Infantino, Gianni

Subterms

    Latest story

    125 Shares199 Views

    UEFA’s Ceferin Says He Won’t Seek Another Term as President

    by

    Aleksander Ceferin prevailed in an effort that would have allowed him another four-year stint as president. Then he announced he wouldn’t seek one.European soccer leaders on Thursday fell squarely in line behind their powerful president, Aleksander Ceferin, by approving a change to term-limit rules that would have allowed him to retain his post through 2031, years beyond the organization’s 12-year term limit.The vote, though, may have been meaningless: About an hour after winning the right to pursue a new four-year term as president of European soccer’s governing body, UEFA, Mr. Ceferin said he would not seek one.“I’ve decided I am not planning to run in 2027,” a stony-faced Mr. Ceferin said as he read from prepared notes. He said he had made the decision six months ago, after growing tired of dealing with issues such as the effort to suppress a breakaway super league and managing European soccer through the pandemic and wars in Ukraine and Gaza.He said he had not revealed his decision earlier because he wanted to first understand the loyalty of UEFA’s members. In recent months, several members of the governing body’s leadership had objected, publicly and privately, to any weakening of term limits.That had raised the prospect that Thursday’s vote might offer a rebellion. Instead, it brought near-total capitulation: Only one of UEFA’s 55 member federations, England, voted no on the term-limits change.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 125 Shares109 Views

      in Soccer

      France Plans to Lure FIFA With Promise of Tax-Free Home

      by

      A plan to persuade sports federations to move to the country could save them millions. Supporters and critics of the proposal say it is intended to tempt one governing body in particular.Call it a friendship with extremely generous benefits.French lawmakers on Wednesday will vote on a plan promoted by the government of President Emmanuel Macron that would encourage international sports bodies to move to the country by promising them what critics have labeled a “tax gift” unavailable to most French companies and citizens.The plan, offered as an amendment to the government’s 2024 budget, would reward organizations that relocate by exempting them, and their employees, from a broad swath of corporate, property and income taxes — savings that could be worth millions of dollars every year.Potential beneficiaries include the governing bodies of a broad range of sports, including more than 30 international federations recognized by the International Olympic Committee. But both supporters and detractors of the tax breaks said that they were aimed at luring one governing body in particular: FIFA.FIFA, world soccer’s governing body, has been based in Zurich since 1932. But in recent years, its leadership has discussed a relocation to greener pastures amid frustrations with life in Switzerland, which was the site of not only its growth into a billion-dollar commercial juggernaut but also its greatest scandal.Aware of that discontent at its highest levels, France is hoping to bring FIFA — which was born in Paris in 1904 — home.The French politicians who created the tax plan said that they were hoping it would entice governing bodies by offering them the type of tax benefits that until now were available in few European countries beyond Switzerland. Under the proposal, organizations that move would be exempted from corporate taxes, local property taxes and even levies on some of their income. The executives and employees who come along would be exempt from income tax for at least five years.“We can’t be blind on the FIFA subject,” said Mathieu Lefèvre, a deputy from Renaissance, the political party founded by Mr. Macron, and a signatory to the amendment that Parliament will take up in a vote on Wednesday. “FIFA is very important.”The amendment granting favorable tax status to sports federations, according to Mr. Lefèvre, is similar to other recent pro-business changes enacted by the French government, including efforts to attract some big banks to Paris from London after Britain voted to leave the European Union in 2016. “We want to make France great again,” Mr. Lefèvre said.Like some other measures that were criticized for favoring business over workers — notably changes this year to France’s pension system, which raised the country’s retirement age — the push to attract sports federations through tax benefits does not enjoy universal support. The Senate, the upper house of the French Parliament, recently voted to delete the text related to sports federations from the government’s budget document.“The words of the senators were quite firm, where everyone thought that it was some kind of scandal, a nonsense, that it was something that really did not have to be done,” said Jean-Claude Raux, an opposition lawmaker. But in a sign of the commitment to the amendment, lawmakers reworked the measure to ensure the proposal was included.Grilled by lawmakers at a recent hearing, France’s sports minister, Amélie Oudéa-Castéra, defended the proposed law, rejecting claims that it amounted to a “tax gift” to sporting federations. Instead, she said, the law would simply place international sports federations within a framework already enjoyed by the other international organizations based in France.But unlike those bodies, which include UNESCO, the United Nations’ cultural organization, FIFA is a behemoth with almost 2,000 staff members, global commercial interests and revenues in the billions. It recently estimated the four-year cycle through to the 2026 World Cup in North America, for example, would generate $11 billion in revenue.French politicians, including Ms. Oudéa-Castéra, have been at pains to point out that the tax breaks would be limited to FIFA’s noncommercial activities, those parts of the organization responsible for governing and developing soccer around the world. But it is unclear how France plans to make that distinction.FIFA declined to comment on the proposed changes. But under its president, Gianni Infantino, its efforts to move some important operations away from its glass-and-steel headquarters in Zurich have been gathering pace in recent months. FIFA has already said that it will move most of its legal department to Miami. And it has opened satellite offices in South America, Africa and Asia as part of Mr. Infantino’s oft-quoted ambition to make FIFA “truly global.”Mr. Infantino could be one of the most prominent beneficiaries of the proposed exemption on income taxes: His pretax salary and bonus package totaled $3.9 million, according to FIFA’s most recent accounts. He also oversaw the opening of yet another FIFA outpost in Paris, in 2021. The FIFA pied-à-terre in the French capital, inside the opulent Hôtel de la Marine, includes an office reserved for Mr. Infantino with sweeping views of some of the city’s most popular sights, including the Eiffel Tower. It currently houses the FIFA department responsible for global soccer development.Mr. Lefèvre, the lawmaker, said that attracting FIFA would be a coup for France’s global image. Others were less effusive about the implications of the association.Mr. Infantino was only elevated to FIFA’s top leadership after a corruption scandal in 2015 led to the downfall of its previous leadership. Since then, he has spoken frequently and emphatically about a reformed organization. Recent decisions, though, have prompted renewed scrutiny about the way FIFA conducts its business. One recent change in the organization’s rules will theoretically allow Mr. Infantino to stay in power beyond a 12-year-term limit. Another directed the hosting rights to the 2034 World Cup to Saudi Arabia, to the surprise of some of FIFA’s own member nations.Belkhir Belhaddad, a French lawmaker who opposes the tax amendment, said that FIFA’s operations must be subject to greater oversight if the changes were approved.“These sports organizations are important, they are useful, they have an economic, financial and social relevance,” Mr. Belhaddad said. “In the world we live in today, we need them. But they need to be regulated. How do we do it? Who takes care of it?”The proposals for a new tax status specific to international sports bodies also received a negative assessment from the Conseil d’État, France’s highest administrative court, which received a draft version in September. The court issued a negative opinion on the grounds that such a move constituted a “breach of tax equality,” according to news reports in France. More

