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

Punchanello said:
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.
Click to expand...


Yes....Bureaucracy is indeed essential for integrity and transparency. But when a bureaucracy's primary function becomes executing top-down, opaque commercial ventures while the checks and balances fail entirely, painting the career administrator as an innocent bystander protecting the public trust is a misread.

The bureaucracy didn't stop the corruption here at FIFA, public outrage and external threats from UEFA and governments did.

And inside sports geopolitics, top-tier bureaucrats are appointed by, and serve at the pleasure of, the political executive. They are not independent constitutional watchdogs, they are corporate executives. When a president like Gianni Infantino attempts a sweeping, top-down monetisation scheme, such as trying to spin off a multi-billion-dollar commercial vehicle like FIFA Forward Enterprise behind closed doors the administrative machinery doesn't naturally intercept it. Instead, unless an administrator explicitly blows the whistle early, the machinery is used to execute it.

When the private equity plan blew up because UEFA threatened total boycotts, legal action, and major European federations withdrew support, look at what senior bureaucrats like Secretary-General Mattias Grafström and COO Kevin Lamour actually did.....

They circulated internal memos calling it "sad and reproachable" and complained that staff had been "deceived".

They rushed to distance themselves, and legal teams (like UEFA's) actively demanded their communications be preserved as potential evidence.

This isn't bureaucracy defending the public trust, this is institutional self-preservation.

True accountability didn't bubble up organically from internal policy compliance or administrative "probity." It was forced upon the institution by an external collision of political threats and existential commercial warfare.

And I'm not bashing bureaucrats per se..

I appreciate proper bureaucracy because it upholds integrity and transparency. The problem isn't administrative systems, but that FIFA is a uniquely captured outlier functioning as an executive vehicle for power.
 
Last edited:
Football us life said:
Yes....Bureaucracy is indeed essential for integrity and transparency. But when a bureaucracy's primary function becomes executing top-down, opaque commercial ventures while the checks and balances fail entirely, painting the career administrator as an innocent bystander protecting the public trust is a misread.

The bureaucracy didn't stop the corruption here at FIFA, public outrage and external threats from UEFA and governments did.

And inside sports geopolitics, top-tier bureaucrats are appointed by, and serve at the pleasure of, the political executive. They are not independent constitutional watchdogs, they are corporate executives. When a president like Gianni Infantino attempts a sweeping, top-down monetisation scheme—such as trying to spin off a multi-billion-dollar commercial vehicle like FIFA Forward Enterprise behind closed doors—the administrative machinery doesn't naturally intercept it. Instead, unless an administrator explicitly blows the whistle early, the machinery is used to execute it.

When the private equity plan blew up because UEFA threatened total boycotts, legal action, and major European federations withdrew support, look at what senior bureaucrats like Secretary-General Mattias Grafström and COO Kevin Lamour actually did.....

They circulated internal memos calling it "sad and reproachable" and complained that staff had been "deceived".

They rushed to distance themselves, and legal teams (like UEFA's) actively demanded their communications be preserved as potential evidence.

This isn't bureaucracy defending the public trust, this is institutional self-preservation.

True accountability didn't bubble up organically from internal policy compliance or administrative "probity." It was forced upon the institution by an external collision of political threats and existential commercial warfare.
Click to expand...
Agree with most of that to an extent. I'm not trying to paint any one person or classes of operatives as innocent I'm trying to highlight the fact that the true power lies with the members, not the bureaucracy. Are there bureaucrats who are incompetent, corrupt or self-serving. Of course. Infantino is an elected President. He has wielded his power and done this. He was voted in by the executive. Yet somehow the bureaucrats are the main issue.

The point I meant to get to is that the answer lies in institutional reform at the constitutional and governance level. That is a long road because FIFA is an old-world institution. Its governance was never designed to withstand the challenges that come with the corporatisation of the FAs, sport-washing, private equity, globalisation and modern geopolitics.

The answer isn't simply replacing one type of insider with another because the rules haven't changed and they still incentivise the same behaviours. The actual power of the FIFA president and the voting executive needs to be constrained.
 
Last edited:
Punchanello said:
Agree with most of that to an extent. I'm not trying to paint any one person or classes of operatives as innocent I'm trying to highlight the fact that the true power lies with the members, not the bureaucracy. Are there bureaucrats who are incompetent, corrupt or self-serving. Of course. Infantino is an elected President. He has wielded his power and done this. He was voted in by the executive. Yet someone the bureaucrats are the main issue.

The point I meant to get to is that the answer lies in institutional reform at the constitutional and governance level. That is a long road because FIFA is an old-world institution. Its governance was never designed to withstand the challenges that come with the corporatisation of the FAs, sport-washing, private equity, globalisation and modern geopolitics.

The answer isn't simply replacing one type of insider with another because the rules haven't changed and they still incentivise the same behaviours. The actual power of the FIFA president and the voting executive needs to be constrained.
Click to expand...


Good post....I like the way you have presented the case there.....

The architecture itself is where the rot is locked in.

When the presidency wields that kind of unilateral power, individual bureaucrats, even senior ones caught in the crossfire are left scrambling to protect their own integrity or position once the top-down scheme blows up.

The rules of the game haven't changed, meaning whoever sits in that chair inherits the exact same structural incentives to overreach.

And until the actual constitutional power blocks and voting structures are somehow constrained, swapping faces at the top is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

And yeah....my point about ex-players running for President of FIFA is really just a fat chewing exercise....
 
Football us life said:
Good post....I like the way you have presented the case there.....

The architecture itself is where the rot is locked in.

