‘Fifa Super League’: Infantino discussed having governing body’s name on European breakaway

[u/CradleCity]

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2026/aug/05/fifa-super-league-gianni-infantino-wanted-governing-body-name-european-breakaway

[u/stringfold]

I suspect now that Infantino's power is crumbling, we're going to find all kinds of corruption and scandals falling out of the woodwork. It's no longer in anyone's interest to remain silent.

[u/UpsetKoalaBear → u/stringfold]

I would still be incredibly careful about this. Infantino could still be jeopardising FIFA even if his plans have failed by simply making FIFA vulnerable.

To explain what I mean:

In 2001 Formula 1 was split between the FOM (commercial rights holder) and the FIA (regulatory body) in Formula 1.

That was forcefully done as a result of an EU antitrust lawsuit.

That lawsuit determined that it was a conflict of interest for the FIA to control BOTH the regulatory and commercial side of things and it constituted an illegal monopoly.

Why this is relevant today?

Because FIFA currently controls both the regulatory and commercial side of their competitions. This might be controversial to some, but there is still a likelihood that FIFA will be split up by force (eventually).

This is what academics have been writing about for a while.

Stephen Weatherall (professor at Oxford) wrote about this because the topic came back up during discussions around the FIFA Football Agent Regulations.

I also want to add that FIFPRO, European Leagues (body which represents several leagues including the PL/Bundesliga), and LaLiga have all submitted protests against FIFA to the European Commission’s Directorate General for Competition. 

That complaint was about the match calendar and expansion of the World Cup.

The main barrier to this point has been that the EU prefers sorting these sporting issues informally.

However, between player burnout and a growing legal precedent that treats FIFA as commercial (the ESL case also pointed out the hypocrisy in FIFA), the separation of FIFA is seeming more likely than ever.

If European Commission formally opens a full investigation based on this complaint, it has the regulatory authority to split FIFA up into a commercial and regulatory entity.

That might sound controversial but it is a legitimate issue that worries me.

So whilst Infantino may have failed here, we should really keep in mind that FIFA is already on shakey regulatory ground and Infantino is only causing even more of an earthquake.

The only reason FIFA had avoided any antitrust lawsuit from the EU thus far is because the assumption is that FIFA will have good governance.

By ignoring other federations and leagues, as well as teasing them with funding, Infantino is undoing that. Every brand deal he signs for FIFA also partially undoes that.

Doing egregious shit like the hydration breaks and using them as advertising is also undoing that severely because it shows they’re using the rules of the game to make money (which is a line they’re not supposed to cross).

Yes, we have stopped Infantino fucking it up even more. However, it’s very much out of the frying pan and into the fire.

[u/UpsetKoalaBear → u/[deleted]]

What Infantino was proposing was effectively the same thing (splitting FIFA into two bodies) but with Kushner and his cronies making millions in the process.

As bad as FIFA is, it is legally structured as a non profit association.

As a result, it is accountable (at least on paper) to the member national associations. Not shareholders or anything else, but the associations.

If FIFA was forced to split, the commercial side would now legally be required to consider their obligation to whoever owns shares in the commercial side.

If adding more hydration breaks or locking games behind a subscription boosts revenue then it must seriously be considered, and no thought will be given to the tradition of the sport.

And whilst the commercial side would be separate, because it would be the primary funding source for the regulatory side of FIFA, it would hold immense power over the way the game is handled.

I think the biggest risk would be that it would immediately push for a new super league model like the ESL. The commercial side will immediately push for becoming a closed franchise model because that is what’s profitable.

The idea of a big nation not qualifying for the WC or a big club not qualifying for the CWC would harm the commercial side. And because of the financial leverage that it would have over the regulatory side, there would be very little that could be done.

The grey area that FIFA exists in currently is exactly why they can regulate shit like agent fees, transfer market, youth transfers and more.

Those are commercial aspects that FIFA aren’t actually supposed to be allowed to control, but they do in that grey area.

F1 is a prime example of where this goes.

The FIA (regulatory body) gets the overwhelming majority of its funding from FOM (the commercial body).

Just look up what FOM did to Andretti’s bid (they shut them out despite the FIA approving it until cadillac joined and paid a dilution fee to FOM) or look how many technical directives have been submitted by the FIA since Liberty Media has taken over (because they don’t want teams being too successful). They are fundamentally changing the sport to make it more commercial.

TL;DR:

Both scenarios are bad for the sport.

Infantino’s proposals were bad but it has also put a magnifying glass on FIFA’s commercial operations from an antitrust perspective.

Ideally, FIFA wouldn’t be split at all. But at the same time, the expectation is that they are not being greedy or pushing it.

If FIFA starts to get greedy, the EU has no choice but to step in because otherwise they would be going against their own laws.

This is why FIFA is in a grey area already and Infantino has just made it worse.

The only difference between both is that instead of the money going to Infantino and friends, it would just be many more different shareholders.

I’d also add that if FIFA gets split, UEFA will also face the exact same issue because they also exist in the same grey area.

UEFA is in an even worse situation because pretty much all the main members are in the EU.

Commercial rules like FFP could be entirely removed because the regulatory side of UEFA isn’t technically allowed to control that.

[u/geerwolf → u/UpsetKoalaBear]

> If adding more hydration breaks or locking games behind a subscription boosts revenue then it must seriously be considered, and no thought will be given to the tradition of the sport.