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in Soccer

      How FIFA Handed Saudi Arabia the 2034 World Cup

      by

      FIFA’s president, Gianni Infantino, cheered a plan to take soccer’s richest event to the kingdom. He has said little about his years of work to make that happen.As the world reeled from the coronavirus crisis in the fall of 2020, the president of soccer’s global governing body, Gianni Infantino, headed to Rome for an audience with Italy’s prime minister.Wearing masks and bumping elbows, Mr. Infantino, the president of FIFA, and the prime minister, Giuseppe Conte, greeted each other in front of journalists before disappearing with the president of the Italian soccer federation into one of the ornate state rooms of the 16th-century Palazzo Chigi, the Italian leader’s official residence.Mr. Infantino explained afterward that they had talked about soccer’s path to recovery from pandemic shutdowns. He made no mention of the other pressing topic he had come to discuss.Away from the television cameras, Mr. Infantino surprised the Italians by revealing himself to be a pitchman for an effort by Saudi Arabia to stage soccer’s biggest championship, the World Cup. Saudi Arabia had already secured the backing of Egypt, the FIFA president told the Italian officials, and now was looking for a European partner for what would be a unique tournament staged on three continents in 2030. Italy, he said, could be that partner.Mr. Conte listened politely but would have known that such a partnership was politically impossible: Italy had strained relations with Egypt over the brutal killing of a young Italian journalist in Cairo in 2016, and there was continuing discomfort across Europe about the Saudi role in the 2018 murder of Jamal Khashoggi, a columnist for The Washington Post.The Italian reaction to Mr. Infantino’s suggestion was at first “prudent and within a few hours negative,” said Pietro Benassi, who was the prime minister’s most senior diplomatic adviser. The country said no.Three years later, Saudi Arabia would get its prize anyway. On Oct. 31, after an expedited process that caught its own members by surprise, FIFA confirmed Saudi Arabia was the sole bidder for the 2034 World Cup. Within hours, Mr. Infantino implied in a social media post that its status as host was a done deal and other Gulf rulers hailed it an “Arab victory” — even though the official vote was nearly a year away.To many in soccer, Mr. Infantino’s advocacy for Saudi Arabia was nothing new. In the years since his visit to Rome, he had also pitched the Saudis’ co-hosting idea to Greece; championed multimillion-dollar Saudi investments in soccer; and helped shepherd rules changes that all but assured the kingdom would wind up with the World Cup.His efforts were hardly clandestine. But they have left many in soccer concerned about Mr. Infantino’s motivations, and questioning if he is using his position to prioritize FIFA’s interests or those of a friendly partner that has been leveraging its wealth to wield influence in the sport.“How can we control that growing the game, and the values of the game, are leading the way, and not personal relationships?” said Lise Klaveness, the Norwegian soccer federation president and a critic of FIFA governance.Saudi Arabia made its on-field case to host the World Cup with a series of strong performances in Qatar in 2022.Molly Darlington/ReutersFIFA, through a spokesman, responded to questions about Mr. Infantino’s actions on the president’s behalf, and said nothing improper had been done to ensure that the World Cup went to a preferred candidate. “The selection of venues for the FIFA World Cup takes place through an open and transparent bidding process,” the spokesman said, adding that Mr. Infantino had not “triggered or initiated” discussions about Saudi Arabia’s bid with potential partners.Still, the swiftness and secrecy with which FIFA handled the hosting rights for the 2030 and 2034 tournaments has brought new criticism of the way soccer is governed, and how the organization’s most consequential decisions are now made by a small group of top executives, led by Mr. Infantino, and then rubber-stamped by a pliant governing council.“What is incredible is this is the new FIFA,” said Miguel Maduro, the first governance head appointed by Mr. Infantino amid promises of transparency and ethical reforms. “Yet they basically go back to the same old way of awarding World Cups.”Saudi Arabia never hid its desire to host one. Under Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the Saudi state has given sports a prominent role in efforts to project a new image of the country: vibrant, modern, open. Billions have been spent on boxing matches, Formula 1 auto races, the LIV Golf tour and, most recently, to lure some of the worst’s most famous soccer stars to Saudi Arabia’s domestic league.Saudi Arabia has used its immense wealth to lure soccer stars like Cristiano Ronaldo to its domestic soccer league.Fayez Nureldine/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesThe biggest prize, however, was always the World Cup. And in Mr. Infantino, Saudi Arabia found an enthusiastic ally. In many ways, the kingdom’s ambitions dovetailed with his own as he sought to create new legacy-defining events and projects, all of which would require major infusions of new capital.In 2018, for instance, Mr. Infantino stunned members of FIFA’s board by demanding permission to close a deal for new competitions with investors whose identity he refused to reveal. (After the deal collapsed, it emerged that the group behind the offer, SoftBank, counted Saudi Arabia among its biggest backers.) Three years later, Mr. Infantino infuriated many in soccer by saying FIFA would study a proposal — offered by Saudi Arabia’s federation — to hold the World Cup every two years. (The unpopular concept was shelved after a furious response.)Despite those failures, the relationship between Mr. Infantino and Saudi Arabia only grew closer. He has frequently promoted its events on social media, and in 2021 he starred in a video released by its ministry of sports. In August 2022, he and Prince Mohammed shared a suite at a boxing match in Jeddah. Months later, the FIFA president repaid the favor at the opening game of the World Cup in Qatar. Only last month, the men were photographed sitting side by side at yet another event in Riyadh.“It is intended to send a message,” said Minky Worden, the director of global initiatives at Human Rights Watch, an advocacy group. “It’s like a visual symbol of putting your thumb on the scale.”Prince Mohammed, second from left, with Mr. Infantino, second from right, at a heavyweight boxing match in Jeddah last year.Giuseppe Cacace/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesAt the same time, Mr. Infantino was also engaging in private diplomacy that benefited Saudi Arabia’s World Cup ambitions.After Italy passed on partnering on a World Cup bid, Saudi Arabia approached Greece with the offer, and Mr. Infantino discussed the idea with the Greek prime minister on the sidelines of a U.N. meeting in September 2021. But that idea was withdrawn after Morocco joined forces with Spain and Portugal in a potentially unbeatable bid for the 2030 World Cup.Instead, Saudi Arabia shifted its focus. Realizing the Spain-Portugal-Morocco proposal would probably succeed over an unlikely four-nation offer from South America, the Saudis realized they could benefit from FIFA rules that would bar countries from Europe and Africa from challenging for the 2034 tournament when that bidding process began.Then FIFA made two more curious moves.An alliance between Portugal, Morocco and Spain most likely won those countries the rights to the 2030 World Cup, and cleared the path for Saudi Arabia to host in 2034. Jalal Morchidi/EPA, via ShutterstockThe first three games of the 2030 World Cup, it suddenly announced, would be played in Uruguay, Argentina and Paraguay as a celebration of the World Cup’s centenary. (The first World Cup was played in Uruguay in 1930.) That brought South America into the Portugal-Spain-Morocco bid — and eliminated yet another continent from the eligible bidders for 2034.But with the 2030 hosts sorted, FIFA unexpectedly said that it was bringing forward the bid process for the 2034 tournament by at least three years, limiting the countries who could bid for it in ways that favored the Saudi bid, and planning to complete it in what for most countries represented an impossible timeline: Interested nations were given only 25 days to express their intent, and only a few weeks more to submit official bids, which typically require significant government backing.Mr. Infantino claimed there had been “widespread consultation” on the decision. But Ms. Klaveness, the president of the Norway federation, said she only learned of it when the official news release went out, and Australian soccer’s chief executive said the changes “did catch us a little bit by surprise.”Among those not surprised? Saudi Arabia. Within minutes, it released a statement, attributed to Prince Mohammed, that it would bid for 2034. A few hours later, the head of Asian soccer declared the Saudi effort would have the full support of his entire membership.FIFA’s Infantino at the draw for the 2023 Club World Cup in September.EPA, via ShutterstockDays later, Mr. Infantino left little doubt about the outcome he favored. At a summit of Asian soccer officials in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, and again during an online meeting of many of the same leaders a week later, the FIFA president urged the Asian confederation — which includes Australia — “to be united for the 2034 World Cup.” The message was not explicit. But it was received.Indonesia, which only a week earlier had talked of bidding, dropped its plan. Australia, the only potential bidder left, pulled out hours before the deadline. Its top official, James Johnson, later said his country had concluded any that proposal stood no chance against a rival with such powerful public support. “The numbers,” he said, “are stacked against us.” More

