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.<p>The problem with that is that it then it is no longer a sport, rather a... business.<p>UEFA letter is spot on.
CONCACAF join UEFA and reject FIFA's World Cup sell-off plan. <a href="https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/49488584/uefa-boycott-all-fifa-competitions-protest-world-cup-private-equity-plan" rel="nofollow">https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/49488584/uefa-boycott...</a> . 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...
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.
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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>And again, we are talking a team that won, and was among the favorites to win from day 1, just not being able to fill 1/3rd of the stadium, or anything close.
Like for live music tickets prices it's hard to collectively do the right thing and boycott. There's just too many people.<p>But there's always a breaking point... hopefully.
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.<p>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.
For Infantino, they reckon his salary can go from 6M to 60M under this new org…
They also got so greedy that even EA couldn't deal with them anymore and they ended up destroying the Fifa videogame franchise
They just made $15bn.
FIFA is also a terrible employer<p>Got friends working for them as developers. They ran away. In months
These people looked at OpenAI and went "Hey, I can run corruption like that too!"
> and many others<p>Trump and Kushners<p>"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]<p>1. <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/football/2026/jul/30/fifas-sale-of-the-century-how-kushners-and-trump-are-at-centre-of-a-tangled-web" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/football/2026/jul/30/fifas-sale-...</a>
> UEFA<p>They are no strangers to certain aspects of it. /s
What's new? I thought it has been known as a big-money thing for some time now.
The new thing is trying to take the organization from a non-profit to a corporation. Mainly so the executives can increase their already large compensation apparently.<p>Interesting parallels to OpenAI.
FIFA made $~15 billion USD this World Cup, roughly double what they made in Qatar in 2022. There are many low-hanging fruit that can be optimized to increase that revenue by 10x.
I didn't realize the commercial-block-sized "hydration breaks" were <i>that</i> profitable.<p>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.<p>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 difference that FIFA ran the whole tournament now. There was no Local Organizing Committee (LOC) like with every single previous event.
> There are many low-hanging fruit that can be optimized to increase that revenue by 10x.<p>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<p>Also two 3 minute hydration breaks per match, giving broadcasters additional advertising windows.<p>That's your "optimization".
What's wrong with making billions? Will this hurt the game somehow?
Investors calling to change red cards because the best players should play, etc
We've seen the start with "hydration breaks" and a 30 minute half-time.
Yes.<p>The game was already hurt this world cup with the flow destroying „hydration breaks“ to sell more ads.
This is so highly unusual even sports-allergic HN wants to discuss it. It's like a religious schism in some sense.
About time<p>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).<p>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.<p>The only difference this year is that the bribery and political favors were out in the open.
> Hard to think of a modern institution as corrupt as fifa<p>IOC is about the only organisation that comes close to it I think.
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.<p>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.<p>Fork it!
I'm so happy to see they care enough to take a stand.
The last World Cup was a sh-t show. I expect the LA olympics to be no better.
It's only a matter of time before there are sponsors on the Yellow and Red cards...
Guaranteed slots to the tournaments for patrons
The red card for covering your mouth while talking to an opponent is brought to you by Telegram.
“And that’s the second State Farm Yellow Card for Haaland!”
<i>“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.”</i><p>Second commentator: <i>“It is true, Red Bull gives you wings. In this case, the wings only take you to the shower room.”</i>
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.<p>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)<p>This is the closest where I can see a future where we have a rugby union / rugby league like schism.<p>Oh and guess who is behind the investment group: <a href="https://apnews.com/article/world-cup-fifa-investors-kushner-infantino-uefa-8345e0864e3a217632733810c232b423" rel="nofollow">https://apnews.com/article/world-cup-fifa-investors-kushner-...</a>
I agree completely with your assessment of the water breaks, but the games were extremely entertaining and I watched as much as I could.
Of all the things wrong with the World Cup, the most inconsequential ones - hydration breaks and the final half-time show - have attracted the most griping.
Changing the pauses of the game alters the momentum and, as consequence, the results. How is that “inconsequential”? There have been cases of corrupted referees before, but violating the Laws of the Game in plain sight is an unprecedented attack on the sport.
I 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.<p>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.
How does it violate the laws of the game?<p>Every single break time decision in football is arbitrary already.
Every rule in sports is arbitrary, that's not an argument. If you want to do it properly, ask about the spirit of the game, not the laws - and there's clearly a conflict there.
