UEFA and its national associations will not participate in FIFA competitions
uefa.com
uefa.com
The problem with that is that it then it is no longer a sport, rather a... business.
UEFA letter is spot on.
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.
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".
But the only way they 10x is to start running more FIFA competitions, and that's when they encroach on UEFA's cash cows...
Interesting parallels to OpenAI.
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.
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.
But there's always a breaking point... hopefully.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
I can tell.
> Maybe not yours.
So why do you continue to talk about it? I know the history and it’s not relevant to my argument.
> It's used this working class status thing to put down other sports.
I’m not doing that, so it’s irrelevant to this discussion.
> there were plenty of "gentleman amateur"
This is the only part that’s relevant. It’s not a rebuttal because a small number of clubs doesn’t change the fact that the vast majority were being supported as part of a working class community.
If we're talking about games out in the park, then football is "part of a working class community" that way. But most major clubs consist of eleven millionaires (plus reserves) controlled by a billionaire. Nowadays the players and the owners have little connection to whichever town they are based in. Nowadays, many of the fans of English clubs, and even the Old Firm, have never lived in (or near) the cities the clubs based in. They may have never even lived in the UK or the same continent. Man U is the most obvious example, but there are plenty of such fans of other such major teams.
Even if we go back a hundred years, the major clubs were owned by factory owners and other such types. Profit was a motive even then but not to the modern day levels where the jerseys change every other month to milk the fan base.
If you want working class football, then it's well outside the premier leagues and even first divisions. But unfortunately that's the stuff most people are interested in watching.
Anyway, I've probably written way too much on this subject. Other sports are available. Some of them are a lot more entertaining too.
I never said that.
> If we're talking about games out in the park, then football is "part of a working class community"
I never said that though it’s true, it’s not necessary for my argument.
> Even if we go back a hundred years, the major clubs were owned by factory owners and other such types.
True but irrelevant to my argument.
> If you want working class football, then it's well outside the premier leagues and even first divisions. But unfortunately that's the stuff most people are interested in watching.
Modern day Premier League attendance is a mix, depends on the club and it’s harder to assess because the class makeup of the UK has changed a lot in the past 50 years.
> Anyway, I've probably written way too much on this subject.
You have, most of it total nonsense. Best you stop before you show yourself up even more.
I know far more about the early history of association football than you do, pal. I was good friends with Professor Grant Jarvie's parents for years, before they passed away. Prof. Jarvie is the premier authority on sports history in Scotland. I learnt far more off him than I ever would off you, and we've discussed early soccer together. I've also researched some of these things personally. By research, I mean looking at original physical documents in the National Library of Scotland, not Google and Wikipedia.
If all you have to bring to the table is personal abuse, then that is on you, not me.
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
The game was already hurt this world cup with the flow destroying „hydration breaks“ to sell more ads.
Hah and because Pizza Hut wants exposure, it'll come out more and more.
Now if only that could put a dent in Infantino reelection...
To 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.
There have been other attempts at a league superior to the individual national leagues -- like a permanent champions league. Establishment of anything more regular at the international level would be one more way this could be accomplished.
Each European league (and leagues from other confederations) has a vested interest in keeping the World Cup not just "free" but rare as well.
The time to be on the high horse against FIFA isn't 2026, it was against he labor conditions in Qatar, or the corruption to award the 2018 and 2022 hosts, or any number of other things.
However correct they are, they only complain when it's against their own self interest.
Do 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
I 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.
Take away the money and FIFA doesn’t have much to bargain with. They need to remember they are a purely administrative organization.
The game is already as global as it gets, 1.5bn people watched the wc final…
There 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)
It makes no sense to me that people favored the (much) worse product because “tradition”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I 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
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 comparison UEFA sounds a lot stronger.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Crybabies. Ban Argentina from FIFA for years after that debacle.
> 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.
Madonna and Shakira were actually doing playback. BTS and Timberlake at least were singing live.
We should still be frustrated by it, but I think I get what they were getting at.
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.
the silk road was riding high long before crypto ads were running during superbowls
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.
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.
Ah. This boondoggle makes sense now.
> 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.
Meanwhile UEFA can just get together with South America and form a new governing body for a new world cup
Wouldn't be surprised to see Africa surpass South America in the next decade
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.
[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.
"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 )
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...
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.
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...
