom
7/31/2026 at 6:27:08 AM
Funny racism that doesn't like Argentina but loved Cape Verde.by vasco
7/30/2026 at 9:25:33 PM
Both can be - and seem to be - true.by wood_spirit
7/30/2026 at 9:12:23 PM
Who told you that? FIFA?by skywhopper
7/30/2026 at 9:34:35 PM
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...
by notahacker
7/30/2026 at 7:17:42 PM
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.by jmathai
7/30/2026 at 7:25:06 PM
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.by CodingJeebus
7/30/2026 at 7:40:48 PM
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.
by curun1r
7/30/2026 at 8:36:08 PM
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.
by hibikir
7/30/2026 at 7:53:23 PM
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.
by jmathai
7/30/2026 at 8:21:03 PM
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.
by conradfr
7/30/2026 at 10:07:05 PM
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.
by lotsofpulp
7/31/2026 at 12:34:53 AM
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.by dylan604
7/31/2026 at 11:07:48 AM
England is bizarre. Away tickets in the premiership are capped at £30 but I was routinely paying £48 in the championship and £36 in league 1 (second and third leagues)by dwedge
7/31/2026 at 6:48:47 AM
It’s a union and moves power to the little people.by hdgvhicv
7/31/2026 at 1:59:46 PM
There is nothing wrong with that, either. It’s all just buyers and sellers negotiating prices.by lotsofpulp
7/31/2026 at 11:05:50 AM
Wasn't this one of the only ever world cups where group stage games weren't sold out?by dwedge
7/30/2026 at 11:44:18 PM
"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.
by nephihaha
7/31/2026 at 5:03:28 AM
While true, it’s not a refutation at all. Look at the attendance makeup of every English club in the last 100 years, listen to the stories of the people who grew up supporting their local team, the young boys that grew up playing and became local or national heroes. That tells you where the soul of football lives.by scott_w
7/31/2026 at 9:32:13 AM
I've been hearing this "football is working class" thing all my life. Honestly, depending on where you are in the UK, you will see working class people participating in rugby league (Northern England), rugby union (South Wales, West Country, Scottish Borders), hurling, Gaelic football (both NI), shinty (the Highlands), cricket (Yorkshire and one or two other places), basketball, boxing and all the rest. Apart from rugby league, none of these games is playing the "prolier than thou" card.Several of those games are cheaper to go and watch. In fact, it's cheaper to go to the opera or ballet than the football as someone pointed out to me, even though those have a different image. Season tickets to major clubs are extortionate. (Yes, that includes the SPL.) It isn't as working class as it makes out, other than the fact anyone can play it in the park. (But the same is true of other sports.)
Soccer has conflated its history with the medieval games of folk football (which looked more like rugby) and has basically covered up its posh origins. The "football" our ancestors played seven hundred years ago has almost no resemblance to soccer.
by nephihaha
7/31/2026 at 5:57:24 PM
Literally none of the things you said refute my statement> depending on where you are in the UK,
I specifically referred to English clubs. The fact that other home nations prefer different sports has no bearing on English culture. The fact that multiple sports are considered working class has no bearing on the fact that football is one of those sports.
> Soccer has conflated its history with the medieval games of folk football
Irrelevant. My frame of reference was working class people over the last century. What Mediaeval England did was never part of my argument.
by scott_w
7/31/2026 at 7:56:06 PM
I don't live in England or follow any English football clubs.> What Mediaeval England did was never part of my argument.
Maybe not yours. But what is association football today is actually the gentrified code, which was only taken up by the working class later on. Most Working class football was rougher and more like rugby, gridiron and Gaelic, not soccer. But if you read most soccer histories, you'd think it was a smooth transition between the two.
It's used this working class status thing to put down other sports. I've seen that so many times.
Even in the early twentieth century, there were plenty of "gentleman amateur" football clubs that were part of a much older tradition.
by nephihaha
7/30/2026 at 10:49:35 PM
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.by 4lb0
7/30/2026 at 7:14:37 PM
For Infantino, they reckon his salary can go from 6M to 60M under this new org…by javier2
7/30/2026 at 9:21:11 PM
Infantino should call Altmanby miohtama
7/30/2026 at 9:42:41 PM
Or Madoff, SBF, Weinstein, etcby juliusceasar
7/31/2026 at 1:11:54 AM
Don’t give them stupid ideas.by throw1234567891
7/30/2026 at 10:54:57 PM
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.
by dzonga
7/31/2026 at 2:44:20 PM
FIFA can't act corrupt by definition. They removed this word completely from their codex.by coffeebeanHH
7/30/2026 at 7:21:51 PM
They also got so greedy that even EA couldn't deal with them anymore and they ended up destroying the Fifa videogame franchiseby ardit33
7/30/2026 at 7:25:06 PM
Imagine being more money hungry than EA - a company which makes billions from gaslighting children into gambling money on getting their favourite players.by tmgldn
7/30/2026 at 7:20:54 PM
FIFA is also a terrible employerGot friends working for them as developers. They ran away. In months
by seviu
7/30/2026 at 10:07:33 PM
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.by duxup
7/30/2026 at 8:53:42 PM
Based on the quality of their World Cup ticketing website, I’m not surprised. That was the worst ticketing experience I’ve ever endured.by skywhopper
7/30/2026 at 7:28:29 PM
Are you talking about EA or FIFA?by jackbravo
7/30/2026 at 9:36:55 PM
Yes.by decimalenough
7/31/2026 at 7:35:18 AM
the FIFA branding on the EA game was gone and EA still came out well. So UEFA could learn something from that situation.by rapidfl
7/30/2026 at 7:35:03 PM
> and many othersTrump 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-...