    • 88 Shares179 Views

      in Soccer

      Liverpool, V.A.R. and the Problem With Process

      by

      If process and hubris trump getting calls right, the system has broken down.There are very few coherent sentences in what will, in time, doubtless come to be known as the Luis Díaz Tape, a sort of Premier League equivalent to the Zapruder film. The various protagonists communicate in clipped and meaningless phrases, any clarity sacrificed on the altar of self-important brevity.The tape lasts only two minutes, and while it is not a particularly thrilling video — a group of faceless voices discussing procedure while staring at screens, advancing resolutely toward a presaged outcome — it is, by turns, tense and frustrating and never less than compelling.It is best considered, really, as a character drama. The setting is this: Díaz, the Liverpool forward, has just scored to put his team ahead against Tottenham Hotspur. The goal is ruled out, on the field, for offside. A few miles away, in a building at Stockley Park west of London, the Premier League’s Video Assistant Referee studio whirs into action.Darren England, the game’s designated V.A.R., wants to check if the goal should be allowed to stand. He commands that the footage be rewound and paused and decorated with a line. He determines that, no, Díaz had timed his run perfectly. “That’s fine, perfect,” he says to his colleagues in the video room and to Simon Hooper, the on-field official. “Check complete.”It is here that everything unravels. The goal should count, but England seems to have declared that the original call — no goal — is “perfect.” “Well done, boys; good process,” Hooper mutters. Tottenham restarts the game with a free kick. A couple of pregnant seconds pass by. Nobody seems to have noticed the non sequitur. The audience, though, knows.Luis Díaz, hero denied.Peter Cziborra/Action Images, via ReutersAt this point, the hero enters. Mo Abby is not a qualified referee; he is the technological specialist, present to operate the video equipment while the officials issue their expert judgments. “Are you happy with this?” he asks, a hint of nervousness in his voice, as if he knows he is stepping outside his role.Now, it all goes to pieces. The precise nature, the exact scale, of the error is suddenly clear to England and Dan Cook, his assistant. Another outsider, Oli Kohout — the hub operations manager, which is not a title that can be pithily explained — suggests pausing the game and allowing Hooper to correct the mistake.England is the one with the power to make that call. In the inevitable dramatization, it is at this point that the camera will focus intently on his face. His eyes will betray his panic, his fear, his dawning realization of his powerlessness. His voice, though, does not. The game has resumed. “Nothing I can do,” he says, again and again, with surprising conviction, his hubris sealing his fate.It is this that is, in truth, most troubling about the incident at the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium. The last week has been rife with false equivalences. When the Liverpool manager, Jürgen Klopp, suggested that the most sporting consequence of the mistake would be for the game itself to be replayed, the response was predictable. Should we replay the 1966 World Cup final? Argentina’s defeat of England in 1986? The 2019 Champions League final? That game last year where my team was on the end of a disputed, subjective call?The difference should not need to be spelled out, but since we are here: Plenty of teams have been the victims of errors no less consequential than the one that cost Liverpool last Saturday. In almost all of those cases, though, those decisions were made in good faith. The officials believed they were right. They did not press ahead in the clear, undisputed knowledge that they were wrong.There are plenty of reasons to be object to the existence, or at least the application, of V.A.R. It interrupts the rhythm of games. It diminishes the experience of watching soccer in a stadium, allowing the nature of the action to be determined remotely, by some apparently unaccountable external force. It creates and enforces an expectation of perfection that is impossible to attain and will, therefore, be a source of eternal disappointment.Liverpool’s Jürgen Klopp, offering some thoughts.Neil Hall/EPA, via ShutterstockThe Díaz tape, though, is a perfect distillation of what may be the most significant objection to V.A.R. Darren England’s response, both plaintive and brash — “nothing I can do” — is rooted in a belief that what matters, above all, is the correct implementation of protocol. The rules, the sainted Laws, decree that once a game has restarted, it cannot be stopped. Errors are material reality. The referee’s decision is final, even when it is known to be wrong.This is indicative of what V.A.R. has done to soccer. Recently retired officials have a cloying tendency to lionize the days when they could apply what is known, euphemistically, as “game management.” Generally, this means referring to players by their nicknames, indulging in a false and unreciprocated chumminess, and allowing the more famous participants in a game rather more leeway than their lesser colleagues.Such an approach is, of course, flawed, but it is perhaps preferable to the technologically induced alternative, which is a world in which any form of discretion has been almost entirely removed. Quite how much soccer has shifted to allow itself to be adjudicated from afar is overlooked worryingly frequently.The most obvious example of this is handball, the definition of which seems to change with the seasons. The motivation behind this is not an attempt to hew closer to the spirit of the game, but to make it possible for a decision to be made on a screen.There are others, though. The shifting thresholds for red and yellow cards and the shrinking border between reckless and malicious are both inspired by the need to make an objective decision, one that does not rely on any human allowance for context or intent.This is the atmosphere in which referees now function, one in which they are not there to apply the rules as they see fit, but in which the rules are unyielding and inflexible and do not brook any interpretation. It is a world in which what matters is not whether anything makes any sense, but in which protocol — officious and unapologetic and blind — is king.This search for absolutism has led, ironically, to a sense of greater arbitrariness. That, in the aftermath of the Díaz incident, almost every club could pick out a litany of its own injustices in the recent past was designed to illustrate that Liverpool’s response was somehow excessive or self-pitying. Instead, it highlighted more than anything how fractured fans’ belief in the fair implementation of the Laws of the Game — always portentously capitalized — has become.Nobody is quite sure what the rules are anymore, because they have a tendency to change so often. This week, this is a handball and the referees are clamping down on time-wasting or players who demand yellow cards, and next week they are not.Decisions are imposed without adequate explanation by an officiating body that has issued 14 formal apologies since the start of last season but seems still, for some reason, convinced of its infallibility. The letter of the law is applied rigorously, but the spirit of it has been lost almost entirely. And the feeling that follows is the same as that which can be detected in the Luis Díaz tape: a sense of unmitigated frustration, of wild confusion, of total powerlessness. There is nothing Darren England can do, and in that he is no different from the rest of us.The 2030 World Cup Will Be Held … EverywhereTomas Cuesta/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesIt is to Gianni Infantino’s credit, really, that he resisted the temptation to announce the location of the 2030 World Cup in the style of Oprah Winfrey giving out cars. Spain: You get a World Cup. Portugal: You get a World Cup. Morocco, Uruguay, Argentina and, for reasons that will have to be explained later, Paraguay: You can all have a World Cup, too.The FIFA president will insist that this plan is perfectly sensible. Admirable, even. Hosting the tournament across three continents, Infantino explained on Wednesday, sends a message of “peace, tolerance and inclusion.” It means spreading the financial burden of a 48-team tournament, and by consequence sharing the joy.There is even just a hint of romance. South America has long believed it would be fitting if the World Cup’s centenary edition took place back where it all began: in Uruguay, the host of the 1930 tournament, and Argentina, the losing finalist.It had looked for some time, though, as if that might be impossible. Even with their resources pooled, the South American bidders did not possess the infrastructure — specifically the stadiums — to meet FIFA’s exacting requirements.Infantino’s solution — handing the tournament’s opening three fixtures to Montevideo, Buenos Aires and Asunción and then shifting the rest of the tournament to the Pillars of Hercules — will doubtless be sold as an ingenious compromise. That this plan effectively clears the path for the 2034 tournament to go to Asia, and to Saudi Arabia, is obviously just a coincidence.At this stage, all of this is still just an idea. The plan still has to be ratified by a vote of all 211 FIFA members next year. That it has been suggested at all, though, makes the organization’s ecological attitude abundantly clear. The 2022 World Cup might have been the single most environmentally damaging event ever staged. The 2026 edition is being held across a whole continent. The likelihood is that 2030 will take place across three.That may be the most consequential objection, but there is something less tangible to be mourned here, too. Elite sports may now be a televisual event, dislocated and remote, but it is the connection to a place that lifts a World Cup into something beyond mere content to be consumed.It is a chance for a country to go on hiatus, to revel in itself, to spend a month being swept away. That was true of Russia in 2018 and of Australia and New Zealand this year. It was that sense of proximity, the feel of a global carnival, that illuminated Qatar, far more than the stadiums. Spreading the World Cup around does not diffuse that. It dilutes it. Sure, everyone gets a little piece of it, but that does not have the same effect. Not at all. More

