Gianni Infantino, the president of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), is facing an approval crisis. His position is currently safe, following an expression of “full support” from the organization’s leadership after an emergency meeting. However, member organizations have recently begun to express serious discontent with his tenure, posing a significant issue for him.
The blowback escalated following two incidents this summer. In late June, FIFA unveiled the FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE), an organization that would enable investors to purchase stakes in the World Cup and other FIFA organized tournaments. This came after the suspension of a red card against the United States’ Florian Balogun which would have seen the striker banned from participating in a World Cup elimination match against Belgium. This, in turn, occurred after a phone call between Infantino and inaugural FIFA Peace Prize recipient President Donald Trump, which Trump claims influenced the final decision. Infantino’s tenure has also been marred by other controversies, such as Infantino’s personal involvement in FIFA’s extraordinary efforts to award Saudi Arabia with the 2034 World Cup, and the introduction of mandatory hydration breaks in all matches at the 2026 tournament, a practice previously reserved for matches in extraordinary heat.
After the FFE announcement, continental confederations made their discontent clear. The 41 member nations of CONCACAF, the body governing Caribbean, North and Central American soccer, rejected the FFE proposal. UEFA, the European confederation, has threatened to boycott all FIFA organized tournaments even after FIFA withdrew the FFE proposal. UEFA, CONCACAF, and the Asian Football Confederation have also released a joint statement describing the inadequacies of an apology for the FFE proposal and characterizing FIFA leadership as violating their duties by breaking trust through deception.
Why exactly is there an outcry against Infantino for these actions? FIFA’s revenue has grown significantly, more than doubling since Infantino’s tenure began in 2016. FIFA operates as a not-for-profit, and thus their internal budgets see them spending these profits on organizing future tournaments, awarding prize money to international teams, and investmenting in growing the game. So, presumably, these increased profits work their way back to the member organizations.
But one might worry that these increased profits come at a cost. For instance, FIFA had a financial incentive in overturning Balogun’s aforementioned red card; more than 50 million viewers in the U.S. tuned in for the match and presumably a significant win on home soil would have created even further interest in the sport in a wealthy nation that often ignores the game. It may be that FIFA leadership were more interested in maximizing the U.S.’s chances of winning than consistently following the rules of the tournament. This concern with profits over competitive fairness is deeply troubling for a group that organizes international tournaments.
Further, even if the concern about competitive fairness is overblown, FIFA’s profit-seeking behavior may be seen as excessive. In a July statement, UEFA officials wrote that “The World Cup cannot be treated as an investment product… No part of it should ever be surrendered to private investors. The World Cup is not for sale.” Obviously, the World Cup is already an incredibly profitable event; FIFA took in about $15 million in revenue from this summer’s tournament (by comparison, the host cities likely saw significantly less revenue). But the concern expressed here seems to be that, when the goal of the tournament becomes maximizing profits, as becomes the case when investors are involved, the game transforms into something else.
This is an issue of commodification (discussed in other contexts here, here and here), the process of turning a valuable thing into a commodity, something whose value is measured in monetary terms. The notion here appears to be that, although sports are massively profitable, they are not merely products. There’s a certain value to sports, whether competing in observing them, beyond the revenue generated. Particularly for large-scale international events, like the World Cup or the Olympics, there’s something to be said for how they capture the attention and imagination of the global community. When investors are invited to purchase shares in such an event and in turn seek to maximize their returns, as with other instances of commodification, something about the event’s value is lost. Thus, by seeking to invite investors to purchase stakes in the World Cup, leadership at FIFA may have diminished this kind of incalculable value of the event by turning it into a mere tool to generate profit.
Although these concerns about FIFA leadership are compelling, I think they are best understood as sharing a similar root concern. To see this, it is fitting to turn to Confucianism. As discussed by other authors at the Post, Confucianism is a wisdom tradition with its roots in classical China. Although often lumped in with religious traditions in the West, Confucianism is a secular tradition (in the Analects, Confucius instructs rulers to first worry about serving people, and that keeping a distance from spirits is wise) primarily concerned with human virtue.
Of particular importance to Confucians is the moral character of a society’s leaders. Adherents of this tradition believed that wise, compassionate rulers would create a harmonious society and model their virtues for the populous. The Confucian sage Mengzi went so far as to refer to leaders as the mother and father of the people. Conversely, though, Confucians believe that when society is ruled by the vicious, this will trickle down to the rest of us, creating a disharmonious and self-interested society. The fish rots from the head down, as the expression goes.
It seems to me that Confucianism is well-equipped to explain the concerns with FIFA leadership in a fashion that captures both objections. In short, the organization as led by Infantino seems to lack the right sort of moral character. The decisions which seek to maximize profit demonstrate a lack of reverence, treating the value of the game as a function of its monetary output. Further, in demonstrating a willingness to award the World Cup to host nations with spotty records on democracy and human rights – Russia in 2018, Qatar in 2022, Saudi Arabia in 2036 – they are willing to transgress against other values as well. In their emphasis on growing the profitability of their tournament, FIFA leadership demonstrates the kind of character that Confucianism cautions us against.
But why apply Confucianism to this case? Historically, Confucians were concerned about societal rulers; kings, emperors, and others who led nations. The head of a sporting organization hardly seems like the kind of figure with this sort of power to reshape societies in the way that a ruler might.
Focusing on virtue through the lens of Confucianism is particularly appropriate here, I contend, because this framework is well-equipped to capture how even the leaders of organizations without political power can reshape societies by serving as models. Whether they are the heads of state, international organizations, or just local groups, the character we are willing to accept in leaders sends a signal: this is what we find laudable, these are the standards we expect everyone to follow, these are our values.
For this reason, it is appropriate to scrutinize the character of any leader and consider the broader impacts of the message we send. Certainly, competency is an important quality of leadership – it would be a fool’s errand to judge our leaders based simply on their character. But to wholly forsake character for competence may create even worse problems than those for which we currently seek leaders to resolve.
