You may think that after overseeing a winter World Cup in Qatar, the expansion of the tournament to 48 teams, the introduction of ‘hydration’ breaks to cram in more advertising, the sanctioning of exorbitant ticket prices and the overturning of a red card on Donald Trump’s say-so - after inventing a peace prize for the US President - to list just a few of the controversies attached to his name, FIFA president Gianni Infantino would have lost the capacity to surprise.
When he dropped a rambling statement defending his previous actions and hitting out at ‘haters’ of both he and FIFA on social media earlier this week though, we might have guessed that something was coming.
Even for the keenest observers of the Swiss/Italian lawyer and the direction in which he has been steering world football’s governing body, though, the last 48 hours or so have taken them aback. And taken the cake.
Infantino’s latest wheeze is a plan to sell off minority stakes in its football competitions to private investors. Specifically, to an investment fund called Thrive Capital, which just so happens to be fronted by Josh Kushner, brother-in-law of Trump's daughter Ivanka.
This would include the World Cup. And it is what these investors might want in return that has so angered UEFA (who have released two excoriating statements in response to the plans), as well as fans all around the world, who see this as the latest example of Infantino’s greed serving interests other than the good of the game.
Dr Tom Bason, assistant professor within the Centre of Business in Society at Coventry University with a research focus on the impacts of sport on society, shares those concerns. But even more worrying, in his view, is that there may be no one in world football with the power to challenge Infantino, and stop him pressing ahead with his plans as he pleases.
"It’s not something I was expecting,” Dr Bason said.
“What we’ve seen over the last few World Cup cycles is FIFA becoming more and more focused on the commercialisation of the game over anything else. But this is a step beyond what I ever expected of them.
“To be selling off part of FIFA and part of football to the highest bidders of commercial private enterprises is way beyond what I thought FIFA would do.
"But honestly, it is as likely in my view that this goes through as it is that it could be a line in the sand, the moment that signals the beginning of the end for Infantino. It really wouldn’t surprise me to see this going through.
“I’d guess Infantino’s networking over the last six weeks or so means he knows he has the support from a lot of the countries that weren't at the World Cup, for example.
“I suspect Infantino knows he has more than enough support to win a vote on this. It’s one member nation, one vote. I suspect he knows he has the support.”
Dr Bason’s concern comes from the historic success Infantino has had in currying favour with smaller associations, with a letter sent to the 211 nation members of FIFA promising each of them an initial payment of $20m and potentially as much as $40m if they vote in favour of the proposal by the September 19th deadline a classic Infantino tactic.
“The countries that haven't reached the World Cup are the ones that are going to benefit from this the most,” he said.
“They’re the ones for whom an $8 million increase to $20 million is huge compared to Italy, say, the only country not at the World Cup for whom that wouldn't really make that much of a difference. But all those small nations around the world, 150 odd countries that didn't qualify for the World Cup, Infantino has been speaking to them. I’d be surprised if many of them say no.
"We know that’s worked in FIFA history before. We know that through Joao Havelange [former FIFA president] and Danny Jordaan [president of the South African Football Association] all those years back, courting the African vote. We know that’s broadly what Sepp Blatter did previously.
“We saw Infantino at so many games in the World Cup. He would have been sat there with presidents of the FAs from around the world. I’m sure this will have come up in conversation.
“He’ll have been using the World Cup to court the FIFA chapter representatives from different football associations around the world and make sure he has some support before this is announced.
“If every football association he’s spoken to over the last six weeks or so had said no, this wouldn't have gone very far. You have to assume that the football association representatives that he’s been smoothing over the last six weeks or so have said this is something they would be behind."
What has given many concerned football fans hope that this may instead be a watershed moment where Infantino’s power is checked at last, is that the heft of UEFA has been thrown behind opposition to the sell-off by its president Aleksander Ceferin, who has had previous conflicts with Infantino and did not attend the World Cup final in protest at the decision to ‘suspend the suspension’ of USA striker Balogun following his red card.
While acknowledging that the size of the federations within UEFA’s number does give them great influence, though, Bason also points out that Ceferin may not be able to rely on whipping the smaller nations into voting along confederation lines.