    • 113 Shares159 Views

      in Soccer

      FIFA Will Host 2030 World Cup on Three Continents

      by

      Soccer’s biggest event will celebrate its centenary by placing games in South America, Europe and Africa. The decision could pave the way for Saudi Arabia to host in 2034.Soccer’s World Cup will be staged in six countries on three continents in its centenary edition in 2030, an unexpected and complex alteration to its traditional format that was approved on Wednesday in a meeting of FIFA’s governing council.In the unusual arrangement, three South American countries — Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay — each will host a single opening match on home soil and then join the rest of the field for the remainder of the tournament, which will take place in Spain, Portugal and Morocco.The six countries had initially joined forces regionally in separate bids for the hosting rights to the 100th anniversary World Cup, a globe-stopping, monthlong soccer festival that produces billions of dollars in revenue for FIFA every four years.The offer from the South American nations had long been considered an outsider, however, to the three-nation bid from Spain, Portugal and Morocco, which was officially declared the sole bidder for 2030 on Wednesday. But under the new arrangement to recognize the tournament’s centenary, each nation will get to take a turn as a host.“In 2030, the FIFA World Cup will unite three continents and six countries, inviting the entire world to join in the celebration of the beautiful game, the centenary and the FIFA World Cup itself,” FIFA said in a statement after the meeting.“The FIFA Council unanimously agreed that the sole candidacy will be the combined bid of Morocco, Portugal, and Spain, which will host the event in 2030 and qualify automatically.”In sharing the 2030 tournament among three continents, FIFA also significantly narrowed the field of nations eligible to bid for the 2034 event. That opened the door for Saudi Arabia, a nation that has made no secret of wanting to host, to win the rights when that host is selected next year.The first World Cup was held in 1930 in Uruguay, when the championship was a compact, 13-team affair held over two-and-a-half weeks in a single city, the Uruguayan capital, Montevideo. It has since grown to be one of the most valuable and most watched sporting events in the world, a financial juggernaut that FIFA projects will produce record revenues of at least $11 billion for its current four-year cycle, almost double what it earned in the last one.The complexity and size of the World Cup has grown steadily in recent decades, with the next edition — in 2026 — expanded by 12 teams to 48 in total, making it the largest in history. That size, and FIFA’s exacting requirements for bidding countries and stadiums, mean that few nations are now capable of staging the event alone.The 2026 tournament will take place mostly in the United States, but games also will be staged in Mexico and Canada — the first time the tournament will be played in three countries. The complexities of holding that event have yet to be worked out, and officials are still grappling with a wide range of complications, ranging from visa-free travel for spectators to taxation.Speculation that FIFA was preparing to make a surprise announcement was tipped by the South American soccer head Alejandro Dominguez, a FIFA vice president, who took to social media as the meeting was taking place to post a video of himself dancing, suggesting in Spanish “something global is coming for all football fans.”Dominguez then broke the news in a post on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, before FIFA had a chance to make its announcement.“We believed in big,” Dominguez wrote in Spanish. “The 2030 Centennial World Cup begins where it all began.”Taking the tournament to all six countries allows FIFA and its president, Gianni Infantino, to avert some difficult political choices, and could allow Infantino to deliver the next tournament to a reliable ally. In FIFA’s statement announcing the plans for 2030, it said that only teams from Asia and Oceania could bid in 2034 — creating an opportunity for one of his closest backers, Saudi Arabia, to secure a tournament, and a global stage, that it covets.Within an hour of FIFA’s announcement, the Saudi press agency had published a statement from the kingdom’s powerful crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, expressing his country’s interest in hosting in 2034, and the president of the Asian soccer confederation had thrown his support behind the effort, declaring “the entire Asian football family will stand united in support of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s momentous initiative.”FIFA said that bidding for the 2034 World Cup would conclude with a vote at a meeting of its 211 member nations next year, short-circuiting a process that had been expected to conclude in 2027 or 2028. The shorter timeline reduces the time for other nations considering bidding for the tournament to put together coherent plans.Infantino, elected to FIFA’s top position in 2016, will now have the chance to leave his imprint on least two more World Cups, include the 2034 event, which will take place after his final term in office is supposed to have ended.His legacy already includes major changes to the World Cup, with 48 teams, resulting in a change in the competition’s format, as well as clearing the way for more than two countries to co-host. Infantino had wanted to stage the World Cup biennially, but that effort ended amid bitter opposition from European soccer officials as well as top clubs and fans.Fans groups were quick to oppose the plans for the multicontinent 2030 World Cup on Wednesday.“FIFA continues its cycle of destruction against the greatest tournament on earth,” one umbrella group called Football Supporters Europe posted on X. “Horrendous for supporters, disregards the environment and rolls the red carpet out to a host for 2034 with an appalling human rights record. It’s the end of the World Cup as we know it.”The 2030 championship will now start with an opening ceremony at the Estadio Centenario in Uruguay, the site of the 1930 final, and stadiums in Buenos Aires and Asunción, Paraguay.The three nations and their opponents would have to travel to Spain, Portugal or Morocco to continue with the rest of the tournament. More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Soccer

