about 4 years ago· edited about 4 years ago· History
Swiss court, Swiss judge, Swiss defendant that's absolutely loaded with brown envelopes and a Frenchman, The result was always going to be a foregone conclusion.
I wonder whatever became of all the gold from WWII that disappeared from Germany and went to Switzerland. But that's another story. No doubt Blatter, Platini and some very honoured Swiss "guests" will have the best seats in the stadium come the World Cup Final.
Proud to have attended the first 175 Consecutive "Home" Wellington Phoenix "A League" Games !!
Before I'd write off the idea completely, I'd want to know where FIFA would plan to spend the private investment money received. 100% transparency. No shady backroom deals with the PIF, Trump family or whoever selling the game's soul.
We are all cyncial of Infantino yes. But could most of this private investment actually be used to improve all things football in many of the poorer cash strapped poorer countries like the Island nations in OFC, and even some extra cash into Aotearoa? Maybe I'm just naive.
I see powerful UEFA are outraged about the idea. But the football power brokers on the Old Continent don't give a fuck about the rest of the world. If they had their way every World Cup, and big tourney would still be in Europe. Hoarding all the world's best football talent, and other nations being paid a pittance re transfer fees for that talent.
Whenever selfish UEFA get angry, I'm half happy and think hang on a second, whatever outwardly wacky idea FIFA have - might, just might have some merit.
One way of viewing this deal is that it provides a direct revenue stream to the various confederations rather than relying on variable funding from FIFA. Potentially a good thing, especially for minor football powers. Devil in the detail for sure but not sure Infantino is the character villian the media seem to be tripping over themselves to portray.
IMO any deal like this should be viewed with suspicion with the obvious first question:
What are these people getting for this money? You don't splash a few billion for the fun of it.
Mostly like, they'll be stripping away the profits, sending them to their own pockets. Infantino it seems is lining up a commissioner role for himself (rumoured to pay something in line with the NFL commissioner's 64 mil/year). Decisions will become progressively money-minded, rather than any worries about the sport itself.
As for UEFA, I don't trust them, but they seem a lot more concerned with maintaining an air of legitimacy than FIFA are. What they'll actually end up doing I'm unsure, but if they breakaway, it could lead to massive changes in the world of football.
To date lots of criticism out of Europe, CONCACAF but silence elsewhere. Be interesting to hear what the 2nd most powerful Confed, the CONEMBOL nations say. In the past they seem to have sided with UEFA.
The chance that Infantino may become very wealthy from the idea is unsavoury.
But again down in our part of the world it could see increased football investment and infrastructure, all for selling off a minority stake in FIFA's commercial arm. Is that palatable? I can see the OFC bloc including NZF likely going for the proposal, but yeah could cause a serious split in FIFA. Something that has been brewing Infantino's entire presidency, him against the UEFA chiefs.
The Fifa president has confirmed he wants to create a new subsidiary, Fifa Forward Enterprise (FFE), consolidating the organisation’s commercial and event operations – broadcast, sponsorship, ticketing, and licensing – including those for the World Cup and Club World Cup.
Fifa says it would sell a minority stake in FFE to outside investors based on an initial equity valuation of $34.5 billion. It says this would raise up to $7.3b to fund a new Fifa Fast-Forward Programme (FFFP) as part of a drive to expand football development funding to more than $17.3b.
Fifa says it would retain sole control of FFE and exclusive authority over football governance, competitions, the match calendar and all regulatory and sporting decisions. It has stressed all this is subject to the approval of “the majority” of its 211 member associations.
Who stands to benefit?
Those member associations are budgeted to receive $13.8 million between 2027-30 under Fifa’s “Forward” development programme.
Approving the FFE plan would mean they would be handed an immediate “optional” $34.50 – it is unclear on what basis they would choose to reject this cash – before getting another $34.5m between 2027-30, $38m between 2031-34 and $41.5m between 2035-38.
For the associations that rely on Fifa handouts, the increase in Infantino’s largesse would be transformational. Tuesday’s announcement of the plan specifically cited the participation of Cape Verde and Curaçao at the World Cup following a “decade of rising support through Fifa Forward”.
