Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

Sign Up Now!

Gianni Infanculo aims to sell World Cup commercial rights

zimbos05 said:
Whoever comes in after Infantino will probably just as corrupt. That's the main problem we have. At many levels of football leadership, we don't have anybody genuinely seeking to benefit the game and the fans.

Honestly, I blame us as fans, and players to an extent. We talk about how we don't want these things and want corruption gone, yet we run en masse to buy all the merch, pay stupid prices for tickets and laud it on our social media. As long as we keep doing that, then the execs don't care. We need to stop buying shirts every single season and paying for all the bullshit merch that they sell us, and then boasting about it on social media. Boycott games and stop spending your money idolising players.
Click to expand...

This treats a multi-billion-dollar global entertainment industry like a voluntary ethical co-op where consumer boycotts can starve the beast. In reality, fandom is emotional, tribal, and generational and not a stock portfolio. Telling working-class fans to stop buying kits or attending matches doesn’t punish corrupted executives or reshape FIFA, it starves local clubs, grassroots programmes, and lower-tier leagues of the exact lifeblood they need to survive. Putting the onus on consumers to fix institutional governance shifts the blame away from the administrators who are legally and ethically mandated to run the sport properly.

zimbos05 said:
The players talk about long schedules and demanding jobs, yet turn their backs on clubs so easily because $200k is "too measly". They have no care or regard for the fan. They turn up, perform shit, post about doing better on social media, then still perform shit. Then they pocket their big cheques or get angry when they only get offered $100k or something stupid like that.
Click to expand...

This ignores the exceptionally short shelf life of a professional athlete's career. A footballer's working window usually closes by their early-to-mid 30s, meaning the income earned during those years has to sustain them for the rest of their lives. When players reject low offers, it is rarely out of pure malice toward fans, it is rational labour self-preservation in an industry where club owners regularly shift financial risk onto players. Equating a player wanting financial security to corporate corruption at the executive level is a false equivalence.

zimbos05 said:
It has to be a grassroots movement, but who will lead it.
Click to expand...

A grassroots movement cannot successfully organise against transnational corporate bodies like FIFA or multi-million-dollar domestic leagues without centralised legal and financial power.

History shows that sweeping structural reform in sports governance such as the legal challenges, parliamentary inquiries, and regulatory threats mounted by UEFA and major federations against FIFA’s recent private equity overreach is achieved through institutional pushback, legal pressure, and board-level accountability. Expecting disconnected fans buying jerseys to act as a regulatory watchdog is really just an exercise in wishful thinking.

Ultimately, this whole debate highlights the deep disconnect between the macro-level corruption of football geopolitics and the micro-level survival struggles of domestic competitions.

Whether pointing fingers at spineless local executives, opportunistic global bosses, or consumer fatigue, the overarching sentiment remains that football's soul is constantly being bartered away....

However the status quo will likely never change.
 
Pasquali said:
Click to expand...

Someone's lying. The press come out with 'reportedly' then Rubio's office and FIFA deny any contact has been made. AL Jazeera went with a scathing heading and first two paragraphs to then a final sentence that official word stated no contact was attempted or made.
 
This whole scandal is a microcosm of a broader issue. Today's brand of extreme neo-liberalism attacks institutions that are not publicly listed, for-profit entities with shareholders. Its proponents these days are generally populist and anti-democratic, and their targets are diplomatic, charitable, democratic and member-based organisations (such as FIFA) because they tend to constrain and disperse the power of the very rich and hegemonic. In this case, the plan was to sell the property of FIFA, currently managed under a democratic, not-for-profit governance model and a constitution that prioritises the long-term stewardship of the game, to shareholders. Neoliberalism.

That ideology exists most strongly in the US. But as we have seen it is definitely not a universally held (or particularly loved) idea including in UEFAs stance. As a European and the head of a global, democratic, member-based organisation founded on the idea of egalitarianism, Infantino must be fucking stupid if he thought this was ever going to fly. Stupid, egotistical, perhaps manipulated and certainly greedy, because how could anyone in his position have made such a delusional calculation?
 
