FIFA’s governance has caused this massive fallout

FIFA’s governance is, without a doubt, the root cause of the colossal PR nightmare and public scathing that it certainly didn’t want during its showpiece tournament. 

The media storm surrounding a red card controversially given, and then even more controversially “suspended” following a political phone call, is just the latest in a long saga of reputational nightmares for the global football governing body. FIFA can’t seem to find a few years free of such nightmares, no matter how viciously it tries to swat them away. 

Why? Because its internal structures are alarmingly void of some of the most basic corporate safeguards. 

You might wonder: “In the middle of the most popular event of the world’s most popular sport, do we really need to talk about something as textbook as corporate governance?”

We absolutely do. Governance is not just “textbook”; it’s the crucial DNA of any organisation. Remember that FIFA is one of those rare organisations that quite literally have billions of stakeholders. That quality of that DNA is paramount.

In case you missed it, the full background to this red card controversy is at the bottom of this article. When it comes to governance, one point sticks out above all others:

“The Belgian football governing body protested the move and requested information about how the decision came about. FIFA did not provide any.”

Here’s the issue: FIFA made a decision that provoked a global reaction, with a huge influence on both the USA and Belgium’s World Cup success, affecting players, management, support staff and fans. However, it did not communicate anything. 

There was no notice that the red card was up for review. No communication as to why. No key contributing factors listed. No arguments laid out. All we got was a decision that seemed to go against all established conventions, and then admission barely hours later from Donald Trump that he personally asked for a review. 

He’s the only stakeholder that seemed to matter. Not Balogun. Not US Soccer. Not the RBFA – and all this despite FIFA’s iron-clad rules that politics must not interfere with football.

Here’s the full list of problems FIFA has displayed over the last several days:

• No due diligence 
• No transparency
• No proper management (or even declaration) of conflicts of interest
• No stakeholder communication
• No visible checks and balances against centralised power
• Deliberate violation of its own Statutes

Most directors and C-suite executives wouldn’t tolerate this in their own companies; it’s a no-brainer that most of the world’s football associations, pundits and players don’t tolerate it happening here. 

The real problem, though, is that FIFA has displayed much of the above before. Many thought that the end of former President Sepp Blatter’s tenure would mean an end to a bleaker era of FIFA’s governance. With Infantino, there’s an entirely new but equally questionable set of problems. 

Last year, he oversaw the first awarding of a “FIFA Peace Prize” to Trump – again calling into question the organisation’s political neutrality. He also faced serious questions about the awarding of the 2034 World Cup to Saudi Arabia, with accusations of engineering other hosts out of the way so the country’s bid would be unchallenged. 

Meanwhile, his personal brand hasn’t done any favours. On the eve of the 2022 World Cup, he responded to repeated criticism with an elongated press-conference speech, in which he tried to identify with several minority groups seen as rejected or exploited by the tournament. It was widely ridiculed, described as “tone-deaf”, “unhinged”, and a “tirade.”

Ultimately, Infantino seems more than happy to preside over this culture of no transparency. This is, and will always be, terrible corporate governance. You don’t need to look far in corporate history to understand where terrible governance can land an organisation.

That’s the real question. Most of the world continues to focus on football rather than its organisers. The sport is a global cultural powerhouse with a strong grassroots tradition. Top-level decisions like the red card controversy won’t impact those grassroots once the tournament is over. 

However, with FIFA, it now seems like it’s one scandal after another. This one brought rebuke by UEFA – its most influential confederation. UEFA could have easily fallen in line behind its global boss, but didn’t. So, now, we have a dramatic vote of no confidence from within football governance itself. People are fed up. 

Continuing down this road will have consequences. Most likely, such consequences could mirror the end of Blatter’s tenure: Infantino out, thorough investigations of wrongdoing launched, and declarations that the organisation will try to be better going forward. 

It’s not the worst-case scenario, but it’s probably the most realistic. 

Ultimately, stakeholders won’t forget the incredible lack of transparency on display at the top level of football. Such moves wreak havoc on corporate culture, and this takes years to rectify. Will FIFA change?

• In a round-of-32 World Cup clash between the USA and Bosnia and Herzegovina, star USA player Folarin Balogun received a red card for a foul on Tarik Muharemović. Many commentators judged the punishment to be harsh.
• Under FIFA rules, a red card automatically means a one-game suspension, effectively ruling Balogun out of a round-of-16 clash with Belgium. 
• The day before that game, FIFA announced that it had effectively “suspended the suspension” for one year, allowing Balogun to play. 
• On the day of the game, US President Donald Trump admitted he contacted Gianni Infantino to ask for a review of the red card. 
• The move prompted widespread condemnation. UEFA (football’s European affiliate) called it “unprecedented, incomprehensible and unjustifiable”
• The Belgian football governing body protested the move and requested information about how the decision came about. FIFA did not provide any. It has maintained no wrongdoing by pointing to Article 27 of its disciplinary code, giving it broad powers over punishments.