The private equity investors will also expect to make a profit. The announcement mentioned this, but Infantino has been linked with a new role as an all-powerful “commissioner” of the subsidiary when what is scheduled to be his final term as Fifa president expires in 2031. That could see him earn tens of millions of dollars per year.
Who are the major players involved?
Given Infantino’s close relationship with Trump, the most notable figure is Joshua Kushner, whose older brother Jared is the United States President’s son-in-law. The billionaire’s Thrive Eternal fund has been named by Fifa as the “expected” lead of the proposed investor group for FFE.
Also involved will be Greg Maffei, chief executive of Bann Ventures, who was president and chief executive of Liberty Media during its acquisition and ownership of Formula One.
JP Morgan and OpenEconomics are also involved in the hunt for prospective investors, which Fifa says is focused on the assembly of “a geographically diversified investor group that reflects the global nature of Fifa and the game”.
It also says expressions of interest to date include investors from across every major region of the world.
Haven’t we seen this somewhere before?
Infantino has previously tried to push through a multibillion-dollar deal with private backers. In 2018, he proposed a secretive $43.2b offer spread across 12 years with SoftBank of Japan to create new global competitions, including an expanded men’s Club World Cup, seemingly backed by Saudi Arabian money.
That ultimately failed after meeting fierce resistance from Uefa, which felt that its prize assets, the Champions League and European Championship, were under threat.
Infantino was also asked about his role in the doomed European Super League discussions at a Fifa Congress in 2021 and he said: “At Fifa it is my responsibility to hear, to meet, to discuss with football stakeholders – our member associations, leagues, our clubs, everyone: big, medium and small.
“To listen to some clubs and to speak with some clubs doesn’t mean in any way whatsoever that Fifa was behind, was colluding, was plotting, [on] any Super League project.”
What could it mean for football?
Fifa’s announcement was at pains to downplay the potentially seismic implications for the game of selling a stake in the World Cup.
But private equity involvement could bring pressure to maximise profits for new Investors, even if it is to the detriment of the wider game.
The first 48-nation World Cup has barely finished but Fifa is already exploring expanding the next tournament to 64 teams.
Carlos Queiroz, Ghana’s head coach, described the expansion’s impact this summer as “vulgar and ordinary”.
The second edition of its revamped 32-team Club World Cup could also feature more sides. And then there is the potential return of a debate about whether one or both competitions should be staged every two years, rather than every four.
Player welfare groups have frequently expressed concern over the match calendar. A report released by players’ union Fifpro previously said some have as little as 12% of the year to rest, which is a result of competition organisers not prioritising player welfare.
Kevin De Bruyne, then at Manchester City, said money talks louder to Fifa and Uefa as he raised concerns over the impact of a crammed calendar.
What has been the reaction?
Infantino says the plan is “about the democratisation of football worldwide” and investing heavily “even in the smallest or most remote parts of the footballing world, places that are too often passed over”.
But he faces a revolt from the richest confederation Uefa, which has said: “This crosses a line that football’s governing institutions should never cross”.
Calling for “everyone who cares about the future of the game” to take the threat of it seriously, the organisation added: “The soul and governance of football are not assets to trade – especially with zero transparency as to who gains financially. None of us are the owners of football. It is not Fifa’s to sell”.
Other critics who have not been named have used terms such as “nuclear bomb” and “potentially much worse than the European Super League”.
Norway have been vocal in their criticism of Infantino, and will consider making an ethics complaint to Fifa over the decision to suspend a ban imposed on Folarin Balogun, the US forward, at the World Cup. Although Norway have not yet commented on Fifa’s private equity plans, they are unlikely to go down well with European nations.
Infantino’s plans came as he faced a backlash over his defence of his presidency in a 15-slide Instagram rant.
Javier Tebas, the La Liga president, called Infantino’s message “pathetic” and added: “It’s inevitable to wonder ... why precisely now? Is there something that explains such a defensive tone? Is something happening that we don’t know about?”.
One of the big concerns here is that yes by allowing in private investors, more decisions within FIFA will be money driven, and so more pressure to make World Cups biennial.