Last edited:
Punchanello said:
This whole scandal is a microcosm of a broader issue. Today's brand of extreme neo-liberalism attacks institutions that are not publicly listed, for-profit entities with shareholders. Its proponents these days are generally populist and anti-democratic, and their targets are diplomatic, charitable, democratic and member-based organisations (such as FIFA) because they tend to constrain and disperse the power of the very rich and hegemonic. In this case, the plan was to sell the property of FIFA, currently managed under a democratic, not-for-profit governance model and a constitution that prioritises the long-term stewardship of the game, to shareholders. Neoliberalism.

That ideology exists most strongly in the US. But as we have seen it is definitely not a universally held (or particularly loved) idea including in UEFAs stance. As a European and the head of a global, democratic, member-based organisation founded on the idea of egalitarianism, he must be fucking stupid if he thought this was ever going to fly. Stupid, egotistical, perhaps manipulated and certainly greedy, because how could anyone in his position have made such a delusional calculation?
Click to expand...
Pretty astute. UN, the WHO and International Atomic Energy Agency have all been targets of the 21 century Dutch East India Company.
 
JS96 said:
Someone's lying. The press come out with 'reportedly' then Rubio's office and FIFA deny any contact has been made. AL Jazeera went with a scathing heading and first two paragraphs to then a final sentence that official word stated no contact was attempted or made.
Click to expand...
It’s hard to trust any of those three. They could all be lying about some things and telling the truth about others.
 
Punchanello said:
This whole scandal is a microcosm of a broader issue. Today's brand of extreme neo-liberalism attacks institutions that are not publicly listed, for-profit entities with shareholders. Its proponents these days are generally populist and anti-democratic, and their targets are diplomatic, charitable, democratic and member-based organisations (such as FIFA) because they tend to constrain and disperse the power of the very rich and hegemonic. In this case, the plan was to sell the property of FIFA, currently managed under a democratic, not-for-profit governance model and a constitution that prioritises the long-term stewardship of the game, to shareholders. Neoliberalism.

That ideology exists most strongly in the US. But as we have seen it is definitely not a universally held (or particularly loved) idea including in UEFAs stance. As a European and the head of a global, democratic, member-based organisation founded on the idea of egalitarianism, Infantino must be fucking stupid if he thought this was ever going to fly. Stupid, egotistical, perhaps manipulated and certainly greedy, because how could anyone in his position have made such a delusional calculation?
Click to expand...


Football probably needs to rid itself of career sports bureaucrats and corporate technocrats running the game at the highest level in order to move on.....

So I'd like to see a respected former player in charge of FIFA.

The immediate benefit of such a move would be instant cultural credibility. A figure who actually played at the highest level, understands the physical and mental toll on footballers and holds an intrinsic respect for the game's traditions would fundamentally change the tone at the top. It would instantly bridge the massive empathy gap that currently exists between ivory-tower executives and the actual core constituency of Someone like a Philipp Lahm or a Zvonimir Boban would be ideal.

Phillipp Lahm successfully led Germany's Euro 2024 organising committee and Zvonimir Boban has worked at both FIFA and UEFA in various liaison roles, although he did resign from UEFA after a disagreement over transparency rules.

Boban, particularly represents the rare blueprint of an elite former player who possesses the technical intellect for administration, understands the high-stakes politics from the inside, but ultimately refuses to compromise on the democratic and ethical integrity of the sport.

However, it would never happen.....

The institutional architecture of global sport is designed precisely to self-protect.

The "suits" – career bureaucrats, legal fixers, and corporate technocrats who control the voting blocks, the financial pipelines, and the internal machinery of FIFA and confederations. Handing the keys over to an independent-minded former player like a Boban or a Lahm would mean dismantling the opacity that keeps those power structures intact.