Infantino & Trump's corruption is literally driven by greed. not the good greed - but just bad, power hungry insatiable greed.
This last world cup was the worse I've ever seen since 1978, almost 50 years, and I've seen the good, the bad and the ugly. We all know billions are moved under the table, but money can never break rules and traditions, specially if they don't benefit fans and players above all
Did anybody ask the players about the hydration break? About increasing teams to 48, now to 64? More games is more possibility of injuries and benched players are no good for the show. So always be careful about wanting more golden eggs, the goose may be exhausted already
More teams means more underdogs, more chances for greatness and more high points. I know it was purely for money, but I think the move to 48 teams really worked.
Agreed with both you and parent on the commercial, I mean hydration, breaks. What a disaster.
The narrative that Cape Verde is a beneficiary of the 48-team setup is completely and utterly false.
It's an excuse to squeeze more money out of the brand with a lower quality product.
It's shrinkflation.
And that would become worse with investors.
Not only for host nations but for the players and fans too
Whether a national team qualifies isn’t that strongly correlated to whether the sport is popular. Most of south and Central America are as fanatical as Brazil or Argentina, but they were not in the tournament.
"The 2026 FIFA World Cup was the hottest World Cup since the competition began in 1930. A Guardian analysis found that close to 20 percent of matches were played under heat and humidity conditions that FIFPRO, the players' union, has flagged as dangerous enough to warrant delaying or postponing play. Some 20 games were played at wet bulb globe temperatures that hit or exceeded 28 degrees Celsius (82 Fahrenheit)." - Katharine Hayhoe's newsletter
MLS already has a system where a game has a break only when it reaches 28deg C for a period of x minutes
First, plenty of countries have been regularly playing under these conditions and will keep doing so after the World Cup. Too hot to play in the afternoon? Play at night.
Second, and more important, it changes the game in a major way because playing for 90 minutes with a single break is not the same as playing with three. I imagine data will say whether this has an effect or not, but I cannot imagine that an endurance player would feel the same if they have to always stop halfway.
The problem I had with this World Cup was the over commercialization of it. The ticket prices, the cost of getting to the stadiums, the fucking trophy being presented in some bullshit LV case (like it mattered).
From my perspective I let it slide thinking it was the US’s take on how they do sports so fair enough. I can see now following the hyper commercial US World Cup that FIFAs has dollar signs spinning in their eyes and want to continue this way of working.
Unfortunately it doesn’t align with the values of football. It smacks of the Euro Super League (which would have disrupted the whole pyramid of football). It should be nipped in the bud, Infantino fired, and FIFA continuing as a not for profit.
The hydration breaks and the commercials. The half time show. The differential treatment and harassment of players, fans, and officials at immigration based on country of origin. The whole fracas about Iran participating and USA hosting and bombing them on the same day. VAR calling back a goal due to Egypt's foul on Argentina but letting Argentina's foul on Austria go. The dubious red card of the swiss player that IFAB later said was a mistake. Even more dubious recall of Balogun suspension. Objectively the worst world cup final match ever- every other team Argentina defeated in knockouts would probably given us better football in the final match, including Cape Verde. Paredes assaulting Spain players after the match when he should have been sent off during the match. Lisandro Martinez saying they respect all their opponents and don't understand the hate, after they flew Falklands Island banner in England player's faces.
Messi wearing a robe and lifting the trophy at the end of Qatar '22 as the GOAT was so compelling that it glossed over the HR violation issues. But there was no redeeming qualities this time. The president of the United States ruined that moment by refusing to get out of the Spanish player's faces.
You certainly mean the Malvinas /s
I still hope we Italians will eventually be able to participate again, thus I approve the 64 team formula ;-)
Nobody likes Infantino.
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.
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
At some point you genuinely are just being dodgy purely for the love of the game
No clue how people fall for that.
Sepp Blatter for crying out loud.
Like, mmm, Lance Armstrong, after he got caught.
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…
Hint: the same one who act like strongmen on the field.
The Wikipedia page for "Ratlines" [1] discusses "systems of escape routes used by Nazis and their collaborators" and how they settled in Rome, Spain, Genoa, and various South American countries.
But there is no mention of Werner Von Braun there - for that you need to go to "List of Germans relocated to the US via Operation Paperclip" [2], which is described as a list of "German scientists, engineers, and technicians (...) taken from the former Nazi Germany to the U.S. for government employment".