UEFA (the Euros) and CONEMBOL (Copa America) both hate that idea, as it would then threaten their popular 4 yearly Confed tourneys.
AFC probably a bit indifferent as the Asian Cup is a very much a poor man's Euros. Small numbers of travelling fans (such as vast Confed), many games played in empty stadiums etc etc.
CONCACAF (Gold Cup) and CAF (AFCON played biennially?) maybe also not too upset by the prospect of biennial WCs.
I remember a few years back FIFA set up some advisory committee to do some DD on the idea, and Arsene Wegner and Ryan Nelsen both on that committee were fans of WCs every 2 years!
I mean we all complain about the AWs not playing enough tense competitive matches in between World Cups!!
Maybe in between 4 yearly WCs, there can be a poor mans WC sans UEFA and CONEMBOL teams. It's commercial value will be billions less than the actual real WC, but hey it's a tourney that a team like the US, Saudi or another Arab nation like Morocco could actually win, so maybe the Trump whanau or PIF would throw some billions at it. If the AWS were in it, I'd watch for sure.
Baah! Had a great long response typed out to this but refreshed the page ffs.
Anyway, highly condensed - If New Zealand Football support this proposal, then I lose my respect for the organization and the people within it.
There's also a deadline now - September 19th - and the bribe is up to $40 million (I'm assuming USD) from an original $20 million not even 24 hours ago.HOZkh4XWgAAaLRX.jpg176.86 KB
Biennial "world" comps would give the AW's more regular games. So form an Oceania point of view that can't be bad. UEFA seem to complain abouut everything that isnt within the traditional range fo their game! If CONEMBOL and UEFA dont want to attend then I'm sure the rest of the world will be happy to make up the difference. Call it something different - it can be like a commonwealth games version of the World Cup. Still a huge deal, just not the biggest.
FIFA is basically a monopoly. It already is too profit driven, but with an explicit purpose of increasing shareholder value you can guarantee enshitification at a greater rate than currently.
I think there is a serious threat of UEFA breaking away from FIFA(though not soon). They have similar size coffers and are bullish about not being pushed around. They've been pretty open about their displeasure with FIFA in recent times.
I have an amazing ability to find my way out of mazes. I'm pathological.
I just can't see this being a good thing no matter how much people want to argue otherwise. There's no way these billionare investors are gonna be thinking about the wellbeing of the fans, or the individual nations, or the confederations, all focus will centre around squeezing as much money out of people as humanly possible for profit margins. It was already annoying having forced hyrdration breaks to run ads, making FIFA private equity isn't going to make them tone it down.
I guess it will ultimately come down to how big a shareholding these private firms have, if it's a small percentage then their voice wont be that influential.
Noah4thenix wrote: I just can't see this being a good thing no matter how much people want to argue otherwise. There's no way these billionare investors are gonna be thinking about the wellbeing of the fans, or the individual nations, or the confederations, all focus will centre around squeezing as much money out of people as humanly possible for profit margins. It was already annoying having forced hyrdration breaks to run ads, making FIFA private equity isn't going to make them tone it down.
Were the hydration breaks really that bad? In many of the games the hot humid conditions warranted having the break each half. One minute we care about player welfare too many games etc. The next it's like no you don't deserve a break in 35 Celsius/90% humidity - it interrupts my viewing pleasure.
Look at Southern Europe at the moment. 40 degree temps, huge fires and a continent heating up at double the rate the rest of the world. Hydration drinks will again happen in Spain, Portugal & Morocco in 2030 - and likely fair enough.
For sure the breaks each half were was also an excuse to commercialise the event. But on the whole the new rules for the 2026 WC, sped up the games, and stamped out alot of the frustrating time wasting.
I'm mixed on Infantino and FIFA at the moment. How he let that Balogun incident unfold was just crazy. But it ain't all bad, and overall like it or not, if we selfishly just look at our local patch in isolation, NZ football has benefited from his time in charge. And that's the same for many countries outside of Europe.
But any decision making shouldn't be rushed, should be 100% transparent, and yes threatening MAs with blackmail that they won't get the one off payment unless they sign up is BS. Why the rush for such an important junction in the game.