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 VAR calls 5 minutes after the fact were the most bothersome thing to me
> the most inconsequential ones<p>This is like saying “customers aren’t worried enough about the corporate process - they only care about the end product!”
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.)<p>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.<p>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.
There was extensive coverage and discussion of Trump getting the Balogun red card overturned.
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.<p>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 <i>minuscule</i> 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 <i>billion</i> people are considered football fans.<p>This is certainly something many people I know have cared a lot about - and again, I'm not a football enthusiast myself, but <i>still</i> the vast majority of the people I know are, because, not being one really is an outlier.<p>[0] <a href="https://www.topendsports.com/world/lists/popular-sport/fans.htm" rel="nofollow">https://www.topendsports.com/world/lists/popular-sport/fans....</a><p>> There are plenty of stoppages in game already which take as much time.<p>Well. Not really. And those "stoppages" are <i>part of the game</i>. Actually watching the players quarrel with the referee and whatnot is something football fans <i>want to do</i>. It's not comparable.
“I’m not sure what the big deal about tripling the number of tire changes in the race is.”
Why would anyone be in favour of more ad breaks?
> non-fans would not have any idea that you were going for 2 halves to 4 "quarters"<p>… By non-fans do you mean people who have literally never heard of football, or something? I’m very far from a fan, no interest at all. But, I mean, I know there are two halves. Everybody knows that.
I think by non fans they just mean americans, it’s almost impossiible to not be aware of the basic rules outside of there.
There still are 2 halves. Framing it as quarters is the entire thing. There are numerous things throughout a game which will cause the game to be paused just as long, which is why there is stoppage time.
There aren’t usually numerous 5-minutes pauses in a football match, no.
except during that time players aren’t huddling around the manager and the rest of the coaching staff. all of whom have their ipads out to discuss stats breakdowns and instruct players on changing tactics and strategies.<p>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.<p>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 <i>severe</i> stoppage ie a delay going on 5-10+ minutes, which is usually rare.
Most football non-fans absolutely know that a football match is supposed to be two halves.
It's still two halves there is just another short stoppage time in which players stay on the field, the same as every foul, goal, and variety of other timing based decisions in football.
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?
This would only be true if they did not allow the hydration breaks to be used as a group coaching opportunity.
It's a pity that those letters are not sent for many many other things.
Europe, united at long last!
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?
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?
> help FIFA make a ton of money<p>It's a non-profit. So who cares? Why is more money automatically good?<p>> making less than the American/Canadian hockey league is a commercial failure<p>They aren't alike. The NHL doesn't happen once every 4 years.
The point of Fifa is not to make money. The point of it is to further the interests of the sport.<p>Besides, your tally of sports incomes is wrong since you didn't include UEFA revenue, which is also football money, in the count.
guardrails, yea pedotrump pissed all over existing guardrails in this wc. and you want to sell him a piece of fifa :D
> FIFA currently makes 40% of what the NHL makes, not the NFL, not NBA.<p>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.
> Soccer is by far the most popular sport on the planet, the fact that it makes a lot less money than hockey is insane.<p>The NFL makes much less money than nVidia The world has gone mad! That's just insane.
NHL/NFL/NBA are national leagues, the FIFA world cup a tournament that takes place every four years. You’re comparing apples and pears.
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.<p>I don't care what american billionaires make with nhl/nfl/..., hands fucking off of football.
> Soccer is by far the most popular sport on the planet, the fact that it makes a lot less money than hockey is insane.<p>Maybe fans would prefer that it stayed that way.. making just enough money to keep the sport going, without the profit motive.
It's crazy that as despicable an organization as UEFA is, they're still far better than FIFA.<p>Infantino has been a disgrace, I hope they manage to get rid of him, but I have very little hope.
I don't follow any sport, but I actually don't understand why UEFA and FIFA are non-profits when all the American leagues (MLB, NBA, NFL) are for-profit corporations. It seems to work well in America.
> It seems to work well in America.<p>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.<p>Internationally the standard is non-profits. Most sports have both their international organisations and highest standard of play organisations as non-profits - football, tennis, golf, cricket. The international components of baseball, american football, and basketball are all non-profits (though they are lower standards of play than the US internal leagues).
American sports leagues are also non-profit organizations. Profits go to the individual teams. So no, FIFA should not be run by private equity firms.
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.<p>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.