So my answer would have been "everywhere", but apparently Nazis fled exclusively to South America while good, honest German citizens working for the official German party were taken to the US.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratlines_(World_War_II)#Ratlin...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Germans_relocated_to_t...
(Though AFAIK they haven’t yet threatened a boycott.)
In addition to them all knowing that a World Cup without UEFA isn't going to happen, they also weren't impressed by being presented with a fixed offer and a ticking clock rather than an opening of negotiations....
I say that but I also agree i dont think fifa or any of the regional orgs need more or any financial incentives. Keep profits for the club, keep the governing body to governing, and the regional orgs to organizing.
I actually think this is an area where the us could do a lot of good - sweep in, clean out fifa and as many of the regional orgs as you're able (they're connected), and keep the pressure on. Only the US is really able to do this and we hate cheating in sports.
Not non-profit per se, but the Bundesliga[1] requires that teams are majority owned by club members and investors are limited to minority ownership.[2]
These clubs are often very old as well, and often were small regional clubs that got big, so they are significant in their cities and do a ton more than just football.
There is no implication that "having incentives" must be interpreted as "considering profit maxxing as the first and foremost goal".
The moment external investors acquire ownership interests in FIFA competitions, football changes forever. Commercial return becomes a permanent obligation. Investor expectations become a daily pressure. From that moment onwards, every decision on the international calendar, every decision on competition formats and every decision shaping the future of football is no longer driven by what best serves the game, but by what best serves shareholders.
Yes
> These words apply to any investment [...] the entire culture has to change
I think that's fatalistic. There are plenty of people and legal structures that limit the influence of investors to reasonable returns, most famously founders retaining control, or the public benefit corporation (like Veeva) or nonprofit (OpenAI as the counter-example showing how even structures are no guarantee). It's all part of setting up the systems to work with available people, within the business leader's ambit.
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!
They have everything to win. It's opposite of the PGA/LIV situation, the breakout group have the stronger trademark and the better teams. It's baffling that UEFA didn't move in already when FIFA was too greedy even for EA, which is saying something.
https://www.uefa.com/running-competitions/financial-distribu...
97% returns to the club and 9.3% is ear marked for football development programs.
Some of the money is utilized as reimbursement to clubs that did not manage to qualify.
PS Treating HN like a search engine is not constructive. No flak tho, I also do this sometimes.
[1]used as aporetic or perhaps even epiplectic device
Where did Infantino come from? Answer: UEFA
And for that matter, which continent did his predecessor Sepp Blatter start his football admin career in? Hint: he's not from Asia or Africa
Probably the most widely admired admin in big-time football right now is al-Khalifa, the head of PSG. A Qatari. You know - those guys who organized by common consent is considered the best World Cup in modern times (during which EUROPEAN teams were ostentatiously protesting on the pitch - while keeping VERY quiet WHEN playing a World Cup in a country who is still facilitating an ONGOING GENOCIDE) .
And from reports, he doesn't want to touch FIFA with a 10 foot barge pole.
Europe had managed to keep the lions share of footballs global revenues to itself, while keeping Africa as basically a "football nursery" where teenagers get almost trafiked across Europe before 90% are discarded.
This is one of the reasons why a (corrupt, mendacious & sly) Infantino had some support across Africa & Asia. Because he played off that imbalance. Rather like one mafioso giving you "protection" against another mafia mob.
Just saying, Europe & UEFA arent necessarily the angels in any of this ...
It's mystifying that this claim can be made ambiguously to more than one former World Cup host.
That’s such a weak argument. So every European person or organisation guilty by association? Are the Swiss doubly guilty?
> Europe had managed to keep the lions share of footballs global revenues to itself, while keeping Africa as basically a "football nursery" where teenagers get almost trafiked across Europe before 90% are discarded.
UEFA is not running any African competition or including any African team. What’s your point?
African federations might see the short term gains of Infantino’s bribes, but long term maximising profit is corrosive. They have a much better shot at growing the African cup of nations, which is not doing too bad and increasing in popularity (even in Europe to some degree).
It is not hypocritical of UEFA to point that out.
> Just saying, Europe & UEFA arent necessarily the angels in any of this
That’s a strawman. Nobody said that.
The pathetic state of football governance is, largely, down to corrupt EUROPEAN admins (UEFA or not). The only main non-Euro contributor I can recall in my lifetime was Havelange.