      2026 World Cup: FIFA Delays Have Cities Worried About Planning

      by

      With about 1,000 days until the opening game of soccer’s showcase event, U.S. organizers are waiting for answers, and action, from the sport’s governing body.When FIFA announced several years ago that it would take the preparations for soccer’s 2026 World Cup in-house, it argued the change would streamline the planning for a sprawling championship that would be larger and more complex and require greater expertise than ever before. That the change would also grant FIFA greater control over the $11 billion in revenue it expects from its biggest cash cow was perhaps even more important.But as teams begin their campaigns to qualify for the tournament, cities across the United States are growing frustrated with the tortured pace of FIFA’s preparations and communications and a lack of clarity about their roles in what will be the biggest, and richest, sporting event ever staged on American soil.Cities and stadiums still do not know, for example, how many matches they will host, or on which dates. Opaque rules about sponsorships have left local governments unable to secure deals to cover the millions of dollars of public money they have committed to spend. And delays in hiring could leave FIFA without the kind of seasoned operations, marketing and hospitality professionals required to put on its showpiece tournament.Even the most basic facts remain in question: Five years after the United States, Canada and Mexico were awarded the hosting rights to the World Cup, and more than a year after FIFA selected the 16 host cities, the date of the opening game is still not set.In interviews over the past two months, many officials overseeing World Cup preparations in several cities also expressed concerns about public relations missteps, leadership confusion and sudden changes of plans by FIFA that have left them scrambling to form and adjust their own plans. A few worried that soccer’s global governing body, now far behind the pace of preparations in the past two World Cups, in Russia and Qatar, might be squandering its greatest opportunity to entrench the sport in the United States market.A crucial bit of clarity could come in the next few weeks, when FIFA finally reveals the tournament’s full match schedule, including which city will host the final. FIFA has whittled its choice to two contenders: New York, a global powerhouse city with immense cultural importance, and Arlington, Tex., home to an ultramodern stadium complex and an 80,000-seat arena with a retractable roof to keep out the rain, and the heat. FIFA expects to make an announcement next month or, at the latest, in November, in order to meet its self-imposed deadline of releasing the schedule by the fall.All the while, there has been growing disquiet in several U.S. cities that FIFA’s lack of urgency is wasting valuable time.Alan Rothenberg, who as president of U.S. Soccer led the preparations for the 1994 World Cup and now works as a consultant to a group of 2026 host cities, said that FIFA had had “its hands full” and that had resulted in “more uncertainty and confusion among host cities than they’d like to have.”“The uncertainty makes it difficult to plan,” Rothenberg said. “When it all shakes out, it will be a spectacular event. It’s just a little frustrating.” His concern was echoed by officials in several U.S. cities; all asked to speak anonymously to describe confidential planning discussions.Mexico, a World Cup co-host, played at AT&T Stadium in Arlington, Tex., outside Dallas, in a friendly match this month. The stadium is one of two contenders to host the 2026 World Cup final.Jerome Miron/USA Today Sports, via ReutersAsked about concerns from its partners, FIFA said in a statement that “the existing infrastructure and local know-how when it comes to major sporting events are impressive and reassuring.”“We are working hand-in-hand with our hosts to develop strong operational plans,” FIFA said, “and our efforts remain on pace to deliver an unforgettable event for fans in 2026.”Awarded to three North American neighbors on the eve of the World Cup in Russia five years ago, the 2026 World Cup was always going to be a monumental planning challenge.No previous sporting event will compare to its scale, profile and complexity: more than 100 games, played in 16 cities in three countries over about a month. The event has already required the coordination of multiple federal bodies both for security reasons and to ease the movement of fans as they follow their teams across the borders of the United States, Mexico and Canada. A State Department spokesman confirmed that the World Cup “will be categorized as a national security event.”The government’s efforts are being led by the National Security Council, which earlier this year started to coordinate interagency meetings that also included representatives of FIFA and U.S. Soccer, which until then had largely been sidelined by FIFA.The White House has been coordinating similar meetings for the Los Angeles Olympics, an event that does not take place until 2028. Yet that planning started years earlier, in part because the lines of communication were much clearer, and because Los Angeles established an organizing committee much earlier than FIFA.The World Cup’s procrastination, some of it related to the coronavirus pandemic but much of it self-inflicted, has come as FIFA has labored to find ways to reconfigure the event after expanding it to 48 teams from 32. It changed the tournament’s format for a second time in March, a move that will require it to stage 104 games in total, a major increase from the current 64.In previous World Cups, FIFA delegated much of the on-the-ground planning to local governing bodies, usually led by the host country’s soccer federations. But starting with the recent Women’s World Cup in Australia and New Zealand, it took on those responsibilities itself; this year, that led to grumbling from soccer officials in those countries — sometimes publicly — about the new planning model, which granted FIFA almost total control over the event.With FIFA in charge of the 2026 preparations, U.S. Soccer has found itself largely excluded from major decisions, even as a FIFA office that was set up in Coral Gables, Fla., has struggled to recruit staff members and has failed to enlist the commitments of partners, tournament ambassadors and influencers who might carry the tournament’s messaging to new and wider audiences.Clouding matters even more was the sudden departure this summer of Colin Smith, the top FIFA official responsible for organizing the World Cup. Smith’s interim replacement, his former deputy Heimo Schirgi, is expected to visit the 2026 host cities this fall to provide much-needed answers and reassurance.In May, when FIFA held an event for the tournament’s brand identity in Los Angeles. The event, a prime opportunity to trumpet the tournament to consumers and sponsors, was a public relations dud, notable mostly for a lack of coordination with existing American soccer properties like Major League Soccer and U.S. Soccer, which were not engaged in amplifying the organizers’ message.A senior FIFA official directly involved with the 2026 tournament planning acknowledged “being behind the eight ball” but said the circumstances were not as dire as some critics were keen to portray. The official asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the planning and the potential embarrassment for FIFA.Some of the acrimony and frustration is related to money. By taking total control of organizing its biggest event, FIFA now has more leverage over how the World Cup can be commercialized. Its own revenue projections are almost double the pretournament figures for the most recent tournament in Qatar, which itself broke income records. But cities still mired in negotiations with FIFA over their share in revenue sources, like local sponsorships and hospitality packages, fear that they are missing out on the commercial benefits of hosting, the bulk of which will flow to FIFA.At the same time, FIFA’s relationship with the U.S. government also appears to have cooled. Its president, Gianni Infantino, was a frequent visitor to the White House during the administration of former President Donald J. Trump, and he made a welcome speech at a dinner hosted by Trump in 2020 at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.But Infantino has not visited the White House since Trump left office, and his relationship with the current U.S. leadership is not nearly as close. Infantino had hoped to meet with Secretary of State Antony Blinken at the Qatar World Cup late last year, but Blinken, there to attend games involving the United States, declined to carve out time in his schedule, according to a senior soccer official who was present at the time but was not authorized to discuss the events publicly.Rothenberg, who ran the planning for the 1994 World Cup, said some of the tension in host cities might ease once FIFA announces the tournament schedule. But he also said Infantino could help by loosening FIFA’s iron grip on the preparations.“Better that he just turns over some authority to us in the U.S. and stay in Qatar or Zurich,” Rothenberg said. “We know how to get things done. There’s a huge event going on virtually every day.” More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Soccer

