Why two random men decide the fate of football

The sport globally is in the hands of two administrators. But how did they come to hold such power, asks Miguel Delaney

- Miguel Delaney

By the time Gianni Infantino was asking members of Fifa’s Congress to raise their hands to their heads so their applause could be seen, some just wanted to cover their faces. They felt it was “embarrassing”. A number of sources maintain they had no choice but to acquiesce, precisely because of the nature of the request: they would be seen.

There was a similar dynamic at the Uefa Congress in February when Aleksander Ceferin introduced amendments to statutes that could now mean he stays for another term as president. Some member associations wanted to vote against but felt it wouldn’t be worth the political consequences, since they had to very visibly show their stance in front of everyone.

There is little room for dissent at the top of football’s confederations, much like the autocracies they now court. The presidents, who are really executive presidents, have too much power. So it followed that the bidding processes for the 2030 and 2034 World Cups had single candidates, much like virtually every presidential election since the 2015-16 Fifa overhaul. Morocco-Portugal-Spain and Saudi Arabia were awarded by “acclamation”, in the exact same way that both Infantino and Ceferin were in their last “elections”. An event as elementally uplifting as the World Cup has been put in some grim circumstances over the years, but never quite like this.

Resistance was absent, despite significant reservations. “There is little democracy,” one senior football administrator complained. That leads to a simple question worth asking. Why does football persist with this unjustifiable executive president structure?