Are they? Their revenues are limited and they can’t really extend their influence outside USA. Meanwhile European games are watched globally
Somewhere in this fetid swamp of corruption, you just know the trump crime syndicate has its greasy hands on the pie.
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.<p>* e.g. Manchester City, Liverpool, Chelsea, Paris SG, AC Milan and Inter Milan -- in Spain, individual clubs can't be owned by private equity but the La Liga corporation is)
This is a joke, right? I can’t think of any league as blatantly corrupt as FIFA on any level.
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.<p>Although I disagree with his methods and goals I enjoy watching the way Infantino uses power play to stack the cards in his favor.<p>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.
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.<p>Something similar happened with FIDE (chess) in the Kasparov years. I believe FIDE is still headquartered in a dodgy dictatorship in Central-asia-stan.<p>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.
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.
Good to see some "balls" can still be found
ELI5? What are the factors and implications?
FIFA made ludicrous amounts of money as a non profit running the last World Cup and want to transition to a for profit corporation to make even more.<p>UEFA representing the European nations with the most competitive teams and many of the biggest stars, just told them good luck running a World Cup without us.
There is no World Cup without UEFA.
CONCACAF too
Right, IIRC they basically banned everybody in Trinidad from FIFA and relocated the HQ.<p>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.
It seems like Europe, yet again, have to stand up for ethics, morality and try to deflect corruption. It's so tiresome.
It’s standing up for football. Far more important.
This is UEFA we are talking about.<p>Remember that when (FIFA president) Blatter was investigated for corruption, (UEFA president) Platini was also banned.
Well, FIFA is also an European organization. Swiss, to be exact.
It’s located in Switzerland, but it’s a global organization and has really close ties with the US president
You don't understand, good things come from the EU, bad things come from those filthy non-EU Europeans.
Sorry to be a pedant, while switzerland is in the european landmass, it is not a member of the EU.
Maybe. But we take football quite seriously.
Isn't Infantino European?
The FA's worldwide don't need FIFA, they can set up a new world tournament. You will get a lot of poor nations who stick with FIFA for the cash but at the end of the day without European teams the world cup and FIFA will have minimal value. 5 of the last 6 world cup winners were european and it will only get more biased towards Europe. Argentina post Messi have no chance, and Brazil are the furthest away from winning than they ever have been.
There will be no cash for the poor nations without the European teams competing.
> Argentina post Messi have no chance<p>Hold my beer
Spain have a far more youthful side, who can easily win again. France will come back, as will England. Argentina have few players coming through and many stars will have retired by the next tournament, even youthful Alvarez will be 30 next time out.
FAs coming together and creating a new FIFA will just mean you get another organization that is exactly as corruption-ridden as FIFA. There's no point starting fresh if you don't fix the underlying problem.
Wow! Now you have my respect, UEFA.
Okay, got to admit I did _not_ have “Trump breaks the World Cup” on my bingo card.
Europe is where all the money is made in football. UEFA just want more of the pie.<p>FIFA is a repulsive pit of corruption but UEFA isn't much better.<p>Remember Blatter and Platini?
..
You seem to believe things that bring people joy are a waste of human potential. Please explain. Are we only meant to be machines that produce 16/7?
I wish sports would be sports, business be business, and politics politics. Whenever they mix, it is for the worse.
Good. Good riddance.
FIFA is just upholding western values. Profit, exploitation and money over everything else. They with FIA and likes are just showing the world what truly matters for western world.
American values, not western.
FIFA is a Swiss organisation, not based in the US.
US values, from the culture of the last 40 years.
We're really going to act like the entire world doesn't have issues with this.<p>Given this is a worldwide institution dealing with this, I think you are both casting the new too small.<p>Famously before either the US or Western world, these values were never celebrated.
Put it this way - Europeans don't generally call themselves from "the West" in 2026 - it's an American geopolitical fantasy.
Or maybe not, since it's Europe who are objecting here?
Yet it’s the very west uefa protesting.. right
[dupe] <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49112089">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49112089</a>
According to aljazeera's article, "the core investor would be a New York venture capital investment firm created by Joshua Kushner, the brother of US President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner."
Welcome. Not a dupe if some time has passed between submissions without much discussion or upvotes. And this is the source.
Dupe of a dupe: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49108292">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49108292</a>
This whole thread is full of people that cannot conceive a model where profit is not the goal
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.<p>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.<p>Expect some kind of back door deal.
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.