They aren't going to voluntarily vote themselves out of relevance or invite someone in who prioritises the soul of the game over executive self-preservation.
 
Football us life said:
This treats a multi-billion-dollar global entertainment industry like a voluntary ethical co-op where consumer boycotts can starve the beast. In reality, fandom is emotional, tribal, and generational and not a stock portfolio. Telling working-class fans to stop buying kits or attending matches doesn’t punish corrupted executives or reshape FIFA, it starves local clubs, grassroots programmes, and lower-tier leagues of the exact lifeblood they need to survive. Putting the onus on consumers to fix institutional governance shifts the blame away from the administrators who are legally and ethically mandated to run the sport properly.
Click to expand...
Where did I say that people should not support their sunday league club or grassroots club? I'm obviously talking about the teams at the highest level. How exactly is not buying the latest Manchester United kit going to affect Alex Park Football Club? If anything, boycott the big clubs and swarm your local. You are reshaping and rewording my point to fit a narrative. Governance doesn't shift unless people demand that change. If you keep pumping money into the sport, then the governance has no reason to change any corruption.

Football us life said:
This ignores the exceptionally short shelf life of a professional athlete's career. A footballer's working window usually closes by their early-to-mid 30s, meaning the income earned during those years has to sustain them for the rest of their lives. When players reject low offers, it is rarely out of pure malice toward fans, it is rational labour self-preservation in an industry where club owners regularly shift financial risk onto players. Equating a player wanting financial security to corporate corruption at the executive level is a false equivalence.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't. No person needs 250k/wk to live. That viewpoint of the money they make has to sustain them for the rest of their lives is very short sighted and part of the problem. Players should be taught about life after football. Wrexham does it. They run a programme that supports players to do further education, set up a business, or invest their money effectively.

Players these days are not rejecting offers because of self-preservation. It's not even about financial security. It's pure greed. How often do you see players sticking around at clubs these days? They will up and move as soon as they think their are worth more, even if they are not. Just look at Rashford. Wants to move, but will refuse to lower his wage. He can easily live off 100k/wk. How much money do people need?

If players are retiring and then losing their money before their 50's, that just poor financial management.

Football us life said:
A grassroots movement cannot successfully organise against transnational corporate bodies like FIFA or multi-million-dollar domestic leagues without centralised legal and financial power.

History shows that sweeping structural reform in sports governance such as the legal challenges, parliamentary inquiries, and regulatory threats mounted by UEFA and major federations against FIFA’s recent private equity overreach is achieved through institutional pushback, legal pressure, and board-level accountability. Expecting disconnected fans buying jerseys to act as a regulatory watchdog is really just an exercise in wishful thinking.

Ultimately, this whole debate highlights the deep disconnect between the macro-level corruption of football geopolitics and the micro-level survival struggles of domestic competitions.

Whether pointing fingers at spineless local executives, opportunistic global bosses, or consumer fatigue, the overarching sentiment remains that football's soul is constantly being bartered away....

However the status quo will likely never change.
Click to expand...
Your views point to a defeatist ideal, that just succumbs to the status quo. Grassroots movements have a long history in sport, politics, and general life, of overturning dynasties or groups.

Fans have more power than you think. We showed that with the Super League idea, and we've shown it with multiple other reforms throughout time.

Just expecting fat cats in suits to bring the change you want does not always do that. I'm not saying that you can't have the reform through legal pushback and, the other fancy words you want to use. I'm simply stating that fans have way more power than you think.
 
zimbos05 said:
Where did I say that people should not support their sunday league club or grassroots club? I'm obviously talking about the teams at the highest level. How exactly is not buying the latest Manchester United kit going to affect Alex Park Football Club? If anything, boycott the big clubs and swarm your local. You are reshaping and rewording my point to fit a narrative. Governance doesn't shift unless people demand that change. If you keep pumping money into the sport, then the governance has no reason to change any corruption.