If the percentage is greater than 0% it is too much. Small percentages like 1% don't sound like much, but you have already let them in, the door is open for increasingly more.
These people aren't buying in for charity, it is for the express goal of lining their pockets.
Noah4thenix wrote: I just can't see this being a good thing no matter how much people want to argue otherwise. There's no way these billionare investors are gonna be thinking about the wellbeing of the fans, or the individual nations, or the confederations, all focus will centre around squeezing as much money out of people as humanly possible for profit margins. It was already annoying having forced hyrdration breaks to run ads, making FIFA private equity isn't going to make them tone it down.
Were the hydration breaks really that bad? In many of the games the hot humid conditions warranted having the break each half. One minute we care about player welfare too many games etc. The next it's like no you don't deserve a break in 35 Celsius/90% humidity - it interrupts my viewing pleasure.
Look at Southern Europe at the moment. 40 degree temps, huge fires and a continent heating up at double the rate the rest of the world. Hydration drinks will again happen in Spain, Portugal & Morocco in 2030 - and likely fair enough.
For sure the breaks each half were was also an excuse to commercialise the event. But on the whole the new rules for the 2026 WC, sped up the games, and stamped out alot of the time wasting.
I'm mixed on Infantino and FIFA at the moment. How he let that Balogun incident unfold was just crazy. But it ain't all bad, and overall like it or not, if we selfishly just look at our local patch in isolation, NZ football has benefited from his time in charge. And that's the same for many countries outside of Europe.
I watched a drinks break during a match it was RAINING. Yes, they were that bad. They often changed the momentum of matches and were not required for a large number of matches.
I'm not against them if required during the heat, but a 7pm kick-off match in Wellington in the rain should not have drinks break because it might be 40 degrees a 3pm in Brisbane. The heat was just an obvious excuse to justify breaking the game into quarters to show more ads.
Infantino is as corrupt as they come and that is never a good thing long term, no matter how much we might benefit in the interim.
Noah4thenix wrote: I just can't see this being a good thing no matter how much people want to argue otherwise. There's no way these billionare investors are gonna be thinking about the wellbeing of the fans, or the individual nations, or the confederations, all focus will centre around squeezing as much money out of people as humanly possible for profit margins. It was already annoying having forced hyrdration breaks to run ads, making FIFA private equity isn't going to make them tone it down.
Were the hydration breaks really that bad? In many of the games the hot humid conditions warranted having the break each half. One minute we care about player welfare too many games etc. The next it's like no you don't deserve a break in 35 Celsius/90% humidity - it interrupts my viewing pleasure.
Look at Southern Europe at the moment. 40 degree temps, huge fires and a continent heating up at double the rate the rest of the world. Hydration drinks will again happen in Spain, Portugal & Morocco in 2030 - and likely fair enough.
For sure the breaks each half were was also an excuse to commercialise the event. But on the whole the new rules for the 2026 WC, sped up the games, and stamped out alot of the frustrating time wasting.
I'm mixed on Infantino and FIFA at the moment. How he let that Balogun incident unfold was just crazy. But it ain't all bad, and overall like it or not, if we selfishly just look at our local patch in isolation, NZ football has benefited from his time in charge. And that's the same for many countries outside of Europe.
But any decision making shouldn't be rushed, should be 100% transparent, and yes threatening MAs with blackmail that they won't get the one off payment unless they sign up is BS. Why the rush for such an important junction in the game.
Very weird that the main point you focussed on was the hydration breaks (Minor part of what I said) but no I'm not mad at the concept of hydration breaks. What I found annoying was how they altered the momentum of games, were made mandetory even in places where it wasn't necessary like in air conditioned stadiums, and especially how they insisted these wouldn't become ad breaks, just for basically every broadcaster to run ads anyway.