And the previous imbalance in spreading revenues commensurate with the talent (and its the talent, much if it African, which makes the product so appealing, hence the revenues) is largely (not entirely) down to Europe insisting on keeping hold of the bulk of it.
This situation is being rectified, but MY POINT WAS that the existence of this unfair situation created a playing field which allowed corrupt & unscrupulous mobsters (Blatter, Infantino, etc) to get THEIR personal agenda through on the back of pretending to combat the above.
Literally no-one thinks Infantino is good for the "game". But there are those FA's (even some in Europe) who think he might be better for THEIR countries. And thats not easily waved away by saying "oh, they're just personally corrupt Africans, etc". There was an underlying unfairness in the system IN THE FIRST PLACE.
And THE ENTIRE POINT of my original post was pointing out where the origin of this ORIGINAL SYSTEMIC UNFAIRNESS came from.
None of this was an attempt at whitewashing corruption & mismanagement in African or Asian FA's. The background point, which went WAY above your head, is that in the worst case - they're about as bad as their European counterparts.
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.
Like antisemitism, its overuse has rendered it toothless.
"Putin's apologist" as a smear on those who reject the mainstream narrative about Ukraine war (even if highly critical of Russia/Putin) is a better match.
Factually false. It's a logical fallacy, because you're attempting to manipulate the audience without actually responding to the claim.
> Like antisemitism, its overuse has rendered it toothless.
Also factually false. "Antisemitism" has no agreed-upon definition. "Whataboutism" has a very concrete and well agreed-upon definition: deflecting a an argument by responding with a counter-accusation that is intended to mirror the perceived accusation.
Your whole comment as manipulative, though, so it's not surprising that you would get the definition wrong.
That Russia is worse should not shield the US from criticism.
Preferably somewhere with a suitably powerless population like Greenland or Gaza.
Randomly shooting up small boats also demonstrates our lawless intentions at limited risk.
It's colonialism for cowards. Looks great on social media.
>> Slavery
> Yes it's bad.
Are you just learning about the slavery or did you know about it when you asked why.
Saudi Arabia and the UAE have similar records on human rights and treatment of foreign workers.
Further afield there's Mauritania: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauritania#Modern_slavery
Every stadium was within a 30 mile radius and fans reported a clean, safe experience. Sounds like a good place for a tournament to me.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-60867042
> 50 foreign labourers died and more than 500 others were seriously injured in 2021 alone, while another 37,600 suffered mild to moderate injuries.
IOC is about the only organisation that comes close to it I think.
Switzerland has an unusually direct democracy, which keeps their house in order. Maybe it's also what allows Switzerland to benefit from crime and corruption without getting infected with the rot.
Switzerland might not be corrupt, but they are fine with enabling it.
Their suggestion is to open up the power structure, e.g. to all past players/Olympians.
The problem withthis is that FIFA/IOC _rely_ on the athletes, players and countries, but none of those make any money so they _can't_ be bought. The prestige and honor is the reason to compete in the world cup/olympics, and money won't change/fix that. See LIV golf for what happens when you try it.
<Formula 1 has joined the chat>
This seems to have actual teeth. What's Infantino going to do to save face? No one cares about a world cup without the Europeans.
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...
I ask in earnest. I'm not American. I know there's a huuugggee buzz on who gets to do the Superbowl half-time show. But they all look the same to me: overly-polished extravagant pop performances. That can be an insult or a compliment depending on your mood but I say that as a fact. That description applies to the WC half-time show too so I don't see what makes it bad. Maybe you can accuse it of being even more over-the-top and garishly extravagant but does that make it bad?
Bad Bunny's half-time show seems to be generally considered good. Well, he's a good performer definitely and performed his show well. But what makes that different from the universally-panned WC one?
For the record, Bad Bunny isn't even in my daily playlist. I do have Coldplay but Chris Martin was so peripheral to the WC spectacle I didn't even notice him during the live broadcast.
It feels to me there's something else merited here other than just the performance itself. Bad Bunny, given his background and off-stage activism, was largely seen as a political statement. The WC show just seems too foreign for the core non-Northern American market.
I watched the WC final in a noisy bar. During the halftime the bar had its own entertainment while a muted Justin Bieber playing his guitar emoted on the big screen. I've since watched it in Youtube and I still don't get the universal disdain for it. Maybe they should've called in a bunch of Eurovision performers?