      Women’s World Cup: FIFA Will Allow Rainbow Armbands

      by

      Captains will be offered choices reflecting several anti-discrimination efforts. The rainbow-colored design is similar to one banned at the men’s World Cup in Qatar.UPDATE, Friday, June 30: FIFA on Friday confirmed the rules for the armbands team captains can wear at the Women’s World Cup described in this article. One design includes a rainbow-colored design, but FIFA took pains to differentiate its from a familiar pride design some teams have worn for years. This article has been updated to note the approved slogans and designs.FIFA will allow teams to wear rainbow-colored armbands that promote inclusivity at this year’s Women’s World Cup, reversing a policy that specifically outlawed a similar armband featuring the same colors at the men’s World Cup in Qatar last year.In November, FIFA threatened teams and their captains with serious punishments in its effort to silence a long-planned anti-discrimination statement only hours before the start of the World Cup, leading to a breakdown in relations between soccer’s governing body and several competing nations.But this week, after months of discussions between soccer’s leaders and national federations that are intent on allowing their players to highlight causes that are important to them on women’s soccer’s biggest stage, FIFA sent a letter outlining its armband rules for the 32 teams that will participate in the tournament.The participating national soccer federations received the letter on Friday, around the time FIFA announced its plans on social media.The agreement that appears to have been reached will allow captains of teams that want to participate in efforts to promote inclusivity — a FIFA-approved message scheduled to be the theme for the first round of games — to wear armbands featuring rainbow colors during matches at the monthlong event in Australia and New Zealand.The single multi-colored design, similar to the so-called One Love version banned in Qatar, would be reminiscent in its colors to the well-known flag that serves as a symbol of L.G.B.T.Q. pride, but purposely not identical to it.FIFA will allow individual nations to decide whether or not to wear the rainbow armband, and it will offer captains and teams who opt out choices highlighting other social justice words and phrases on a solid blue armband, or a neutral FIFA armband bearing the message “Football Unites the World.”In the tournament’s later rounds, FIFA and the national teams will promote themes beyond inclusivity like gender equality, peace, education and violence against women, among others. The co-host Australia had pushed for an armband that highlights the rights of Indigenous citizens; that was also approved. (In a related decision, FIFA plans to hang Indigenous flags at World Cup stadiums in Australia and New Zealand in a show of support for an issue of particular interest to both host nations.)Getting to a consensus on armbands has not been easy. At one stage of the months of sometimes contentious talks between FIFA and the teams, there was a growing sense that the rainbow-colored armbands sought by supporters of the inclusivity campaign would not be permitted. As recently as March, a top German official said her team had been told directly by FIFA that the rainbow armbands its players have worn for years would not be allowed at the Women’s World Cup.Players on several Women’s World Cup teams have spoken about their intention to highlight support for the L.G.B.T.Q. community at the monthlong tournament, which will feature dozens of players who are gay. A handful of teams already wear rainbow armbands in many of their matches, and other players and teams have used armbands and wristbands in the past to highlight issues such as sexual abuse, gender equality and gun control.FIFA may be just as eager to take the issue off the table after the pushback, public protests and online scorn it received over its ban on rainbow armbands in Qatar, a country where homosexuality is outlawed.“We all went through a learning process,” FIFA’s president, Gianni Infantino, said of the armband battle during a visit to London in March. “What we will try to do better this time is to search for a dialogue with everyone involved — the captains, the federations, the players, FIFA — to capture the different sensitivities and see what can be done in order to express a position, a value or a feeling that somebody has in a positive way, without hurting anyone else.“We are looking for dialogue and we will have a solution in place well before the Women’s World Cup,” he predicted at the time. The tournament opens on July 20. More

    • 163 Shares139 Views

      in Soccer

      North America Got the 2026 World Cup. Now Who Will Get the Final?

      by

      A decision on which city will host the men’s 2026 World Cup final is expected in the fall. Leaders from the New York area are making their case, with Dallas and Los Angeles also in the running.It has been almost five years since a bid from the United States, Canada and Mexico beat out a proposal from Morocco to host soccer’s 2026 men’s World Cup. Now the competition has turned intramural.The stadiums for the tournament have been chosen, but FIFA, world soccer’s governing body, has not yet said which one will host the final game.Officials from New York City and New Jersey are starting a concerted push to land that final for MetLife Stadium at the Meadowlands, including an event in Times Square on Thursday morning with Gov. Phil Murphy of New Jersey and Mayor Eric Adams of New York.“Eric and I believe strongly that we have the most compelling case by far to get the best package, including the final,” Murphy said in a joint interview with Adams on Wednesday morning.At most other World Cups, there is an obvious choice for the final game. Moscow, Rio de Janeiro and Paris were always going to be chosen when their countries hosted the tournament. But there are several attractive candidates for the 2026 final, to be played July 19. (Though Mexico and Canada will host some of the tournament’s 104 games, the bidders agreed that the majority of the matches — and everything from the quarterfinals on — would be in the United States.)The only previous time the United States hosted the World Cup, in 1994, the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, Calif., got the final. This time, SoFi Stadium is the Los Angeles-area site on the list of stadiums for 2026. But that stadium was built primarily for N.F.L. football, and there is concern that the field there is too narrow for soccer, which would require removing some seats, and reducing capacity.Dallas has also emerged as a leading candidate, in part because nearby AT&T Stadium can potentially be expanded to offer over 100,000 seats for soccer.But Adams and Murphy are making their case that the New York City area outshines those places as the best spot for the game.“Yes, L.A. is known for its extravaganza and its appeal of Hollywood,” Adams said. “But I think New York is the largest stage.”Murphy said: “New York is the international capital of the world. With no disrespect to Dallas, we’re taking about New York.”The other contenders are not lying down. “We are making our case to the committee right now that we would be the perfect site for the semifinals and finals,” Dan Hunt, president of Dallas’s bid, told the local NBC affiliate late last year. “We have two great airports, we have the infrastructure, we have the hotels, we have AT&T Stadium. We have what it will take to host what I call ‘the Super Bowl on steroids.’”Kathryn Schloessman, head of the Los Angeles bid, said, “Our region is so fortunate to have a world-class stadium and infrastructure to be in consideration for hosting the final and other prominent matches.”The decision will ultimately be made by top FIFA officials, up to and including President Gianni Infantino, with input from the regional governing body, Concacaf, and U.S. Soccer. It is expected in early fall.Whether the New York region wins the final or not, there are likely to be about eight games at MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, N.J. “Eight games is like eight Super Bowls in six weeks, so no matter what the games look like it’s going to be a huge success,” Murphy said. “We’ll sell every one of them out; it doesn’t matter who’s playing.”“But clearly to get the final — and we think we’re in the best position to get the final — is the icing on the cake that is almost unparalleled in sports,” he added. “There is both prestige and I’m sure an extra boost to the regional economy.”If a “huge success” is coming either way, why is there such a hunger to land the final? Adams acknowledged another motivation: “I’m extremely competitive, and I want to beat other cities to have the final. We were chosen, now it’s time for us to bring home the Cup.” More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Soccer

