1) Divide the governing body into separate units
How can the organisation responsible for staging football’s largest tournament also act as the authority that writes and enforces the sport’s rules? The latest World Cup highlighted the problems created by this dual role, with Fifa appearing willing to adjust established regulations on matters such as suspension periods and half-time length to increase interest in its event. A person familiar with the organisation’s internal operations argues that its commercial, regulatory and development functions should be placed in separate divisions to prevent financial interests from shaping the rules.
Miguel Maduro, who previously chaired Fifa’s governance committee and has since become a prominent critic, believes distinct corporate bodies could pursue different objectives even if they remained under the same wider organisation. He says firm barriers would be required between them, along with separate incentives, so that teams seeking higher commercial revenue could not influence regulation and rule-makers would remain free from financial pressure.
An insider says Gianni Infantino’s abandoned Fifa Forward Enterprise (FFE) proposal might have produced a similar structural division, although it was reportedly designed for entirely different purposes.
2) Establish independent oversight
External regulation may be essential if a reformed Fifa, which is otherwise accountable mainly through the courts, is expected to respect its own standards. Maduro argues that meaningful reform is unlikely to emerge internally and must instead be enforced from outside. Like several other critics, he supports creating an international governance watchdog comparable to the global anti-doping authority, with the power to hold sporting institutions responsible for meeting governance requirements.
One observer believes football generates more than enough revenue to finance such an organisation. The more difficult question is who should establish and supervise it. Maduro suggests it could begin at European Union level, with other nations, potentially including the United Kingdom, joining later. Over time, it could develop into a worldwide sports agency responsible for examining ethical conduct and monitoring whether sporting associations follow their obligations.
This idea is particularly relevant because Uefa, which has opposed Infantino’s FFE proposal, has strengthened its relationship with institutions in Brussels. The European Leagues has also asked the European Commission to act over a separate plan to increase the World Cup from 48 teams to 64. It called on the commission to defend fair competition and uphold principles previously established by the EU’s court of justice.
3) Reduce the president’s authority
The FFE controversy, which was reportedly developed almost entirely within Infantino’s office, demonstrates how much influence the Fifa president can exercise. Maduro says the presidency was never intended to dominate the administration, while the Fifa council was meant to oversee the president and participate in major decisions taken outside congress. In practice, he argues, those safeguards have failed, making stronger political checks and balances necessary.
One way to restrict executive authority would be to remove the president’s control over funding decisions. Governance specialist Mark Pieth points to another possibility, previously discussed by Uefa president Aleksander Ceferin: the leaders of Fifa’s six continental confederations could rotate through the presidential role.
Pieth says such a system is entirely practical and compares it with Switzerland, where seven ministers take turns serving as president. Each term lasts one year, and the fixed rotation makes it clear who will assume the position next. This prevents any individual from accumulating excessive power and reinforces the idea that the president’s main responsibility should be coordination rather than personal control.
4) Improve transparency
Groups seeking to make Fifa answer for commitments involving areas such as human rights have long been frustrated by the limited visibility of its decision-making procedures and appeals system.
There is also insufficient clarity about how Fifa uses its income and distributes funds among member associations. Nick McGeehan, a director and co-founder of the nonprofit organisation Fair Square, has repeatedly encountered these transparency barriers and questions why independently audited financial statements are not readily available.
Fifa controls a development budget comparable with those of major international aid institutions, yet there is little evidence that funding allocations are based on a formal assessment of need. Public information may show how much money has been assigned, but McGeehan says it remains extremely difficult to confirm where the funds ultimately go or how they are used.
McGeehan also argues that transparency requires more regular engagement with journalists. In his view, Infantino’s rare press conferences reflect deep suspicion toward independent scrutiny and contribute to the organisation’s lack of openness.
5) Redesign the development model
Fifa frequently presents itself as a nonprofit body that channels its earnings back into football. After the latest World Cup produced $15bn (£11.2m), every member association is expected to receive $8m between 2027 and 2030. However, concerns extend beyond the limited oversight of this spending to the fairness and effectiveness of the distribution system itself.
One observer argues that combining a one-country, one-vote structure with equal funding for every member creates serious distortions. Allocating money in line with voting power ignores the fact that small territories such as Montserrat and Gibraltar have very different requirements from populous nations such as Nigeria and India. The critic finds it surprising that no meaningful effort has been made to adjust the formula.
The same critic says Fifa weakens its development objectives by failing to direct money according to need or long-term plans for increasing participation. Although expanding the World Cup is easily presented as progress, it does not necessarily strengthen football at its foundations. Some associations may devote most of their funding to the men’s national team or an overseas coach while providing little support for youth participation, community programmes or technical development.
6) Reform the voting body
The regular flow of funding to associations of every size has helped Infantino retain the backing of the leaders of Fifa’s 211 members. Changing who participates in the organisation’s decisions could provide another route toward stronger and more accountable governance.
A senior figure in football says Fifa meetings include surprisingly few people with first-hand experience as players, coaches or club executives. As a result, many participants may lack a practical understanding of how football operates from day to day.
The electorate is also overwhelmingly male, while supporters remain largely excluded from formal decision-making. Political consultant Ashish Prashar, who regularly discusses football’s social responsibilities with Fifa, believes the confederations should work together to create a new institution founded on values that benefit the public. He argues that supporter participation must be central, with fan groups, elected representatives or ambassadors involved in decisions concerning the World Cup and related events.
Maduro believes a broader electorate could make further reform possible. He says organised voting blocs currently allow a small number of groups to exert substantial control. New forms of representation should therefore bring in communities and stakeholders that have traditionally been excluded. A more diverse voting body could create its own checks and balances, resulting in decisions that better serve football and everyone connected to it.
Fifa was invited to provide a response.
What do you feel about this post?
Like
Love
Happy
Haha
Sad