FIFA and Infinatino are just very untrustworthy in general. I'm not going to deny that they've done some good with projects like the OPL and NZ gaining easier entry into the world cup, but that doesn't change the fact that FIFA and Infinatino are insanely corrupt. Infantino has been openly corrupt just running a non-profit, why should we assume things would be better with these new changes? I'm especially irked by the $40M deadline he's set, which just feels like open bribery since from what I understand those who vote NO only recieve $10M from FIFA. Feels like Infantino saying "Get in line or else"
If this is something that turns out to be a net positive for football then I'm happy to admit that I was wrong, I just can't bring myself to trust people like this.
theprof wrote: I guess it will ultimately come down to how big a shareholding these private firms have, if it's a small percentage then their voice wont be that influential.
whatever percentage doesn't matter so much, as what it will do is place a value on something (FIFA inc. or whatever it will be called) - x % of shares were sold at y value gives FIFA inc. a value of xy.
now all decisions will be viewed through the lens of making value xy go up, irrespective of the wishes of fans, players, member states. because there is no competition to fifa, they can just enshitify to maximise shareholder value.
Sorry I shouldn't have replied to your post, just mentioned criticism of the hydration breaks separately. Basically they were needed with many of the games (Dallas, Atlanta, Miami, Phili & Monterrey) in nasty conditions.
And basically when you have a tourney like the World Cup, you have to try make the rules as consistent and universal for all as possible. Otherwise you will get some team complain, or appeal that they were somehow disadvantaged. Yes you can have temperature thresholds that trigger a hydration break, but what if a game starts just below the threshold, then the temperature during the match increases over the threshold blah blah.
Messy stuff that by 2030 they may have somehow sorted out fairly for all. At the end of the day the world's best footballers mostly play in winter leagues, but then every 4 years convene to play the pinnacle of the sport in high summer (if it is a Northern Hemisphere WC). Combine that with a planet that is heating up, and loathe them if you like, but fluid stoppages are here to stay.
They should be low down on the list of grievances with FIFA, even if yes they are now part of the encroaching commercialisation of the sport.
The WC was mostly a big success, and if you spoke to football fans from smaller and/or poorer countries like Haiti, Cabo Verde, Jordan, Iraq etc they would tell you they loved this 48 team version. Not every fan of the beautiful game lives in Europe.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2026/jul/16/world-cup-heat-players-union During this year’s World Cup, nearly one in five of the tournament’s 100-plus matches took place in levels of heat and humidity that a football players’ union has previously said should trigger delays or postponements, a Guardian analysis has found. An additional 23 matches were played in cities as they reached those heat levels, but in stadiums where conditions were mitigated by air conditioning.
theprof wrote: I guess it will ultimately come down to how big a shareholding these private firms have, if it's a small percentage then their voice wont be that influential.
whatever percentage doesn't matter so much, as what it will do is place a value on something (FIFA inc. or whatever it will be called) - x % of shares were sold at y value gives FIFA inc. a value of xy.
now all decisions will be viewed through the lens of making value xy go up, irrespective of the wishes of fans, players, member states. because there is no competition to fifa, they can just enshitify to maximise shareholder value.
Well no, the member states do get to vote on this decision. Selling a minority stake in FIFA's commercial arm. The part of FIFA that presumably is already profit focussed.
If it is approved, there should be safeguards that if that private investment % is ever to be increased further the MAs must vote on it again. Total transparency, open accounting systems and no further changes without further voting.
Decision making within FIFA inc to be weighted towards what % share you have, like any sort of ownership group with a Board etc. If PIV owns 5% of FIFA Inc they get 1 person on the 20 person Board.
I'm not saying it's totally a good or bad idea. Again the devil is in the detail. The fact that Infantino is trying to yes rush it through says there maybe just too much devil. Yes why the hurry?
I feel like the hydration breaks (while relevant) are getting off the main topic, so I'll try to keep this short.
They did not need to be at every match.
The A-League has drinks breaks WHEN REQUIRED (presumably the MLS does too). There was prebuilt regulations about how to run them FIFA could have used, they did not have to make them a requirement.
They were implemented every match to make FIFA money from ads, the heat was a convenient excuse.
theprof wrote: I guess it will ultimately come down to how big a shareholding these private firms have, if it's a small percentage then their voice wont be that influential.
whatever percentage doesn't matter so much, as what it will do is place a value on something (FIFA inc. or whatever it will be called) - x % of shares were sold at y value gives FIFA inc. a value of xy.
now all decisions will be viewed through the lens of making value xy go up, irrespective of the wishes of fans, players, member states. because there is no competition to fifa, they can just enshitify to maximise shareholder value.
