- The world of the future and the world of the past
- The simple statistical proof that one referee is not the slightest bit like the next
By Tony Attwood
Dodgy dictators last for all sorts of reasons. Sometimes because they terrorise the rest of the population, sometimes because there is no obvious other candidate, sometimes because it is easier to stay with them than to topple them, and sometimes because the populace is so busy fighting itself that no one gets around to remove the dictator.
Bringing it all back home, it is interesting to see how the battle to do something about PGMO in this regard. Certainly because the media won’t ever criticise them in any way, it is easy to think that there is no other way of doing football and refereeing than the way it is done now. But equally because there is so much anti-Arsenal talk about Arsenal cheating that overtakes any thought of PGMO being problematic. Perhaps that was the idea.
Except that Fifpro has had enough and has started to call for Fifa Reform, because of the Infantino fiasco. (Sorry you won’t read about that in English media, but it is happening).
So it seems while we have been looking for someone to overthrow PGMO (and thinking about the English branch of FIFPRO – the trade union of over 70,000 professional players) we have found it is too late..
For if you look at Fifpro’s areas of interest, getting refereeing sorted isn’t even on the list. They have demanded reforms to FIFA’s approach to decision-making and have spoken against Infantino’s approach, and demanded an independent review of FIFA decision-making and the involvement of players, clubs, and leagues in the governance of football, but with no effect for Fifa won’t give way on anything, and the media refuse to cover the issue. The only online articles I could find were mostly in languages I don’t speak although there is one in French here.
So I raise the question: why are we not seeing these articles in the UK, and presumably in other parts of the English speaking world. But even Reuters agree that very few publications written in English are picking this up, and that tells you a lot about what we are up against. Here’s the translation…
FIFPRO Europe calls for FIFA reform after Infantino’s failed proposal
The statement with that headline was released just two days ago (14 September), it is from Reuters and that is the one outlet that I would tend to trust. It tells us that the union Fifpro Europe “demanded reforms to FIFA’s decision-making structures” with immediate effect, on the grounds that Fifa’s “investment proposal exposed dangerous flaws in how global football is governed.”
OK so it is about structure and organisation across the world, and not about Arsenal, but I would argue that this is vital stuff. It shows that FIFA’s “Forward Enterprise” (FFE) initiative would have turned top level football competitions into the asset making playthings of private capital, “without proper consultation with key stakeholders” (which is to say the clubs). In short, how often do we want our players going off to play Fifa-run internationals, during the season and during the summer?
Now this is the sort of thing that most of our news outlets in the UK won’t touch, because they appear to have agreed never to criticise the bodies that run football (Fifa, the FA, and the like). But The Misinformation Monitor has no such qualms, and you can sign up for free here.
They tell us. that after Gianni Infantino set out the Forward Enterprise proposal earlier this year the players organisation said there were major issues within it left unresolved Specifically they said, “FFE was an attempt to convert the game’s core competitions into an investable, tradeable and undervalued financial asset for private capital.” Fifa rejected the complaint saying that this was just Uefa trying to maintain its dominant position in football.
The union responded that world football should work together and not simply do what was forced onto clubs and countries by Fifa. They added that for the last World Cup, clubs in Europe released played worth getting on for $20 billion (94% of the total value of players in the WC), and made the point that the “critical infrastructure” of football needed to be supported rather than have huge changes made by the President working alone.” And indeed, who would want to work in any organisation in which Infantino had total and absolute authority to do what he wished?
The report into these Infantino proposals also said (and I don’t think I saw this quoted in the UK press at all – although of course that might be my fault) the share of the money taken by the World Cup which was then given out to participating countries was about 7.7% in 2026. And that is interesting since 20 years earlier, with a smaller competition, over 10% of the money was distributed. Why does the FA allow this? Why can’t it stand up to Fifa?
Players, it argued received only a fraction of the money that came in, as did the participating federations – and for many of them, the only source of income from Fifa.
As a result the players demanded their inclusion, along with clubs and leagues, in football governance. At the moment the only people who are engaged are the national associations, and the question arises, “do we feel that the FA is able to represent professional footballers in a debate with Fifa within what seems to be an autocratic regime by Infainto?
As far as I know, Fifa has made no response and is carrying on as before as if no one has made any negative comment upon its running of the World Cup. Which is interesting since, seemingly to buy off the critics, the enclave of the powerful have already decided that Morocco, Portugal, Spain, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay all automatically qualify for the next WC because they are hosting at least one match each, including “milestone matches” in commemoration of 100 years of the World Cup.
That may of course all seem fair to you, but it is nonetheless interesting that there’s not been much (or maybe that should be “no”) mention of it on UK broadcasting outlets that I follow.
But then Fifa probably realised that it had the UK media under its thumb anyway, because they wanted to buy the rights for the next WC, and so didn’t have to bother about anything they might write or say.