No it doesn't. No person needs 250k/wk to live. That viewpoint of the money they make has to sustain them for the rest of their lives is very short sighted and part of the problem. Players should be taught about life after football. Wrexham does it. They run a programme that supports players to do further education, set up a business, or invest their money effectively.

Players these days are not rejecting offers because of self-preservation. It's not even about financial security. It's pure greed. How often do you see players sticking around at clubs these days? They will up and move as soon as they think their are worth more, even if they are not. Just look at Rashford. Wants to move, but will refuse to lower his wage. He can easily live off 100k/wk. How much money do people need?

If players are retiring and then losing their money before their 50's, that just poor financial management.


Your views point to a defeatist ideal, that just succumbs to the status quo. Grassroots movements have a long history in sport, politics, and general life, of overturning dynasties or groups.

Fans have more power than you think. We showed that with the Super League idea, and we've shown it with multiple other reforms throughout time.

Just expecting fat cats in suits to bring the change you want does not always do that. I'm not saying that you can't have the reform through legal pushback and, the other fancy words you want to use. I'm simply stating that fans have way more power than you think.
Click to expand...


I think your perspective reduces massive, systemic failures of global capital and governance down to individual morality ("players are greedy," "fans just need to speak up").

But true reform requires dismantling corrupt financial structures from the inside using legal and institutional muscle, not expecting individual athletes to take vows of poverty or placing the entire regulatory burden on emotionally invested fans.

And if you think fans can just grassroots-protest their way out of multi-billion-dollar global institutional rot while treating systemic labour dynamics as a simple budgeting problem, the I'm afraid your delusion levels are reaching tactical time-wasting territory.

When someone looks at a global sports governance crisis spanning multi-billion-dollar commercial rights, opaque executive maneuverings, and structural labour dynamics, and decides that the real issue is that players make too much money and fans aren't yelling loudly enough at Sunday league games, reality has officially left the chat.
 
Football us life said:
Football probably needs to rid itself of career sports bureaucrats and corporate technocrats running the game at the highest level in order to move on.....

So I'd like to see a respected former player in charge of FIFA.

The immediate benefit of such a move would be instant cultural credibility. A figure who actually played at the highest level, understands the physical and mental toll on footballers and holds an intrinsic respect for the game's traditions would fundamentally change the tone at the top. It would instantly bridge the massive empathy gap that currently exists between ivory-tower executives and the actual core constituency of Someone like a Philipp Lahm or a Zvonimir Boban would be ideal.

Phillipp Lahm successfully led Germany's Euro 2024 organising committee and Zvonimir Boban has worked at both FIFA and UEFA in various liaison roles, although he did resign from UEFA after a disagreement over transparency rules.

Boban, particularly represents the rare blueprint of an elite former player who possesses the technical intellect for administration, understands the high-stakes politics from the inside, but ultimately refuses to compromise on the democratic and ethical integrity of the sport.

However, it would never happen.....

The institutional architecture of global sport is designed precisely to self-protect.

The "suits" – career bureaucrats, legal fixers, and corporate technocrats who control the voting blocks, the financial pipelines, and the internal machinery of FIFA and confederations. Handing the keys over to an independent-minded former player like a Boban or a Lahm would mean dismantling the opacity that keeps those power structures intact.

They aren't going to voluntarily vote themselves out of relevance or invite someone in who prioritises the soul of the game over executive self-preservation.
Click to expand...
In general I agree re former players, although it didn’t work out that well in the past with Michel Platini.
 
Football us life said:
I think your perspective reduces massive, systemic failures of global capital and governance down to individual morality ("players are greedy," "fans just need to speak up").

But true reform requires dismantling corrupt financial structures from the inside using legal and institutional muscle, not expecting individual athletes to take vows of poverty or placing the entire regulatory burden on emotionally invested fans.