Again, this is my point. WC hosts get to show something of themselves to the world. Half-time or pre-game shows are a part of American sports culture.
My interpretation is it is 15 minutes unless the referee allows something else.
Also the treatment of the Iranian team was comically awful.
Ahhhh, you're American!
It's very weird for one type of football to try to claim the name all for itself globally.
BTW I am not American.
Yeah, but most of them go without president calling Infantino to change the referee verdict. All the while the president says "I dont even know the game".
> It was really well run. Not something you can call a “shit show”
I can. Oh and not allowing referee in due to his race and mistreating teams due to politics.
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.
There are many other nations with just as much influence in sports outside of the US. The only difference being that the US doesn’t care about them.
Football is a global game, everyone’s, not another thing for the US to dictate and ruin.
Football (or basketball, if you're Lithuanian) is a massive cultural institution in many parts of the world. The difference is that sports—just sports—are the institution in America. We could look at revenues, but that's far too easy. Look at the whole picture. Look at youth participation, women's sports, college sports. It's not comparable anywhere else.
For football specifically, the current situation is that a handful of European countries control the best leagues and consistently have the best international squads. This isn't changing anytime soon. The game is already owned by a group of elite countries—almost exclusively in Europe, benefitting from geography, mutual competition, and visa gatekeeping—and one confederation (UEFA).
The fact that the game shouldn't be "ruined" (or latent anti-Americanism) suggests you're okay with this situation. You didn't comment on rule enforcement or cynical play either, but I assume you're okay with those things or take them for granted.
Americans see football through the lens of other sports, because we are a sporting culture, and football is one of many. All the "American" sports have their problems too, but we don't pretend they don't for phony reasons. But we also have choices and exercise those choices. Footballing nations, I get the impression, see all sports through the lens of football. I often wonder whether fans in footballing countries genuinely like their sport for what it is or whether it's just a narcissistic cultural inheritance.
And it's awkward to defend because, as I've already stated, the status quo is: colonial powers controlling the game at the pro/international level, bad and inconsistent officiating, normalization of cynical/unsportsmanlike play, and massive corruption. As an American, these are easy to see because we have the advantage of a massive sporting culture. We have salary caps to enforce parity and scrutinize our own leagues' rules. There is a competitive marketplace for sports. If things are broken, people stop watching.
What about the US's influence in improving soccer would ruin it further? Moreover, do you understand your own sport well enough to make the judgment?
Your point about salary caps is interesting. It is good that we have these because otherwise you’d see something crazy, like the Dodgers simply buying a winning team with heretofore unseen amounts of money
What does this mean?
I'm really trying to understand what you're saying but I don't get it. Are you saying that other countries don't have a sport culture like the US? What makes you think that?
CONCACAF, OFC, etc. all of thesr got something in common: the F stands for Football in their names.
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!
besides a significantly more common 4-3-3, I can't think of anything I particularly found entertaining - the waterworks, the extra VARs, the super special offside line. That's no feast. (and I can continue)
Finals are boring more often than not. You just have to accept that. And when one of the team’s key skill is suffocating the other side, a game like that was to be expected. Only my mighty compatriots were able to crack the code… once.
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 ?!
I’ve followed the sport all my life and referee complains I would say less than usual.
I like having more teams. Might even extend to 64 next time.
These are difference of opinion. Nothing singles out this world cup as a “shit show” as the OP. It was a great experience to me and pretty much anyone I encountered in the stadiums.
It was already introduced in the local women league...
Covert bullshit, like the Moreno care in South Korea, sure, but brazenly ignoring the rules like what happened with Balogun? I cannot remember it.
- The extraordinary pricing of the tickets
- "Hydration breaks" to cater for TV advertising
- The US red card being rescinded after a phone call from an interested party
- Argentina's free pass throughout
FIFA has been corrupt since the days of João Havelange, although his stance was broadly to bring football to more countries and just needed a way to finance that (enter stage left, Coca-Cola, and stage right, Adidas and ISL), but it started getting really wild after him.
It's gone unchecked. There was talk of the English FA pulling out of UEFA and FIFA some years ago, as there was a perception the soul of the game had been tarnished by both orgs.
This is a good first step, and I hope FIFA gets itself sorted. I hope UEFA also gets its house in order.
