It's Not Really About Money

Fédération Internationale de Football Association

Trying to make sense of FIFA's biggest proposal in years

X has been bursting at the seams over the past couple of days.

Former players.

Journalists.

Football administrators.

Economists.

Politicians.

Supporters.

Everyone seems to have an opinion about FIFA's proposal to create something called FIFA Forward Enterprise.

To be honest, when I first saw the headlines, I wasn't entirely sure what everyone was arguing about.

Some people were saying FIFA was selling the World Cup.

Others were talking about private equity.

Some called it visionary.

Others described it as dangerous.

So I did what I usually do.

I started reading.

One article led to another.

Then another.

I read FIFA's proposal.

UEFA's response.

The AFC statement.

Craig Foster's thoughts.

Andy Burnham's comments.

Financial analysis.

Media reports from around the world.

The more I read, the more I realised this wasn't simply another football story.

It's a governance story.

And I suspect many football people are just as confused as I was when they first saw the headlines.

So let's start with Football 101.

Football 101

World football is governed by FIFA.

Under FIFA sit six continental confederations.

Australia belongs to the Asian Football Confederation (AFC).

Under the AFC sits Football Australia.

Under Football Australia are the Member Federations, including Football Tasmania.

Below that are our clubs, coaches, players, referees and volunteers.

Why does that matter?

Because decisions made at FIFA eventually work their way through the entire football pyramid.

From the FIFA Council in Zurich...

...right down to community football here in Tasmania.

So what is FIFA actually proposing?

Let's clear up one of the biggest misconceptions first.

FIFA is not proposing to sell the World Cup.

Nor is it proposing to hand control of football to private investors.

Instead, it wants to create a new commercial subsidiary called FIFA Forward Enterprise.

That company would manage many of FIFA's commercial activities, including broadcasting, sponsorship, licensing, ticketing and aspects of tournament operations.

FIFA would then invite investors to purchase up to a 20 per cent minority stake in that commercial business.

According to FIFA, control of football itself would remain exactly where it is today.

The Laws of the Game.

International competitions.

The World Cup.

The international calendar.

Sporting decisions.

Those would all remain under FIFA's control.

Why now?

Football has never generated more commercial interest.

Broadcast rights continue to grow.

Sponsors continue to invest.

The World Cup remains one of the biggest sporting events on the planet.

So why bring in outside investors?

FIFA's argument is that rather than waiting decades for that future commercial growth, it can unlock part of that value today.

The proposal could raise up to US$4.2 billion.

FIFA says much of that money would be reinvested back into football through increased development funding.

For many member associations, that could be transformational.

As I was reading, I couldn't help thinking about another article I wrote not that long ago.

When James Johnson left Football Australia to take up a leadership role with Canadian Soccer Business, we explored how Canada had separated many of its commercial rights from its governing body.

If you didn't read that articles, you can find them here.

Why Canada Matters Right Now - Part One

Why James Johnson Changed Jobs - Canada Soccer Part Two

Canada's model has generated plenty of debate over the years, but it also shows football isn't entering completely uncharted territory. Different commercial structures already exist around the world.

In fact, Canada has recently renegotiated aspects of its commercial arrangements in an effort to strengthen transparency, governance and long-term revenue.

FIFA's proposal is obviously much bigger.

It operates on a completely different scale.

But it reminded me that football has been experimenting with different commercial models for some time.

That doesn't necessarily make FIFA's proposal right.

Nor does it automatically make it wrong.

It simply means this conversation didn't begin this week.

What if FIFA is right?

This is the part that I think deserves equal attention.

It's easy to focus on the risks.

But what if FIFA is right?

What if this creates more football facilities?

More investment in women's football.

Better coach education.

Stronger grassroots programmes.

More support for developing football nations.

Those are outcomes every football person would welcome.

Which is why this debate isn't as simple as some headlines would have us believe.

So why is there so much opposition?

Part of the answer lies in history.

FIFA and UEFA have not always seen eye to eye.

For years there has been an ongoing power struggle over the future direction of world football.

The international calendar.

The expanded Club World Cup.

Commercial rights.

Player workload.

Who should shape the future of the global game.

Understanding that history helps explain why UEFA's response has been so strong.

But the debate has now spread well beyond Europe.

The AFC has expressed disappointment about the level of consultation before such a significant proposal was announced.

Concacaf has raised similar concerns.

Former Socceroo Craig Foster has questioned aspects of the proposal.

Before anyone asks, "What's Andy Burnham got to do with football?" ... quite a lot, actually.

Burnham is a lifelong football supporter, the former Mayor of Greater Manchester and someone who has never been afraid to speak up for the game. When he publicly questioned the proposal, people took notice.

Even former FIFA President Sepp Blatter has voiced concerns.

Interestingly, not all of these people are making the same argument.

Some are questioning governance.

Some are questioning consultation.

Some are worried about increasing commercialisation.

Others are asking whether football should move more cautiously before making a decision of this magnitude.

Australia's perspective

This is where my thoughts kept returning.

Earlier this year we learnt that Football Australia is forecasting a significant financial shortfall over the coming years.

At the same time, Australian football continues to advocate for better facilities, stronger pathways, coach education and greater investment across the game.

Against that backdrop, significantly increased FIFA funding would be incredibly attractive.

That isn't a criticism.

It's simply reality.

Every football administrator understands how difficult it is to find money.

Not just in Australia.

Across much of the football world.

For smaller nations especially, additional FIFA funding could change what's possible for future generations.

Who decides?

Another important point.

This isn't a decision Gianni Infantino makes on his own.

Ultimately, FIFA's Member Associations will decide whether the proposal proceeds.

That's an important distinction.

This isn't simply about one person's vision.

It's about whether the football family believes that vision is the right one.

The question I kept coming back to

As I finished reading, one question stayed with me.

If there were no promise of significantly increased funding...

...would member associations feel exactly the same about this proposal?

I don't know the answer.

But I think it's an important question.

My Take

I've spent enough years in football to know that governance decisions are rarely black and white.

The easy decisions are usually made quickly.

The important ones are the ones where thoughtful people can see merit on both sides.

I understand why FIFA believes this proposal could transform football.

I also understand why others are urging caution.

For me, this isn't really a story about billions of dollars.

It's a story about governance.

About transparency.

About consultation.

About stewardship.

Whatever happens from here, I hope football doesn't rush.

Decisions of this magnitude deserve time.

They deserve scrutiny.

They deserve robust debate.

And perhaps most importantly, they deserve football people who are prepared to read beyond the headlines before deciding where they stand.

Those entrusted with leading our game are not simply making decisions for today.

They are helping shape football for the next generation.

That is a responsibility none of us should ever take lightly.