And if you think fans can just grassroots-protest their way out of multi-billion-dollar global institutional rot while treating systemic labour dynamics as a simple budgeting problem, the I'm afraid your delusion levels are reaching tactical time-wasting territory.

When someone looks at a global sports governance crisis spanning multi-billion-dollar commercial rights, opaque executive maneuverings, and structural labour dynamics, and decides that the real issue is that players make too much money and fans aren't yelling loudly enough at Sunday league games, reality has officially left the chat.
Click to expand...
Nah, if you are just going to reduce this whole thing to calling me naive and an idiot - not in those exact words, but very much implied- then I would kindly excuse myself.
 
zimbos05 said:
Nah, if you are just going to reduce this whole thing to calling me naive and an idiot - not in those exact words, but very much implied- then I would kindly excuse myself.
Click to expand...

Yeah....I probably could have worded it better....

I
Keeper66 said:
In general I agree re former players, although it didn’t work out that well in the past with Michel Platini.
Click to expand...

Yep... Kinda torpedoes my little idea.

I mean Platini didn't just get grazed by the system he got completely swallowed by the inner circle of the Blatter regime....
 
Football us life said:
Football probably needs to rid itself of career sports bureaucrats and corporate technocrats running the game at the highest level in order to move on.....

So I'd like to see a respected former player in charge of FIFA.

The immediate benefit of such a move would be instant cultural credibility. A figure who actually played at the highest level, understands the physical and mental toll on footballers and holds an intrinsic respect for the game's traditions would fundamentally change the tone at the top. It would instantly bridge the massive empathy gap that currently exists between ivory-tower executives and the actual core constituency of Someone like a Philipp Lahm or a Zvonimir Boban would be ideal.

Phillipp Lahm successfully led Germany's Euro 2024 organising committee and Zvonimir Boban has worked at both FIFA and UEFA in various liaison roles, although he did resign from UEFA after a disagreement over transparency rules.

Boban, particularly represents the rare blueprint of an elite former player who possesses the technical intellect for administration, understands the high-stakes politics from the inside, but ultimately refuses to compromise on the democratic and ethical integrity of the sport.

However, it would never happen.....

The institutional architecture of global sport is designed precisely to self-protect.

The "suits" – career bureaucrats, legal fixers, and corporate technocrats who control the voting blocks, the financial pipelines, and the internal machinery of FIFA and confederations. Handing the keys over to an independent-minded former player like a Boban or a Lahm would mean dismantling the opacity that keeps those power structures intact.

They aren't going to voluntarily vote themselves out of relevance or invite someone in who prioritises the soul of the game over executive self-preservation.
Click to expand...

The more players the better, but that doesn't guarantee or necessarily change anything. Bureaucracy isn't necessarily a dirty word and being a career bureaucrat isn't necessarily a bad thing. Bureaucracy includes administering the systems and processes that uphold probity, transparency and integrity and that takes experience, character and skill. If a former player has that, then fine.

We tend to cast bureaucrat's, public servants and technocrats as the bad guys pulling the strings. But most often they are qualified people working within legal and policy constraints to serve the institution or a broader set of goals. It's the politicians and vested interests that control voting blocks, power structures and financial incentives. To point at the bureaucracy and say, tear that down, is a populist neo-liberal trick. It's a diversion from their own self-interest and a call to destroy constraints and norms so they can do whatever they want.

You can kind of see the bureaucrat's perspective in action when you look at what Mattias Grafstrom wrote to FIFA staff https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7491300/2026/08/04/fifa-world-cup-sale-infantino-letter/

He is general secretary, not a politician. He's the head of FIFA's operations, effectively, serving at the pleasure of the FIFA executive (the politicians). He's a bureaucrat. In that communique he's basically calling out the shit behaviour, empathising to the staff for the shitstorm they are in, telling them that at its core FIFA's mission remains unchanged and that the work of keeping football's lights on can't stop.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top