- 48 teams is too much. 32 is a great sweet spot. 48 is ridiculous, it genuinely felt like too many games. - The completely inconsistent application of VAR was scandalous. I've always been a huge opponent of VAR in soccer, and I really feel vindicated. It felt like it was only used for very pointed decisions. Either you use VAR to make no mistakes at all, or you don't use it. - The "h2o breaks" were stupid as f. They were clearly only implemented to fit in more commercial breaks. - as usual, getting the tickets is always a nightmare, but it's been like that for 20+ years
There was some good football, I'm not even bothered by the pre/mid-game shows. There were a lot of good things, but honestly it did feel like it was in spite of everything that was done to make it unbearable.
I actually loved the 48 teams. It will probably expand to 64 next cup. More people tune in, nice surprises, upsets, cinderella stories.
Access and price of tickets has been a problem for a long time and getting worse for every live event. Not exclusive to the World Cup.
There are obviously things to improve but the game and experience for people watching and attending was pretty amazing. Leaving in the US I ve had fantastic interactions with strangers everywhere for weeks.
If that’s what a “shit show” is I’m looking forward to more ha ha
Coaches get in the face of the officials already anyway. This just gives the action a chance at being productive rather than an opportunity to get a red card.
Yes, this is based on the derided review system of Olympic Taekwondo. It's horrible in a fight sport but football is a ball game; somebody tell Paredes and Paraguay please.
Hydration breaks in air-conditioned stadiums?
A half-time show?
Football is more than just the world cup or the Championship league. It’s also about the local leagues or village clubs.
They all play the dame game and Fantino in his greed is ruining it.
Which fan could afford to watch all the games of his team?
I feel like how I imagine golfers felt once LIV golf was announced.
EDIT: not sure why i’m getting downvoted, they post up the injured player on the screens with a private medical company prominently displayed.
Who do you think is incentivized and how does that cause a player to get injured?
Second commentator: “It is true, Red Bull gives you wings. In this case, the wings only take you to the shower room.”
> Thrive is an American venture capital firm founded by Joshua Kushner - the brother of US President Donald Trump's son-in-law Jared.
Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c5y67zrrdddo
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-...
This is the thing that is too much? I just don't get it. The entire thing is a spectacle to sell ads.
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.
It's the same way that Americans know what pitchers, catchers, and batters are in baseball even if they've never picked up a bat or a glove and only go to baseball games to eat hot dogs and get drunk on overpriced beer. Soccer has two halves like baseball has nine innings,a nd the vast majority of people do not want to mess with that.
A secondary reason that they don't want to mess with it is the perception that these hydration breaks are not organic (because it's always been acceptable for players to grab a drink fo water and there are ample opportunities to do so during a regular game), but that the breaks were imposed on the game to facilitate ad breaks in American TV broadcasts. Much of the world is tired of doing things differently just because the Americans want it.
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.
Rugby stoppages are beginning to get ridiculous but they aren't doing them for advertising yet.
- Football is not a game of easy scoring, often you have to build momentum, by relentlessly putting pressure on the other team. It's more important than in other sports, because in football a weaker team can easily earn a draw against a stronger team if the later fails to do just that.
Your attacks ( and defense efforts) must compound. It's almost like building a narrative inside the head of the players and inside the head of the spectators before a goal gives everyone a release one way or the other. Moreso than in other sports where you have a lot of scoring happening. Football is closer to watching an epic drama.
Now it's true that dynamics can change on a dime. But you often have to earn that change ( like by having a skilled player who attracts fouls ). Having regular breaks makes it almost like watching another sport.
- In most of Europe and South America even people who don't watch regular league games have an intuitive expectation of how a game should be played. And they care.
Especially when it comes to national teams because it's often a big part of the national lore. ( It's like the offside rule. Even people who despise the game end up being experts )
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.
… 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.
Every single break time decision in football is arbitrary already.
"Players are entitled to an interval at half-time, not exceeding 15 minutes; a short drinks break (which should not exceed one minute) is permitted at the interval of half-time in extra time. Competition rules must state the duration of the half-time interval and it may be altered only with the referee’s permission."
You could argue that that this rule allows referees to extend the half-time break.
In any case it's clear that the WC referee had no role in the scheduling of those half-time antics.
Surely the ref had to rubber stamp it.
I can't say I think the halftime show is a big deal at all though.
Adding 2 more pauses is actually bastardizing football.
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.
