This is a Mint Premium article gifted to you.
Subscribe to enjoy similar stories.
In the end, Gianni Infantino blinked. In the face of an extraordinary backlash, the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (Fifa) has abandoned its plan to sell a minority stake in the commercial rights of the World Cup through a new company, Fifa Forward Enterprise.
What was presented only days ago as a bold financial vision has collapsed under widespread opposition from across the football world. Football has won, but only this round. The proposal has been shelved; the questions it raised, however, hover over the game.
Nearly a century ago, Jules Rimet had something else in mind for football. Europe was recovering from a devastating war and drifting towards another. Rimet believed that if nations could compete on the football pitch rather than a battlefield, rivalry need not end in violence.
The World Cup was thus born as an act of optimism.
Remarkably, it did begin to unite the world. Every four years, a child in Kolkata, a fisherman in Senegal, a taxi driver in Buenos Aires and an office worker in Seoul all speak its language.
From a corporate perspective, Fifa’s proposal was perfectly rational. Businesses unlock value. Investors provide capital. Assets are packaged, priced and sold. The trouble is that football is not just another asset. The controversy was over philosophy. Who really owns the game? “None of us,” as the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) put it.
The game was shaped by factory workers, sailors, immigrants and generations of children who re-invent it every afternoon with makeshift goalposts. Although governing bodies wrote the rules, humanity wrote its story. Fifa may have had the legal authority to restructure its commercial rights, but that could not win the moral argument.
That became clear soon after the proposal came to light. UEFA warned it may reconsider participation in Fifa competitions. Football authorities in South America, Asia and elsewhere voiced concerns. Objections soon turned a financial proposal into a crisis of legitimacy. Fifa president Infantino’s retreat was welcomed all around. The drama is not over yet, though.
Reports suggest UEFA and other confederations are now searching for a credible challenger to Infantino in next year’s Fifa presidential election. Whether one will emerge is uncertain at this juncture. However, since this episode has dented the authority of a president who once appeared politically unassailable, perhaps one will.
The debate has shifted from the ownership of football to the stewardship of Fifa itself. This matters because football occupies a unique place in an increasingly fragmented world.
Today, the UN struggles to command a consensus. The World Trade Organization no longer has the influence it once did. International politics is getting organized around competing blocs more than shared institutions.
Football remains one of the few genuinely global commons: a game governed by one set of rules and culminating in one championship recognized by virtually every nation.
Ironically, a proposal intended to unlock football’s commercial value almost ended up weakening the very universality that gives the World Cup its meaning.
Can we attribute what happened to the ‘Trumpization’ of football? Perhaps, but not simply because of Donald Trump or reports linking prospective investors to the brother of his son-in-law. Rather, it reflects a broader philosophy of governance in which every institution is viewed through a transactional lens.
If something possesses immense cultural value, the assumption is that someone, somewhere, should be able to buy a stake in it. This way, football will gradually cease to be a shared inheritance and resemble an investment portfolio.
Markets have undoubtedly enriched modern sport. Broadcast and other revenues have helped build stadiums, fund academies and expand opportunities across the developing world. Cricket, for instance, was transformed by a commercial revolution unleashed by Kerry Packer nearly half a century ago. But markets also reshape whatever they finance.
Sure, football rarely changes overnight. It changes by degrees—through longer match calendars, expanding tournaments, television-driven scheduling, hydration breaks and growing commercial deals. Each change may seem harmless by itself, but it all adds up to show how a sport governed by commercial interests slowly gets transformed to suit its business backers.
The challenge, hence, is to ensure that commerce remains at the service of football and does not become its master. Infantino stepped back before a commercial dispute became an institutional rupture. Yet, withdrawing the proposal doesn’t resolve the underlying tensions.
Private equity, sovereign wealth funds, expanding tournaments and relentless commercial pressures are still likely to shape football’s future more than the game’s fans.
Rimet imagined football as a common language in a divided world. Infantino’s failed attempt has exposed a fault line and fans around the world wonder if the game’s greatest tournament will eventually be just another global asset for investors.
While Fifa cannot be grudged its mandate to raise funds for the game’s development, it must ensure that its value doesn’t diminish. Television rights can be auctioned, sponsorships can be negotiated and deals can be struck. But the returns on every World Cup mustn’t be captured only by a few.
The author is professor of statistics, Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata.
Catch all the Business News, Market News, Breaking News Events and Latest News Updates on Live Mint. Download The Mint News App to get Daily Market Updates.
Topics
Source: Livemint