“UEFA have said they’re against it, but we don't know at the moment what the Andorran FA are going to do, for example, ” he said.
“Then CONCACAF’s statement was very much, ‘We don't like the way this was communicated, we don't like the fact this is how we're finding out about it,’ not, ‘We don't like what’s happening’, or ‘We disagree with this’.
“I wasn't surprised that UEFA were the first ones to step in to criticise it. FIFA and UEFA have seen each other as rivals more than friends over the last five years or so.
“We’ve seen that with the Finalissima, the final between the European and South American champions, trying to take on FIFA. FIFA responded by trying to have a Club World Cup to take on the Champions League. We know that they’ve been doing things to try and eat away at each other’s power.
“You have to remember that there are 55 different nations in UEFA. I don’t know to what extent just because UEFA says something that every federation starts to follow.
“We already know that the English FA and many of the other FAs have said they weren't going to oppose Infantino standing again. I’m fairly certain that Ceferin would have liked for all the different federations to say, ‘No, Infantino’s 12 years started when he came, he should be out by 2028.’ But the Football Association in England hasn’t done that; they’re happy for Infantino to stand again.
“I think assuming that UEFA is going to vote as a block is difficult because, realistically, in England, you don't need the money that UEFA or FIFA provide. The $10 million or $20 million compared to $8 million is nice, but it’s not going to make or break football in England.
“But Andorra, or Liechtenstein, or countries that don't have thriving domestic football and don't have money coming in from other areas - that's going to make a huge amount of difference to those countries.
“I think it’s really difficult to assume that just UEFA or CONCACAF or CONMEBOL are going to vote in a block unless Ceferin is able to really whip them and make sure that everyone is doing what he wants. I’m not sure he has that power.
“It’s one thing UEFA saying it, but would you expect the Scottish FA to go along with just what UEFA says?”
Another factor complicating that question is that SFA president Mike Mulraney is currently also the chairman of the FIFA finance committee and was pictured alongside Infantino during Scotland’s World Cup defeat to Brazil in Miami.
It is understood though that Mulraney and SFA chief executive Ian Maxwell will join with major European footballing powerhouses to express their own serious concerns over the plan in a UEFA emergency meeting, scheduled to take place over the next 24 hours, and that a boycott of the World Cup by UEFA members is an option that will be discussed.
Even if some of the smaller nations object, the absence of the likes of world champions Spain, England, France and Germany from the next World Cup - which Spain are due to host with Morocco - may be enough to get Infantino's attention.
For Bason, another important point is that player welfare also becomes a huge concern amid the creeping influence of private interests in football, with investors likely to push for ever-expanding competitions and commercial opportunities should UEFA be unable to derail Infantino’s plan.
"I’ve always had a slight concern about the way that football’s governed in that those who are responsible for the regulation are also responsible for the commercial side of things,” he said.
“So often those are coming more and more into conflict.
“From a FIFA perspective, if FIFA is supposed to be looking after the sport and looking after the players, then a 64-team World Cup that happens every two years isn't good for that. The players are going to be completely burnt out. I don't think anyone would think that that’s something that's going to be good for the fabric of the game.
“FIFA, as a regulator and a governing body, should really be thinking about what’s best for football, but it’s been struggling to do that anyway because the commercial issues are very much coming into conflict with what’s best for the sport. That’s going to become even starker when it’s not just FIFA making those decisions.
“FIFA says that whoever’s buying into this will have minority stakes, they won't necessarily have a say. But as soon as you have private organisations that are buying into it, you do have some responsibility to look after them.
“FIFA is going to be drifting ever more towards what’s best for FIFA commercially rather than what’s best for the sport. This is a tension that governing bodies have all over the place.
“UEFA has it with what’s best for European football compared to what’s best for the Champions League or the European Championships. Every federation has that where the regulator and the organisation that is supposed to be looking after the game is the same actor that’s looking after the commercial side of things. But I think that’s going to be even more difficult once you have private enterprise involved in it because they’re effectively going to want a return on their money.
“It might be different if, for example, the World Players Union was able to buy a stake, in which case that would then give them a real say in what’s happening. But when we’re talking about Josh Kushner’s private investment firm, I can't imagine that they’re going to have any focus other than a return on their investment."
