UEFA threatens Infantino after FIFA World Cup sell-off backlash

Listen to Australian and world news and follow trending topics with SBS News Podcasts.

TRANSCRIPT

Why has FIFA abandoned its plan to sell stakes in the World Cup?

Is UEFA boycotting the governing body?

And could the fallout threaten Gianni Infantino's presidency?

This is SBS News World Cup Daily, the 90+ Podcast, where we bring you the stories from on and beyond the pitch. I'm your host, Haylena Krishnamoorthy.

"Strengthening the commercial side of the game is the natural next step in this evolution. So, we believe that the FFE proposal would unlock the sport's potential in every corner of the world across men's, women's and youth football."

That was FIFA President Gianni Infantino laying out his ambitious plans with a controversial FIFA Forward Enterprise plan or FFE.

The proposal - which would see close to AUD $6 billion dollars raised to sell stakes in the World Cup and other FIFA competitions to private investors - was designed to create a commercial subsidiary of close to AUD $28-billion dollar.

And private investors would have a 20 per cent stake in it all.

What's interesting is, Thrive Eternal, founded by Joshua Kushner, was expected to be the main investor.

His brother, Jared Kushner, is the son-in-law of US President Donald Trump.

But after days of backlash - and Gianni Infantino's position in the spotlight - FIFA walked back its proposal.

The governing body scrapped its plan, following fierce opposition from three of six football confederations.

European football's governing body UEFA led the charge. It accused FIFA of putting the game's "soul" up for sale and threatened a boycott, saying FIFA’s leadership has lost its confidence.

It's also been reported - first by Telegraph Sport - that UEFA is now threatening FIFA and Joshua Kushner with legal action over their World Cup investment plan.

The report says the European football’s governing body has warned Gianni Infantino not to destroy any material relating to it.

UEFA Vice President, Laura McAllister says they've been pushed into this by a proposal that was so damaging it could have dismantled the whole infrastructure of the game.

So, can Gianni Infantino - who's held his position for a decade, and is expected to seek a fourth term next March - survive this backlash?

This is what McAllister had to say.

"But it's not a decision for me, obviously. It's a decision for the 211 nations who will vote on the next president of FIFA. But I think the principle has to be do we have assurance? Do we have confidence that, Gianni Infantino is the leader that will abide by the ethical basis of our sport and leave it in better health than when he took over? Because that's the duty on all of us as temporary custodians of the game. And if we take that seriously, then we make decisions to ensure that the health of the game is, is put first and foremost in every decision we make."

Infantino had given FIFA's 211 member associations until September 19 to accept the proposal - it would have required a majority vote.

Each member could have received a stake worth about AUD $28 million dollars.

For many smaller football nations, that kind of money would have been difficult to turn down.

Norwegian football association President, Lise Klavaness described it as blackmail, using money that already belonged to the sport.

And it's not just Europe - including World Cup champions Spain - weighing in.

CONCACAF, which represents football in North America, Central America and the Caribbean, rejected the proposal and demanded a full review of how it had been developed.

The Asian Football Confederation also opposed the plan, with AFC President Sheikh Salman bin Ebrahim Al-Khalifa welcoming FIFA's decision to abandon it.

Then, from FIFA itself.

Infantino's senior advisor Carlos Cordeiro resigned, calling the proposal a bad deal for football.

McAllister says his departure suggests there was deep discomfort within FIFA's own administration.

"That doesn't surprise me one bit, because it was a unilateral intervention, something that was ill thought out and had potentially catastrophic consequences. So anyone who knows the game and who understands our role as custodians of the game, would feel uncomfortable and nervous and frightened by what might lie ahead, should we agree to sell off part of the World Cup competitions to private equity."

Cordeiro, a former Goldman Sachs banker who represented FIFA on the White House World Cup Task Force, said he could not stand by while FIFA considered selling a stake in the World Cup.

He also urged other senior FIFA figures to speak out.

FIFA Chief Operating Officer Kevin Lamour then issued his own criticism.

Lamour, a long-time colleague of Infantino at both FIFA and UEFA, accused the president of operating without transparency.

