World Cup Success Masked by Growing Crisis of Trust in FIFA

The current World Cup has provided some of the most exciting football in recent memory, yet a deep crisis of trust regarding FIFA continues to overshadow the tournament. This ongoing tension dominated the latest “Ask Me Anything” Q&A session.

Many participants focused on the Folarin Balogun case, raising concerns that FIFA has overstepped by interfering with on-pitch matters. Others questioned whether FIFA president Gianni Infantino could realistically be removed from office, given the current voting mathematics that support his tenure.

There was also significant interest in the structural issues plaguing the organization, ranging from the impact of high ticket prices on the stadium atmosphere to the potential for UEFA’s largest nations to break away from FIFA entirely.

Here are the key questions and answers from the session:

Q: Unlikely though it is, how exactly could Infantino be forced out of office?

A: Much of this depends on the numbers. Infantino requires 106 votes to remain president. FIFA’s redistribution of prize money—often without requiring audited accounts from federations—essentially guarantees support from many smaller nations. His influence in Africa and Asia effectively secures him over 100 votes. Because he holds such a significant advantage, more critical associations feel they must comply or risk losing future opportunities to host a World Cup. It appears transactional and limiting.

Major European nations possess the collective influence to demand change, yet they fail to act, creating a vacuum. The only real path to change involves splitting his voter base, which the controversy surrounding the Somali referee briefly threatened to do. Once the tournament concludes, however, many questioning federations will likely focus on the substantial prize money again. With the Balogun case, there was a moment where Europe might have mobilized, but key federations refused to go public.

Q: Is knockout football impossible to mess up? Or is there a breaking point that could seriously impact FIFA and its leadership?

A: This represents both the glory and the problem of the World Cup—the two sides of the event.

As journalist Lars Sivertsen recently noted, the football has been transcendent, even as much of the administration remains inexcusable. FIFA recognizes that the sport itself persevere, but the Balogun case feels like a hinge moment because it involves FIFA interfering with the game as it is played. This approaches a breaking point, although enough associations have yet to express public outrage. The irony is that without proper pushback, the risk of more severe issues increases.

Q: How on earth didn’t FIFA think about the Pandora’s box they would open?

A: I agree completely. This sets a precedent for legal challenges regarding on-pitch decisions. A major flaw in the current Infantino-led FIFA is that decisions are often made in a top-down, ad hoc manner with little foresight or clear process. This mirrors other instances, such as the overnight decision during the Qatar World Cup to switch from three-team to four-team groups without proper consultation.

Q: In your opinion, who has been worse for FIFA: Blatter or Infantino?

A: There is an interesting dynamic here. Criticisms of Infantino have led to some revisionism regarding Sepp Blatter, which I do not fully share. Blatter was banned from the sport for ethical breaches and financial misconduct, whereas Infantino has not.

However, one era leads to the next. The current version of FIFA could not exist without the Blatter era, which in turn relied on the Joao Havelange era. That said, I believe the impact of the Infantino administration is worse for the game. We are seeing more of the sport handed over to autocratic states and more negative decisions affecting how football is governed. Blatter, for all his faults, generally favored more collective decision-making.

Q: How can football associations take greater control over FIFA’s mandate and policies?

A: You hit on a fundamental issue. It is often forgotten that FIFA exists to serve its member associations. Instead, the dynamic is reversed, with everything appearing to serve the president rather than the organization. This evolution stems from a lack of reform. The solution requires establishing proper structures with checks and balances.

Q: Could this lead to the breakup of FIFA? Would UEFA have the nerve to set up a new organisation?

A: While UEFA is reportedly “outraged,” there is not yet sufficient political will for a split. Too many major nations lack interest. For example, the Football Association has remained quiet, likely due to ambitions surrounding the 2035 Women’s World Cup. Some European nations have expressed disappointment with their larger partners over this lack of action.

Q: How difficult would it legally be for UEFA-affiliated associations to disconnect from FIFA? Is there an appetite in Europe to do so?

A: Essentially, these associations possess the power to make such a choice; it would not necessarily be a legal battle like the Super League. FIFA maintains its power largely through the licenses and registrations required to participate in the World Cup. If these nations were to form a credible alternative, the dynamic would change significantly.

Q: How damaging is it that fans and even a coach like Hossam Hassan are using words like “fixed” – does perception become its own kind of reality here?

A: This is a vital point. I do not believe the accusations are true, but they create another problem for FIFA. It highlights the toxic impact of the intervention. While criticizing referees is not new, the scale of these accusations moves into new territory. People are beginning to wonder what else might be happening behind the scenes, which erodes the organization’s credibility and legitimacy in ways that are difficult to repair.

Q: Do you think the Egypt coach should apologise for suggesting the game was rigged?

A: While evidence is important and we should acknowledge the Argentina players’ performance, this outburst is a manifestation of justified frustration over decisions that cost his team dearly. He is an outspoken individual, so an apology seems unlikely. I do not agree with his claims, but I can empathize with his anger. The decisions made were poor—while likely innocent errors, they were still detrimental to the game.

Q: How has the ticket pricing affected the crowds and experience of the games?

A: Crowd sizes have not been significantly affected, which is expected given the US entertainment market. However, the atmosphere has felt an impact. The cost of tickets has likely reduced the number of dedicated fans in attendance for knockout games. When I attended the Argentina match, the atmosphere was excellent, but there were moments where sections of the crowd appeared unfamiliar with the standard chants, suggesting some were there for the experience rather than as core supporters. Regardless of FIFA’s financial success, the high prices remain morally questionable.