by lossolo
7/30/2026 at 7:26:46 PM
They just made $15bn.by oliwarner
7/30/2026 at 10:28:30 PM
and part of the proposal is to get Fifa to borrow and take on debt lol it's peak capitalismby didntknowyou
7/30/2026 at 7:34:41 PM
Which is clearly not enough.by jimbokun
7/30/2026 at 7:37:59 PM
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.by brunoborges
7/30/2026 at 7:50:56 PM
A nonprofit can be questioned about how it pays people.A private company answers only to shareholders.
by testdelacc1
7/30/2026 at 8:07:20 PM
bingoby brunoborges
7/31/2026 at 12:00:36 AM
Seems like this is the era of using NFP to make money through spinoff corporations.by TZubiri
7/30/2026 at 8:02:56 PM
These people looked at OpenAI and went "Hey, I can run corruption like that too!"by outside1234
7/30/2026 at 9:34:45 PM
true lmaoby fHr
7/30/2026 at 8:02:48 PM
> UEFAThey are no strangers to certain aspects of it. /s
by hulitu
7/30/2026 at 7:11:23 PM
What's new? I thought it has been known as a big-money thing for some time now.by orangedog
7/30/2026 at 7:36:58 PM
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.
by jimbokun
7/30/2026 at 7:14:07 PM
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.by glitchc
7/30/2026 at 7:27:02 PM
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.
by overfeed
7/30/2026 at 9:59:29 PM
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 adsby ifwinterco
7/31/2026 at 1:16:33 AM
Don’t watch. I watched the last 10 minutes of the tournament and it was enough.by throw1234567891
7/30/2026 at 9:41:05 PM
There were 40% more games than the last World Cup, which is a lot of extra broadcast rights and ticket revenues...by notahacker
7/30/2026 at 8:15:31 PM
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.by glitchc
7/30/2026 at 10:52:10 PM
Above? I don't know anything about these particular auctions, but how could any auction arrive at a price above market value?by herdrick
7/30/2026 at 8:56:48 PM
And they took a 15% commission on both sides of every aftermarket transaction. I’ve never seen such an overtly avaricious “marketplace”.by skywhopper
7/30/2026 at 9:17:16 PM
Off in the distance, an app store rings its 30% bell.by tremon
7/31/2026 at 10:09:17 AM
That one I can't be too mad about. Better FIFA gets the profits instead of ticket scalpers.by ginko
7/30/2026 at 7:15:29 PM
The difference that FIFA ran the whole tournament now. There was no Local Organizing Committee (LOC) like with every single previous event.by haunter
7/31/2026 at 5:56:32 AM
I have never before seen "FIFA World Cup" used so much and I guess that's why. Do you enjoy watching FIA F1 or IOC Olympics? It's pushy and inconsiderate self-promotion that nobody wants to hear.by ahartmetz
7/31/2026 at 3:42:22 PM
I also wonder if it's a trademark thing -- there are other world cups, but there's only one FIFA capital-W world capital-C cup. Just off the top of my head, the last decade has had cricket, rugby, basketball, and ice hockey world cups.by ascagnel_
7/30/2026 at 7:52:57 PM
> 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".
by lossolo
7/30/2026 at 9:42:53 PM
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...
by notahacker
7/31/2026 at 1:19:50 AM
Some good thoughts here. I could see a stretching break and maybe a rolling competition between halves.by throw1234567891
7/30/2026 at 8:55:31 PM
FIFA has announced they plan to officially sell off everything to private investors, dropping all pretense of being a steward of a common good.by skywhopper
7/30/2026 at 8:06:07 PM
What's wrong with making billions? Will this hurt the game somehow?by erfgh
7/30/2026 at 8:10:24 PM
We've seen the start with "hydration breaks" and a 30 minute half-time.by tommek4077
7/30/2026 at 8:13:19 PM
Investors calling to change red cards because the best players should play, etcby mig1
7/31/2026 at 8:04:07 AM
It's going to be the "red card brought to you by Pizza Hut" soon...Hah and because Pizza Hut wants exposure, it'll come out more and more.
by netsharc
7/30/2026 at 8:42:40 PM
Instead of just various penis challenged nation leaders doing so...by lkramer
7/30/2026 at 8:09:52 PM
Yes.The game was already hurt this world cup with the flow destroying „hydration breaks“ to sell more ads.
by ralfd
7/30/2026 at 9:16:08 PM
Yes it will hurt the game. Americans already have the NFL if they want to watch commercials. Leave soccer alone.by stackghost
7/30/2026 at 10:30:15 PM
nothing wrong, but did we really need ticket prices to go from 100 to 1000 if they weren't struggling financially?by didntknowyou
7/31/2026 at 1:21:22 AM
But Trump is happy. Everyone made a killing!by throw1234567891
