On Friday, members at FIFA’s extraordinary general meeting elected a new president, Gianni Infantino and announced a package of reforms aimed at improving the organisation’s governance:-
1. Gianni Infantino
• He was Michel Platini’s close confidant and deputy at UEFA for 15 years. Platini is currently banned from football in relation to acceptance of a £1.35 million payment from Sepp Blater. Infantino has been at the centre of world football administration for almost two decades. These decades have in a large part, as illustrated above, been characterised by alleged and proven incidents of corruption and bribery. Whilst Infantino is not guilty by association it casts some doubt on how progressive his reforms will be. He is certainly not a revolutionary outsider; and
• At what cost was he able to win the FIFA presidency? In part we know he promised various associations, particularly in Africa, money towards development. These nations swung the vote for Infantino who already had the backing of most European associations. This begs the question, whether Infantino was voted in because of his reformist credentials or because of the promises he made to potential voters. (A common question in all modern elections). Furthermore we have little idea what was promised behind closed doors and whether his presidency going forward will be hamstrung by these commitments.
2. The Reforms:–
• These include the introduction of term limits, transparency on pay, measures to improve diversity and the separation of political and commercial matters; and
• One of the most interesting measures is contained in Article 14 of the reform proposals. It states that all member states and the associated confederations (eg UEFA etc.) must get their accounts independently audited every year with the subsequent results published. This reform has the potential to have a significant impact, as it could help avoid (or discover) financial corruption at member associations. The penalty for non-compliance could be the loss of FIFA recognition, meaning a nation would be on the outside of world football. However reports from Transparency International state only 41 out of 209 members nations currently have independently audited reports available. That leaves 168 members who have not. So if some associations, fail to comply with the auditing requirement, will they receive the associated punishment? If they don’t it could undermine the credibly of this measure and the whole reform process.
If FIFA’s governance does not see sustained improvement in the coming years, sponsors like VISA have raised doubts over whether they would continue to associate with the organisation. Historically companies have been reluctant to withdraw sponsorship for fear of rival companies replacing them. Rather then internal politics, perhaps it would only be the threat of loss of commercial revenue which could spur FIFA into true and long-lasting reform.
edwardjeavonssportslaw 