The 12-page report aimed to save football’s governing body, FIFA, at a time of existential crisis.
Filled with reform proposals and written by more than a dozen soccer insiders in December 2015, the report was FIFA’s best opportunity to show its business partners, American investigators and billions of fans that we could trust him again after one of the biggest corruption scandals in the history of sport.
In bullets and numbered sections, the report defended noble ideas such as responsibility and humility. It also proposed concrete and, for FIFA, revolutionary changes: transparency in the way major decisions were made; term limits for senior leaders and new limits on presidential power; and the abolition of well-funded committees, widely seen as a system of institutional corruption.
And there, on the last page of the report, at the bottom of a list of its authors, appeared the name of the man who presents himself as the savior of FIFA: Gianni Infantino.
Mr Infantino, an administrator at European football’s governing body, had been hired to help outline the overhauls. At the time they were announced, he was a candidate for the FIFA presidency. Presenting himself as a clean break from the past, he took office a few months later and quickly began implementing many changes. The six regional sports confederations also promised to put their acts in order.
Less than a decade later, the appetite for football reform appears to have waned. An external audit of the governing body of African football, ordered after FIFA took control of the organization, suggested tens of millions of dollars in misappropriated funds. The governing bodies of Europe and North and Central America have backed away from reforms or ignored promises altogether, based on a comparison of public commitments and concrete actions. The Asian Football Confederation will vote this week on removing term limits for its top executives.
And on Friday in Bangkok, Mr. Infantino and FIFA will ask its members to approve a series of modifications to its statutes it would further undo the changes he had once embraced and restore the structures he had sought to sweep away.
Critics say it would move football away from the strong principles of good governance it has adopted amid the scandal. “FIFA,” the organization responded, “strongly disagrees with this sentiment.”
Mixed signals
FIFA, the institution, as well as Mr. Infantino personally, frequently invoke powerful support for its overhauls whenever questions about corporate probity are raised. Although Mr. Infantino rarely grants interviews, FIFA said in response to questions about rolling back reforms that changes since the 2015 scandals have transformed it “from a toxic institution into a respected, trusted governing body and modern.
This shift toward a governance model, he says, has been “recognized by several external organizations, including the United States Department of Justice.”
But U.S. officials said last week that they had never revised FIFA’s rules or governance standards, and the prosecutor’s office that has brought many corruption cases has refused to support the changes made by the federation.
“Our office has not endorsed the effectiveness of any of FIFA’s current reform efforts,” said John Marzulli, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York.
FIFA, with two of its regional confederations, was victim status granted by the Justice Department, reflecting the conclusion that it had been wronged by its own leaders. This designation could allow him to recover tens of millions of dollars seized from defendants in this case.
But in a sign of the Justice Department’s reluctance to endorse FIFA’s claims that it is a changed institution, U.S. officials have refused to pay. $201 million in restitution funds it awarded directly to FIFA or its related federations. Instead, they took the unusual step of requiring the creation of a U.S.-based bank account for a special fund that would receive the funds.
At the same time, FIFA decided to modify its revised statutes after the scandal. In the 2015 study, for example, Mr. Infantino and his fellow report authors called for dismantling a bloated committee system that had for years been one of FIFA’s worst excesses: a program of sponsorship in which football officials from around the world could enjoy luxury air travel, five-star accommodation and high annual salaries, all at FIFA’s expense, in exchange for their loyalty and their votes.
FIFA had 26 such permanent committees at the time. The 2015 report recommended a reduction to nine “to improve efficiency”. Currently there are only seven.
But within the framework of the proposed rules change discussed this week in Bangkok, Mr Infantino will ask members to approve a five-fold increase, to 35 panels, and also the power to create new ones – and appoint members – when he sees fit.
FIFA said it needed additional commissions because it had significantly expanded its roles and suggested the roles would create more positions for women. Some meetings, he said, would be held by teleconference. He did not say how appointees to the committees would be chosen, but there is already interest in the roles.
A sports official, who works for another major sporting organization but has served on FIFA committees in the past, smiled when told of their reinstatement. He asked not to be named because he still maintains a relationship with the organization. But he said he hoped to be offered a position since perks traditionally include access to valuable World Cup tickets.
Changing tides
Region by region, the promises of change have already been watered down. The Asian Football Confederation’s vote this week to abolish term limits will allow its president and board members to stay on indefinitely. (The AFC said four of its member associations requested the change.) An effort by the president of the European Football Union to stay beyond his 12-year term limit was approved but rendered meaningless when he declared he would not run. (He said he had no plans to extend his term but wanted to test his members’ loyalty.) And Concacaf, the North American soccer body, which was nearly toppled by the scandal corruption scandal of 2015, failed to follow through on promised changes, such as hiring. independent members of the board of directors. (He did not respond to a request for comment Tuesday.)
At the same time, crops of well-paid sinecures And almighty presidents have been, in some respects, improved. Members of FIFA’s governing body, known as the Council, earn between $250,000 and $350,000 a year for work that may require attendance at just three meetings a year. Mr. Infantino has seen his salary more than double since taking office, to nearly $5 million, and he recently oversaw a term-length change — unique to him — that could allow him to remain in office. his position for 15 years instead of 12 years. provided for by the FIFA statutes.
Miguel Maduro, the first FIFA governance chief appointed by Mr. Infantino after his election, blamed the organization’s culture for the return to old practices. “It’s not enough to cut down a few bad apples,” he said, “if the trees that produced them remain in place. »
Mr. Maduro, who left the governing post in 2017, called the weakening of safeguards a “formalization of the reversal from reforms.” He called the latest changes a “confirmation” of an informal process that has been underway for years.
As Mr. Infantino consolidated his position, he simultaneously reversed changes intended to reduce his office’s influence. Under the proposed reforms, the president was to become an “ambassador” of the sport and greater authority was to be transferred to FIFA’s supreme administrator, the secretary general – a position which was recreated to more closely resemble that of ‘a general manager.
Yet for most of Mr. Infantino’s tenure, his secretary general, Fatma Samoura, was rarely involved in major issues. Instead, the most important decisions were increasingly grouped into less and fewer handsand controlled by a group known as the Bureau.
In meetings held behind closed doors, the members of the office – the six regional football presidents and Mr Infantino – negotiated high-profile events among themselves. In October, they presented the FIFA Council with a plan that reduced the candidates for the men’s World Cup in 2030 to a single choice, an offer on three continents which will take place in Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay, as well as Morocco, Portugal and Spain.
This choice, by limiting the field of candidates for the next World Cup to only those from Asia and Oceania, actually allocated the 2034 World Cup to Saudi Arabia before the start of the auction. Within 24 hours, she gained the support of the Asian Football Confederation and Mr. Infantino.
FIFA members must still vote to confirm the hosts of the 2030 and 2034 events. But with only one candidate bidding for each tournament, and The result desired by Mr. Infantino It is clear that these votes appear to be a fait accompli.
And as Ms. Samoura recently left FIFA, the reduction in her former position should also be made official in Bangkok. According to the new draft statutes, any reference to the function of secretary general as director general of FIFA will be deleted. Instead, the position, which previously reported to the board, will now also report directly to the president.