Well no, the member states do get to vote on this decision. Selling a minority stake in FIFA's commercial arm. The part of FIFA that presumably is already profit focussed.
If it is approved, there should be safeguards that if that private investment % is ever to be increased further the MAs must vote on it again. Total transparency, open accounting systems and no further changes without further voting.
Decision making within FIFA inc to be weighted towards what % share you have, like any sort of ownership group with a Board etc. If PIV owns 5% of FIFA Inc they get 1 person on the 20 person Board.
I'm not saying it's totally a good or bad idea. Again the devil is in the detail. The fact that Infantino is trying to yes rush it through says there maybe just too much devil. Yes why the hurry?
I've seen reporting that MA will also be given a stake which they can retain or sell to generate income for themselves - so basically like a company offering a small % up as an IPO and then people who work at the company that have been given equity as part of the remuneration are, at certain points after the IPO called lockups, then able to sell their stake to private investors.
This will see over time private investor share increase in FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE).
Edit: Should also add that even if MA don't sell they will still want FFE value to increase as this is an asset on their books which I'm sure they will leverage.
Sorry cant believe some are thinking this can in any way good for football. Anything with Trump and his family involved for me has to be looked at as highly suspicious, they are in for themselves and making money. Welcome to the World Series of Football played in quarters and any other other changes they decide to make. Football as we know it and love would be gone. Sure as hell hope those involved with NZ Football arnt going go along with this madness.
It's still clearly an evolving situation but the addition of a deadline, and without consultation of football associations around the world is tantamount to coercion. The money on top just makes it sheer bribery - the fact that the payout for a cycle doubled in the space of 24 hours clearly shows that too.
There are so many repercussions of a yes/no decision that are still to be laid out, but I'm surprised players associations have been so quiet on this. Especially so given there is a likelihood that the football calendar would become even more congested with bigger tournaments/world cups and possibly even new events to ensure that shareholders exact their pound of flesh in the search of profit.
The biggest concern I'd have from a players point of view though is that there is an increasing amount of talk around Member Associations (MA's) who accept this proposal, then finding themselves falling foul of associations who decline the proposal (think Europe).
Now I'm not 100% sure on the legalities of it all (and it might be all bluff and bluster too) but MA's who accept this bribe could find that their players become, for lack of a better word 'rebels' in the eyes of those who decline.
So in a quick example - NZF accept, and England decline. Kiwi players become rebels and could very conceivably find pathways to the UK (and very likely the rest of Europe) blocked.
Yeah good luck getting the players on side with that!
Lots more to unpack of course. What an absolute mess this is going to end up being...
Really Infantino's announcement is almost from the Trump negotiating playbook. Table a shock/outlandish idea that upsets most, and then soften the idea and try end up sort agreeing mid point to broker a deal. This likely has a few months to go before any resolution or worse case split in FIFA.
Football Australia has resisted immediate criticism of Fifa’s plan to seek private investment despite an international outcry, instead calling for more information about the controversial proposal.
Football’s world governing body announced plans this week to sell a stake in the commercial rights to its tournaments, including the World Cup, to private investors, in a move led by the Fifa president, Gianni Infantino.
The news triggered immediate criticism from continental federations, clubs and politicians.
Football Australia confirmed on Thursday it had received Fifa’s proposal but called for more time before it decided whether to support the move.
“As this is the first time we have been made aware of the initiative, we are now working to understand the proposal in full,” a spokesperson said.
“We have requested further information from Fifa to properly assess the strategic, commercial, and governance implications of such a significant step.
“We will only be able to form a position after receiving this information and engaging in further dialogue with our peer member associations and our confederation.”
FA’s statement is broadly consistent with a release from the Asian Football Confederation on Wednesday, which did not rule out support for the proposal.
But the continental body went further in criticising Fifa’s approach, saying it was “disappointing” such an important matter entered the public domain before it could be discussed.
“While the AFC recognises the importance of exploring innovative approaches that can strengthen the future of global football, initiatives of this scale and consequence must be founded upon the principles of good governance, transparency and meaningful consultation,” its statement read.