This is like saying “customers aren’t worried enough about the corporate process - they only care about the end product!”
At least with hydration breaks, everyone got them and they were the same for everyone. I know sports fans don't like change. If everything else about this WC was perfect I'd say "Fine, go ahead, complain". But this is the tiniest, most meaningless thing to moan about nearly 3 weeks after the tournament is done.
It's exactly what enshitification is, people accepting these type of small changes and thinking it's not a big deal.
So no, it's not a tiny issue. Compared to this Balogun red card is a tiny issue.
So turn your TV off. Cancel your subscription. Support your local league team in person.
> Compared to this Balogun red card is a tiny issue.
Strong disagree. The Balogun red card strikes at the very heart of fair competition within the game.
First of all I support my local team and go to almost every home game and a couple of away games each season.
But don't you see what you're providing as possible alternatives?
1. Stop following your national team which gave you huge joy in the past, and just not have that as part of your life. Why? Because of greed of others.
2. Go to live games, where ticket prices are gouged and the same extraction process happens. And hell even there you don't get to skip the hydration breaks magically.
In this case, my experience and something I care for is becoming shittier. And this is just a small example. It's happening in pretty much every facet of our environment. And why is it happening? Because of our economic system that rewards incessant greed and sociopathic behaviour.
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.
Also pro/anti capitalism isn’t the issue - narrow mindedness and a lack or empathy is.
There has been an increase in anti-capitalist sentiment on this orange site in over a decade. But in 2026, the majority here (mostly in Europe) are always upset when they need to pay for their tools.
"Open source" is the biggest excuse for developers and some HNers to never pay for anything. This appears to be unique in this industry.
The Nations League is a good idea, for a number of reasons:
1. It gives smaller teams, like Gibraltar, Malta etc, a chance to play competitive football against teams their level and a chance to actually get better. In the old system, the only way for Gibraltar to play a competitive game, was to play in the Euro or WC qualifications, against the likes of Germany, Spain, England etc and get trashed. They can't get better if they have no chance to win.
2. Nations League brings money to the various FAs, a google search suggests anything between €750,000 to €10.5 million, as opposed to extracting money from the FAs.
3. The Nations League games replaced a bunch of friendlies. Now those games matter.
How about they create a new national league in the US, say called the National Football League and sell that to commercial interests then whoever wins that they can declare the best team in the world and therefore it is the world cup.
UEFA is all we need, make the best fight against the best in Europe and let fifa do it's shit.
Maybe we could do something like Europe - south America competition.
How thoroughly un-American. A proper US national league would have "world" in its name.
FIFA is famously corrupt. But now they don't bother trying to try to hide the corruption.
If/When self driving cars become widely available, it might start to feel absurd and artificial.
I used to watch most F1 races as a kid. But it just doesn't feel interesting anymore.
If only we recognized the evil of this in more areas of society. Those obligations and pressures have already corrupted so much of our world. It would be nice if we could expunge them from more than just a game.
Infantino has been a disgrace, I hope they manage to get rid of him, but I have very little hope.
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.
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).
Oakland Raiders? not anymore! teams just leave to another city if the money is right. craziness.
the sheer number of ads and marketing.
what are you smoking?
Hold my beer
On top of that these organizations explain how doping is bad and in the case of the Olympic Organization - that there is some kind of amateurism expected from the participants.
We want sport to be exciting so since these people are completely specialized, we should let anyone use what they want (on their bodies and in terms of equipment). It is a commercial entity anyway, intended to bring recreation to people.
Nice! Next the more "unimportant" stuff already sold or about to be:
healthcare? education? public transportation? water? energy?
* 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)
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7330307/2026/07/09/fifa-fin...
Wow!
Goes off to have Claude look at the FIFA governance charter. This guy is so done!
Because in the 2026 world cup, every single team except Argentina in the quarter-finals onwards was a member of UEFA. And even in the earlier rounds, it was probably like 50 or so percent of them...
If neither side backs down before 2030, you may as well just call off the next World Cup. Especially given that two out of three hosts would also not be participating...
That's broad strokes as each member has an individual vote.
Well said.
I don't even like football and I want to see Infantino go down.
Maybe it will be Senegal vs Socceroos?
"How unfair, my neighbor has more slaves than me" (ancient Greece)
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.
constant "this is not x, it's y" and vocabulary that I usually see from like Claude
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.