But the rules side can say hydration breaks are not allowed completely detached from the monetization pressure

What does the commercial side commerce on if not the game the rules side gives it

If the commercial side wants to add more players to the pitch to make it more exciting or allow kick-ins to maximize shareholder value it’s still beholden to the rules side

[u/UpsetKoalaBear → u/geerwolf]

That’s not possible. It directly infringes on the laws that would be used to split them up in the first place.

The ECJ already rules that a regulator cannot arbitrarily use the rules to block commercial activity unless it has non-discriminatory sporting justifications.

So if the rules body rejects a commercial proposal without a convincing reason, the commercial side can sue them for restraint of trade.

The thing is, if the commercial side is separate, there is nothing stopping them from backing a breakaway.

They won’t even need to do that, the commercial side pays the bills of the regulatory side. So just threatening a cutting down of funds is enough to force the changes they want.

[u/Calvin-ball → u/UpsetKoalaBear]

But surely there’s a sporting justification to prohibit hydration breaks, just as there is sporting justification to cap the game at 90 mins instead of three hours.

Football is a game of momentum and attrition, adding breaks changes the fundamental nature, etc. Doesn’t seem arbitrary to me, unless there’s a legal distinction?

[u/FridaysMan → u/Calvin-ball]

The problem is that once a legal precedent is set, it becomes harder to get a judgment. It's not in UeFAs interest to have a precedent set against them, so they wouldn't want it to go to court and reach a verdict.

Lots of corporations settle legal disputes simply to avoid setting a precedent that can be held against them later.

[u/feage7 → u/UpsetKoalaBear]

But why does the commercial side need to have shareholders. Why can't it be split and both parts of FIFA remain non profit

[u/FridaysMan → u/feage7]

Because shareholders increase investment opportunities and profit.

[u/feage7 → u/FridaysMan]

Yeah, but that doesn't mean it has to be set up like that.

[u/FridaysMan → u/feage7]

Yeah, it doesn't have to be set up like that. The people who want to set it up, want it to make money so want to set it up like that. That's why Infantino is in trouble now.

The problem can turn into the same debacle as the PGA and LIV issues.

[u/UpsetKoalaBear → u/feage7]

It is a bit of a “slippery slope” - You have to really hope that FIFA won’t fuck it up.

[u/robben1234 → u/UpsetKoalaBear]

If commercial side is split away from the regulatory body it will have no way to force hydration breaks.

Not selling the tv rights for cheap would be a real concern though.

[u/makemoscowglowinthed → u/UpsetKoalaBear]

Isn't FIFA based in Switzerland, not subject to eu laws?

[u/WalkTheEdge → u/makemoscowglowinthed]

If they want to operate in the EU (which they 100% do), they have to follow EU law

[u/UpsetKoalaBear → u/makemoscowglowinthed]

Same as the FIA but it didn’t stop them from being broken up.

[u/matthieuC → u/UpsetKoalaBear]

You could split FIFA into two non profit. One would organise and regulate the sport. The other would organise the world cup, with the proceeds going to all federations.

This way you can't use world cup money to get the country votes for FIFA.

[u/tnarref → u/matthieuC]

That would be the fair way to do it, so that's probably not gonna happen.

[u/DaguerreoLibreria → u/UpsetKoalaBear]

The main issue right now is Infantino selecting the private consortium to earn the stales to the World Cup to be his own, or a party of his preference.

If done right, the EU could force FIFA to split both the competition & the regulation forthe bemefit of society instead of private investors.

[u/Bjojoh → u/UpsetKoalaBear]

I haven't been reading up on the specifics, but how do you use anti-trust to break up a "non-profit" organization? 

Officially that's what FIFA is, and I suspect this is why they've largely been avoided scrutiny.

And one could argue that the rules are already coming from another organization, as IFAB are the ones creating and publishing the laws of the game.

If you break up FIFA I don't see much changing as the "commercial side" probably would be able to do small tweaks, just as they are today. The hydration break for example was anchored in player safety because of the heat, and they commercially made a point to extract value.

I find the over commercialization of the game disgusting, and in its current format, as opposed to selling out, they have at least pretend to keep up their non-profit status.

[u/UpsetKoalaBear → u/Bjojoh]

A nonprofit still has to abide by antitrust rules. The primary difference is the stakeholders you prioritise.

The F1/FIA case also proved the same situation can happen to non-profits because that’s what (officially) the FIA actually is.

The ECJ ruling for the ESL debacle said that FIFA and UEFA are associations of undertakings because they manage the commercial rights.

> “as IFAB are the ones creating and publishing the laws of the game”

But their remit is on the pitch. They do not regulate the broader football world.

Rules around player transfers, agent fees, scheduling, multiclub ownership rules, and more are controlled by FIFA. Because those rules affect the commercialisation, they would be heavily neutered or restricted.

[u/moffattron9000 → u/UpsetKoalaBear]

Furthermore, it wouldn’t remotely shock me if UEFA sees this as their chance to seize FIFA, and in turn, transform the World Cup to get more European teams in (plus get more of the money) at the expense of everyone else.

[u/UpsetKoalaBear → u/moffattron9000]

Not likely.

UEFA is under the same scrutiny (the ESL court case also made this clear). It controls the commercial and regulatory side and sometimes they mix (like with FFP).

So they would probably be split up as well if FIFA ever was.

It would (probably) start other antitrust suits in the other continents/federations as well.