YoungHeartHM wrote: It's still clearly an evolving situation but the addition of a deadline, and without consultation of football associations around the world is tantamount to coercion. The money on top just makes it sheer bribery - the fact that the payout for a cycle doubled in the space of 24 hours clearly shows that too.
There are so many repercussions of a yes/no decision that are still to be laid out, but I'm surprised players associations have been so quiet on this. Especially so given there is a likelihood that the football calendar would become even more congested with bigger tournaments/world cups and possibly even new events to ensure that shareholders exact their pound of flesh in the search of profit.
The biggest concern I'd have from a players point of view though is that there is an increasing amount of talk around Member Associations (MA's) who accept this proposal, then finding themselves falling foul of associations who decline the proposal (think Europe).
Now I'm not 100% sure on the legalities of it all (and it might be all bluff and bluster too) but MA's who accept this bribe could find that their players become, for lack of a better word 'rebels' in the eyes of those who decline.
So in a quick example - NZF accept, and England decline. Kiwi players become rebels and could very conceivably find pathways to the UK (and very likely the rest of Europe) blocked.
Yeah good luck getting the players on side with that!
Lots more to unpack of course. What an absolute mess this is going to end up being...
I'm trying to think what has happened with non-aligned/rebel leagues in the past like in Indonesia - a little different as they broke away without the backing of the fifa and afc backed governing body and players weren't eligble for the national team. Possibly fifa does the same for breakaway MA (Europe) so players may not be eligible for fifa comps or fifa aligned national teams. So kiwis could go to Europe but won't be eligible for NZ if NZ aligns with fifa.
Fifa could do some really nasty stuff like punishing teams doing business with non-aligned teams (for instance friendlies or selling players).
coochiee wrote: Really Infantino's announcement is almost from the Trump negotiating playbook. Table a shock/outlandish idea that upsets most, and then soften the idea and try end up sort agreeing mid point to broker a deal. This likely has a few months to go before any resolution or worse case split in FIFA.
Football Australia has resisted immediate criticism of Fifa’s plan to seek private investment despite an international outcry, instead calling for more information about the controversial proposal.
Football’s world governing body announced plans this week to sell a stake in the commercial rights to its tournaments, including the World Cup, to private investors, in a move led by the Fifa president, Gianni Infantino.
The news triggered immediate criticism from continental federations, clubs and politicians.
Football Australia confirmed on Thursday it had received Fifa’s proposal but called for more time before it decided whether to support the move.
“As this is the first time we have been made aware of the initiative, we are now working to understand the proposal in full,” a spokesperson said.
“We have requested further information from Fifa to properly assess the strategic, commercial, and governance implications of such a significant step.
“We will only be able to form a position after receiving this information and engaging in further dialogue with our peer member associations and our confederation.”
FA’s statement is broadly consistent with a release from the Asian Football Confederation on Wednesday, which did not rule out support for the proposal.
But the continental body went further in criticising Fifa’s approach, saying it was “disappointing” such an important matter entered the public domain before it could be discussed.
“While the AFC recognises the importance of exploring innovative approaches that can strengthen the future of global football, initiatives of this scale and consequence must be founded upon the principles of good governance, transparency and meaningful consultation,” its statement read.
That external investment is not out of the goodness of the hearts of investors - they will want returns better than investing in something else or at least more than parking cash in a bank.
There will be pressure to further increase revenues to do this - and as I said earlier there is no competition to fifa, its a monopoly, they have captured world football - you're not growing by out competing something else you just enshitify the product to maximise revenue.
Bullion - please expand on what you mean by 'enshitify the product'. Not trying to be a smartarse, and yes have got some idea what you mean, but I think that sort of comment warrants a bit more discussion.
I'm lukewarm on the idea of biennial World Cups. It would water down 'the product'. I'm no football nerd, but I think I can go close to naming every WC winner to now. A new champion every 2 years would take away some of the magic and prestige.
But I throughly enjoyed shouting at the TV with the AWs being there. The thought of having to likely wait 4 whole years to see the national team play in any game of tension or substance again is a bit depressing.An invitation to the Gold Cup, or some sort of combined OFC/AFC Nations League or similar may happen, but it could easily not. So it's back to playing the B sides of Poland and Norway at 5am NZT.