Infantino who seems to oscillate between Qatar and Switzerland I assume has a rather strenuous connection to the rest of Europe
Remember that when (FIFA president) Blatter was investigated for corruption, (UEFA president) Platini was also banned.
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...
What specifically about the OP's post is anti-american?
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.
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.
Crime only plays if you do it correctly.
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.
Do you not understand that FIFA and UEFA are a small component of the actual revenue of football? They are not all of football. This is not complicated.
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)
Hearing you say this is like hearing someone say that the United Nations is a commercial failure.
Its purpose is to regulate and administer international football on behalf of its member associations, enforce compliance with its regulations, organise international competitions to relieve the member associations of the hassle, administer anti-doping programmes and related integrity measures (lol), and, through its membership of IFAB, help determine and promote the consistent application of the Laws of the Game worldwide. Its revenues only exist to support those functions.
Is there a need for it to have profit motive? Would the world be better if it decided it should have one? I don't see how the answer could be yes to either question.
The mention of guardrails is a little Onion-esque given the organisation and people in question
Fortunately the English top division alone makes a similar amount to NHL (from a quarter of the matches) and the English second tier makes a similar amount to the Super Bowl[1], which is why football's governing body doesn't particularly need lessons on how to commercialize stuff from people in the United States who probably also don't understand football's financial centre of gravity, but will happily buy commercialization rights for a quadrennial tournament if sold to them in a backroom deal at a sufficiently low price...
[1]yes, I know the Super Bowl is only the one game. But if you can compare a 1400 game annual league to a 104 game quadrennial tournament, then I can compare an entire season to a single big game :D)...
Soccer leagues make a total of about 5-6x as much as the NHL. The Premier League alone makes 25% more than the NHL.
Market Strategists are going to study this one. It’s a potential inflection point. Cant think of any other event or entity as globally galvanizing that football.
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.
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...
It's one of the only things left whose purpose is not just to make as much money as possible.
Plus there is advertising all over the players' clothing, the pitch, the pitchside hoardings etc. There is high rent advertising in every break. Even more so since theze silly hydration breaks.
It just sucks that everything good and sacred in the world (soccer and everything else) is being squeezed and shittified for profit. So if FIFA is prevented from converting from a non-profit with the nominal purpose of being a steward of the game for its own stake into a fully explicit for-profit capitalistic enterprise, then I'll take the victory. Even if the current system is far from perfect.
In recent years, there has been a clear movement away from the physical fanbase towards merchandise and broadcasting. It often feels like clubs are embarrassed by the people who turn up at games (sometimes with good reason to be fair since some of the fan behaviour and chants are indefensible).
But just to add on for comparison, the NHL has 1312 regular season games. Plus 4 rounds of best-of-7 playoff series with 16 teams making the playoffs. Let's say an average of 5.75 games per round, that's 86 playoff games bringing us to ~1400 games per year.
Over 4 years, that's 5600 games. The FIFA World Cup had 104 games this year. It's actually pretty impressive that the WC can even make 40% while hosting < 2% of the games that the NHL has. Or put another way, 1 WC game is equivalent to 54 NHL games - 2/3 of one team's full regular season.
I don't care what american billionaires make with nhl/nfl/..., hands fucking off of football.
It looks like this world cup may have introduced shirt sponsorship to US and Canadian sports. Soon their shirts will resemble Formula One drivers'. In return, association football will keep hydration breaks etc.
Maybe fans would prefer that it stayed that way.. making just enough money to keep the sport going, without the profit motive.
The NFL makes much less money than nVidia The world has gone mad! That's just insane.
>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
> Soccer is by far the most popular sport on the planet, the fact that it makes a lot less money than hockey is insane.
Soccer makes much much more money than the NHL, it just doesn't all go to FIFA because the vast majority of matches are not organized by FIFA.
The premier league alone makes more than the NHL and that's just one of the european countries. La ligua, bundesliga also each make close to what the NHL makes with much smaller populations.
The fair comparison to FIFA is the IIHF. They make $35M for the hockey world championships vs 15B for the football world cup, you are slightly off, a rounding error.
FIFA is (1) on paper, not there to make money, but (2) in reality, obscenely corrupt.
Worldwide, association football makes more than all other sports you referenced, combined.
I hope this is UEFA taking a principled stand, but maybe there's some weird scheme going on, let's see what happens next.
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.