When the presidency wields that kind of unilateral power, individual bureaucrats, even senior ones caught in the crossfire are left scrambling to protect their own integrity or position once the top-down scheme blows up.

The rules of the game haven't changed, meaning whoever sits in that chair inherits the exact same structural incentives to overreach.

And until the actual constitutional power blocks and voting structures are somehow constrained, swapping faces at the top is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

And yeah....my point about ex-players running for President of FIFA is really just a fat chewing exercise....
Click to expand...
I totally agree with more players being involved. There's clearly not enough love or passion for the game at the top because if there was, the money would never have been prioritised over its long term health.
 
Punchanello said:
I totally agree with more players being involved. There's clearly not enough love or passion for the game at the top because if there was, the money would never have been prioritised over its long term health.
Click to expand...


That nails the underlying tragedy of the whole mess. When the top tier of an organisation treats the game's crown jewel as a corporate asset to be monetised for private equity, it proves that the people steering the ship lost touch with why the sport matters a long time ago....

The passion lives on the terraces and at the grassroots level, but the boardroom has turned football survival into a high-stakes corporate shakedown.

I do think expanding the game globally such as bringing infrastructure, resources, and competitive pathways to developing regions is an essential mission for any governing body. But the way those expansions are funded and structured matters entirely.

But, growth and development shouldn't require trading away the underlying integrity of the sport's greatest asset.
 
Guess we got our answer. Governance didn't fix the shit show. He stays on, and the fans keep paying the price for it.

It's ok. At some point the fat cats in suits who benefit off the corruption will fix it
 
HonestSpursFan said:
Fucking
Interfering with
Football
Again
Click to expand...
It means noting. It's just a BS press release. The quote from Grafstrom is that Infantino is “the only official elected by the 211 FIFA Member Associations”. That's just a fact which nobody ever disputed. The statement said FIFA would “no longer tolerate any attacks on its integrity” and would take “all necessary measures” to defend its reputation. That could mean anything and the statement itself represents the views of Infantino and his staff. Not the 211 members that make up FIFA. It's certainly not a full-throated statement of support for Infantino. It's a carefully qualified statement intended to make it seem like there's more support for Infantino than there actually is.

He's toast. He's just doing what a cornered rat does.

UEFA called that out pretty well - "Yesterday's announcement that some people employed by the FIFA president (and whose careers depend on his favour) agree with him changes nothing," it said.
 
Last edited:
Punchanello said:
Meanwhile at Football Australia headquarters....crickets. Plenty of time has passed for them to assess "the information so it can form a position".

What a bunch of low-flying, gormless wall flowers.
Click to expand...

While I agree with this on principle it is probably the right course at the moment.

Is the goal to get rid of the private equity - achieved

Is the goal to get rid of Infantino - the bigger picture. Two avenues are being discussed to - one is the 43 votes needed to call an extraordinary congress. The more likely quicker option is to get the 19 votes from the FIFA Council.

First 19 members must vote to convene an extraordinary congress. Australia doesn't have a vote but does have influence.

A congress must be held with the vote of No Confidence and Removal of the President must happen within 30 days.

A total of 106 out of 211 need to remove him. The senior vice president becomes the interim president - operational only no new agendas.

A vote for a new president then comes within the next 6 months.

At the same time a legal challenge via the Ethics committee needs to conclude so that he can not restand.

Australia's public role only becomes important if the FIFA Council votes call an emergency congress. However privately they have a role in lobbying the Council. in the Council UEFA and CONCACAF likely to deliver 14 votes. Japan, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Laos can then get them to 18 while West Asia, South America and Africa go the other way. Then you have the three Oceania votes. NZ gets them to 19 but getting the other 2 helps in case of last minute renege.

Then within 6 months - hopefully sooner - but preferable after the legal challenge is concluded.

I suspect that Victor Montagliani becomes FIFA President and Lise Klaveness becomes Secretary General.
 
Last edited:
patjennings said:
While I agree with this on principle it is probably the right course at the moment.

Is the goal to get rid of the private equity - achieved

Is the goal to get rid of Infantino - the bigger picture. Two avenues are being discussed to - one is the 43 votes needed to call an extraordinary congress. The more likely quicker option is to get the 19 votes from the FIFA Council.

First 19 members must vote to convene an extraordinary congress. Australia doesn't have a vote but does have influence.

A congress must be held with the vote of No Confidence and Removal of the President must happen within 30 days.

A total of 106 out of 211 need to remove him. The senior vice president becomes the interim president - operational only no new agendas.

A vote for a new president then comes within the next 6 months.

At the same time a legal challenge via the Ethics committee needs to conclude so that he can not restand.

Australia's public role only becomes important if the FIFA Council votes call an emergency congress. However privately they have a role in lobbying the Council. in the Council UEFA and CONCACAF likely to deliver 14 votes. Japan, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Laos can then get them to 18 while West Asia, South America and Africa go the other way. Then you have the three Oceania votes. NZ gets them to 19 but getting the other 2 helps in case of last minute renege.

Then within 6 months - hopefully sooner - but preferable after the legal challenge is concluded.

I suspect that Victor Montagliani becomes FIFA President and Lise Klaveness becomes Secretary General.
Click to expand...

Exactly, I know it's fans venting and sounding off and all of that but what could anyone from Football Australia say that would effectively change anything at the minute?

Their smartest move is to sit tightly with the rest of the AFC rather than trying to make some standalone public noise that nobody in Zurich or the bigger confederations will care about....

The AFC already put out a solid statement opposing the way the FFE was handled and standing with UEFA and CONCACAF on process and consultation. FA welcomed the climbdown in line with that.

That's all they need to do....

Anything else is just noise!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top