Plus I have huge respect for Ryan Nelsen, and if says a biennial WC is a good thing, I'm at least going to listen and not write off the idea point blank.
Note based on his & Wegner's comments back in 2021, the mooted biennial WC model then, would see players actually typically play less international football & reduce travel, ie basically international friendlies would completely disappear. Continental tournies like the Euros would also move to biennial. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/sport/452255/all-whites-back-two-year-world-cup-cycle
But that's me as a selfish AWs fan, who gets his greatest enjoyment from watching the NZ national team, and then the Phoenix 2nd. A diehard Barca season ticket holder, who gets to watch Spain play numerous competitive matches in a 4 year cycle will likely hate the idea of the big dance & Euros being played 2 yearly.
coochiee wrote: Bullion - please expand on what you mean by 'enshitify the product'. Not trying to be a smartarse, and yes have got some idea what you mean, but I think that sort of comment warrants a bit more discussion.
I'm lukewarm on the idea of biennial World Cups. It would water down 'the product'. I'm no football nerd, but I think I can go close to naming every WC winner to now. A new champion every 2 years would take away some of the magic and prestige.
But I throughly enjoyed shouting at the TV with the AWs being there. The thought of having to likely wait 4 whole years to see the national team play in any game of tension or substance again is a bit depressing.An invitation to the Gold Cup, or some sort of combined OFC/AFC Nations League or similar may happen, but it could easily not. So it's back to playing the B sides of Poland and Norway at 5am NZT.
Plus I have huge respect for Ryan Nelsen, and if says a biennial WC is a good thing, I'm at least going to listen and not write off the idea point blank.
Note based on his & Wegner's comments back in 2021, the mooted biennial WC model then, would see players actually typically play less international football & reduce travel, ie basically international friendlies would completely disappear. Continental tournies like the Euros would also move to biennial. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/sport/452255/all-whites-back-two-year-world-cup-cycle
But that's me as a selfish AWs fan, who gets his greatest enjoyment from watching the NZ national team, and then the Phoenix 2nd. A diehard Barca season ticket holder, who gets to watch Spain play numerous competitive matches in a 4 year cycle will likely hate the idea of the big dance & Euros being played 2 yearly.
The easy way to explain enshitification is to use the example that person that popularised/coined the term, Cory Doctorow, often uses. Google through some like court proceedings had to provide documents which included emails from the search team. This exposed a back and forth between like an engineer and a business guy, google search is like 90% market share or something so they were trying to work out how to improve revenue for search and the business guy was arguing to make google search worse (for the user not google) because if people have to spend more time searching, because search is worse, they user is served more ads. The engineer guy didn't like it but the business guy won out because that's what business do is to maximise returns.
fifa is currently a monopoly (single seller of world cups) and the barriers to entry are high/non existent? so like the google search business guy they know its hard to increase share of the pie when you are the whole pie, or grow the pie when football is by far and away the #1 world sport and you don't have to worry about losing customers to a non existent competitor so you just milk the cash cow that are fans even harder, you sell out to sport washing dictators, you add in ad breaks during the game even make the half time longer for more ads, i don't know how creative they will get but there will be someone (inside fifa or its investors) thinking this up because there's money and value to be made for shareholders.
UEFA have issued a statement saying all 55 members will boycott if the World Cup is sold.
I think they’ll probably back down now. Similar sort of vibe to the proposed European Super League back in 2021. Mind you Infantino seems a certain type of cunt, he might stand firm.
Favourite line is probably "No one has the moral authority to sell what they merely hold in trust for the next generation”
Also very definitive "no UEFA national teams will participate in any FIFA competition for so long as these proposals remain alive, unless this proposal has been abandoned in its entirety and binding assurances have been given that FIFA will never again open its governance or competitions to private ownership."
We could genuinely be watching the death of FIFA, all due to the greed of rich men.
I just hope UEFA dosnt forget about the smaller nations in the World because they often do. Personally like their statement no chance of HIM misunderstanding their intent.
+2