He said staff had been deceived, treated with contempt, and subjected to intimidation.

His assessment was blunt - this was the project of one person.

But critics argue that simply replacing Infantino as the boss would not solve FIFA's deeper governance problems.

And the controversy has even brought former FIFA President Sepp Blatter back into the conversation.

"And now Gianni, amazingly, you know something is bad when Sepp Blatter starts calling you greedy."

That's British comedian Simon Brodkin speaking to the Times Radio, saying he regrets pulling the July 2015 stunt that helped get rid of former FIFA President Sepp Blatter.

He had interrupted a FIFA press conference in Zurich that former Sepp Blatter was at, by throwing a bundle of fake dollar bills into the air, all over Blatter's head.

"Where's my security?"

At the time Brodkin joked he was there to buy the World Cup for North Korea.

"I actually regret doing that, helping get rid of Sepp, I didn't realise he was the most principled leader that FIFA ever had."

The stunt came amid sweeping allegations of corruption within FIFA.

Blatter has now turned his criticism towards Infantino.

In a social media post, he wrote "The close relationship between the FIFA President and the US President has reached a financial dimension that is deeply damaging football. No one has the right to sell our game."

The controversy has also revived a Gary Lineker post from 2016.

When Infantino was elected FIFA president, the former England striker wrote:

"Have this weird feeling that Gianni Infantino will pull off his mask to reveal Sepp Blatter."

Nearly a decade later, that post is being widely shared again.

Former FIFA Vice President, Jim Boyce describes the proposal as ludicrous.

"Gianni Infantino, when I knew him at UEFA and when he attended those meetings with me, was a very decent, sensible sort of person. I personally think that since the Qatar World Cup, and especially now with Donald Trump, sadly to say, I think power has gone to his head. And I honestly do believe there was collaboration between Donald Trump and Gianni Infantino (over the investment plan)."

The controversy comes after several weeks of unrest, including the decision to defer US forward Folarin Balogun's contentious red card.

US President Donald Trump has since been questioned on his knowledge of his ally Infantino's plan.

"Did FIFA or. Mr. (Gianni) Infantino speak to you about their proposal to sell a stake in the World Cup?"

Donald Trump: "No, I never spoke to him on that."]]

SBS has contacted FIFA for comment but has not received a response.

So why did FIFA believe it needed private investment in the first place?

Dr Dan Plumley, a senior lecturer in sport finance at Loughborough University, says FIFA's existing business model is already highly profitable.

"We're just coming off the back of a men's World Cup that will generate FIFA's highest revenue again. And there's this profitability linked to that tournament cycle in particular. And that's the way the World Cup works. FIFA set out to sell the World Cup, and it's been the men's World Cup historically but there's growth in the Women's World Cup as well. They are the two flagship events. They drive the revenue cycle for four years. That's where all the broadcast money comes from, commercial, contracts, etc. And that money is then distributed around the global game. So it works as a model. And I think part of UEFA's point here, of course, is, well if that works, why is there a need for a commercial entity to come along and run those events and services? And why do you need investors to come into that? The answer then is, well, that's going to bring more money to the table. That's FIFA's argument, plain and simple."

The most recent World Cup generated about AUD $ 21 billion in revenue.

But Plumley says the offer of an additional USD $ 20 million for each member association helps explain why some smaller football nations might have supported the proposal.

"Now, perhaps the devil is always in the detail. The question is, well, are there any strings attached to that? What's it going to be further down the line? What does that look like in ten, 20 years time? But if you'll put in a amount of an extra $20 million in front of an association, and you can guarantee them that uplift for the next cycle, you can see why some of those associations would be looking at perhaps voting in favour of that. And that's where the ecosystem point is interesting, because you have got really powerful, well established member associations and governing bodies like UEFA. But there are lots of them across the world that don't hold that power and don't have that size and scale and resource. So it is an interesting proposition for them in that regard."

Only a week before the plan collapsed, Infantino left New York with letters pledging electoral support from about 200 of FIFA's 211 national federations.

Those federations elect the FIFA president every four years.

But after this divisive episode, it is unclear how much of that support remains firm.

UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham says the principle is simple: football belongs to its supporters.

"Football does not belong to investors. It belongs to the people who fill the stands, who stand on the touchline’s week in, week out, rain or shine. The World Cup is not a product. It is the greatest competition in the world. And it was never anyone's to sell."

Football Australia echoes a similar sentiment.

Chairman Anter Isaac says the whole episode is a reminder that major decisions need to be made with transparency, proper consultation and good governance if FIFA wants to maintain the trust of its members.

But the fallout may not be over.

To unpack it all, I spoke to former Matildas' vice-captain, and former member of the FIFA Council, Moya Dodd.

She's currently the secretary to the board of the Women's Leagues Forum, which is a group of the women's professional leagues under the World Leagues Association.

Moya Dodd played in FIFA’s first ever women’s tournament in 1988.

Twenty-five years later, she joined the governing body of FIFA - as one of the first women in its 108-year history.

She tells me there were a number of issues with the proposal.

"Why would FIFA need to do this in order to pay more money to its own members? It's sitting on reserves of $4 billion dollars. It's just had a World Cup that's made record revenues, and it's found ways to squeeze more out of those games with hydration breaks and, ad breaks, I think we call them now. And as Carlos Cordeiro pointed out, FIFA's got enormous reserves, and if it wants to pay its members more money or fund more programs, then it's well-equipped to do so. Why does it need to bring in private capital to do that?"

She says to generate the sort of revenues that private equity would be looking at, FIFA would need to expand its competitions, and that would mean taking more dates out of the calendars.

"The FIFA proposal hinges on the international match calendar, and to create additional value in the FIFA competitions requires FIFA to get more value out of the calendar, to kind of milk more dates out of it, to have its competitions larger and more often, and therefore be able to create more money."

Which effectively means taking resources, and players away from their clubs more often to play for their national teams in tournaments that Dodd says can make FIFA rich.

Something she says, the players already deal with the congestion of the calendar.

"They put the Men's World Cup to 48 teams. They're doing the same with the Women's World Cup in 2031. So there'll only be one more 32-team Women's World Cup, and then it goes to 48, and they're talking about 64. They've added in club competitions. I mean, women's, there's the Champions Cup every year now. There's a Club World Cup with 16 teams, supposed to start in 2028. In amongst all that, the professional leagues need to be able to create a regular sellable schedule of fixtures that will bring in enough broadcast dollars and sponsorship dollars so that the, the women players can actually become truly professional. The ever-expanding FIFA calendar is actually an existential threat to the proper professionalisation of women's football."

She says the proposal didn't really deal with women's football - an issue that's swept under the rug and caused great frustration of the women's football community over the years.

Dodd says this issue needs to be looked through the lens of competition law and through the lens of ordinary business practice.

"This conflict of interest that FIFA has is already the subject of a complaint at the European Commission on competition grounds. They're basically saying, "You've got a conflict of interest with these dual roles as a, as a regulator of the game and as a commercial operator." And actually, the Commissioner for Sports at the European Commission came out last week and said that the new FIFA proposal raised competition concerns, and he spoke out against it. So I think one of the outcomes of all of this is likely to be that FIFA faces into more scrutiny by, governments and by politicians, such as the UK Prime Minister, who's had a bit to say, in its conduct."

SBS football commentator David Basheer spoke my colleague, Jasmine Kassis.

He says the sport belongs to the federations, to the fans and the players who love and play the game.

And that this saga could have serious implications for Gianni Infantino.

"I think his position is virtually untenable now. I think it has been such an ill-conceived plan, a poorly executed communication of that plan. And such a widespread outcry from initially UEFA and a lot of other member federations as well. And I think on that basis; and the fact that senior management are now starting to speak out openly about the ill-conceived plan. I don't think he has got any alternative but to resign."

"It’s the tip of the iceberg I think you'll see a move to oust Infantino at the next elections."

FIFA's plan may be scrapped.

But the argument it triggered - over who controls football, who profits from it and who FIFA ultimately serves has left the football world wondering, what the future holds for Gianni Infantino.

***