      FIFA Silenced One World Cup Protest but May Face More This Year

      by

      FIFA threatened to suspend men’s captains if they took part in a social justice campaign in Qatar. Will the same rules apply at the Women’s World Cup?LONDON — Barely four months after it allowed a public fight over rainbow-colored armbands to overshadow the start of the World Cup in Qatar, world soccer’s governing body is facing similar questions about whether players will be allowed to express support for gay rights at this year’s Women’s World Cup.It is a fight that everyone involved agreed should not have happened again.Stung by fierce public and internal backlash in November, when soccer’s leaders silenced a plan to wear armbands promoting a social justice campaign by threatening to suspend players who took part, FIFA’s president, Gianni Infantino, said in March that lessons had been learned from the events in Qatar. Seeking to head off a new fight with some of the world’s top women’s players at their own championship, Infantino promised a solution would be in place before the Women’s World Cup opens in Australia and New Zealand on July 20.Yet even as he was offering those assurances, FIFA had already found a new way of angering both its players and its partners.It had, without consulting organizers in either Australia or New Zealand, all but agreed to a sponsorship deal that would have made Saudi Arabia, via its Visit Saudi tourism brand, a marquee sponsor of the women’s tournament. The collaboration would have seen dozens of gay players take the field for matches in stadiums advertising travel to a country that does not recognize same-sex relationships, and where homosexuality remains a criminal offense.It was only after weeks of silence, behind-the-scenes crisis talks and public rebukes from officials in both host nations that FIFA confirmed the deal was dead. Infantino dismissed the entire controversy over it as “a storm in a teacup.” To others, it was far more than that.“In leadership, you’ve got to take a stand on issues that you feel strongly about,” said James Johnson, the chief executive of Football Australia, the sport’s governing body in the country.“This is one that caught us by surprise. It was one that we spoke with our players about, our governments, our partners. And we also had a good sense of the general feel around the Australian community that this deal was not in line with how we saw the tournament playing out. So we decided, together with New Zealand, that we would put our foot down on this occasion.”Australia’s players were particularly frustrated with the proposed Saudi sponsorship, Johnson said, so much so that the situation has strengthened attitudes on the team that the tournament should be used as a platform to promote the values they stand for. At least one Australian player said FIFA’s decision to bring the World Cup to Qatar, and its willingness to bow to local attitudes, had been instructive.“I think the last World Cup, the men’s World Cup, was a great example of just what’s going on in the world, and how much is still wrong,” said Emily Gielnik, a forward who has been a member of Australia’s women’s team for more than a decade.“And I think there were some teams that were trying to represent that and obviously, playing the World Cup in that country was very controversial, for a lot of reasons. And hopefully, we can embody and resemble that, and be proud of who we are as people.”James Johnson, the chief executive of Australia’s soccer federation, said a proposed Saudi tourism sponsorship for the Women’s World Cup “allowed us to get into what I think is more productive conversations around the players during this competition being able to express themselves and express themselves on issues that are important to them.”Bernadett Szabo/ReutersSeveral federations bringing teams to the tournament, including those from England and Netherlands, two of the countries that had clashed most strongly with FIFA over armbands in Qatar, but also prominent powers like the United States and Germany, have a history of supporting their players and the causes most important to them.While no plans for similar protests have been made public, women’s players also may be less likely than their men’s counterparts to take a step back should FIFA attempt to squelch their messaging as it did in Qatar. The teams coming to Australia and New Zealand feature some of the most prominent female athletes in the world, many of whom are comfortable speaking their minds on Saudi Arabia or anything else, and who have been emboldened by recent successes in fights as diverse as equal pay and uniform design.The women’s game, Gielnik said, was further ahead than the men’s game when it came to speaking freely about social issues, and she predicted teams and players would not shy away from taking advantage of the platform offered by the World Cup.“I think some things will be controversial,” said Gielnik, one of several gay players on the Matildas team. “It depends what path we take and what path other countries take.”For FIFA, backing away from the Visit Saudi agreement was not easy. Saudi officials were frustrated about losing the deal, part of a suite of sponsorships that Saudi Arabia had agreed to with FIFA to promote the kingdom. Visit Saudi had quietly been added to the roster of sponsors at the Qatar World Cup last year and then at the Club World Cup in January in Morocco.Clearly frustrated by having to change plans and disappoint Saudi Arabia, which has proved a key backer of his own interests, Infantino chided FIFA’s critics over the pressure to cancel the Visit Saudi deal for its marquee women’s championship. Australia, he pointed out, retains ongoing economic links with the kingdom.“There is a double standard which I really do not understand,” Infantino said. “There is no issue. There is no contract. But of course we want to see how we can involve Saudi sponsors, and those from Qatar, in women’s football generally.”Johnson, the Australian soccer executive, and others responded that attitudes in the Gulf about homosexuality were only part of the problem. At a recent event hosted by the Australian High Commission in London to mark 100 days until the start of the World Cup, officials spoke about how the tournament would also act as a showcase to promote tourism to both host countries, underlining another reason FIFA’s planned agreement to highlight Saudi tourism had caused so much distress.“It could have been Visit Finland and it still would have been a problem,” Johnson said. More