4:58 PM
A biennial men's World Cup would likely generate an additional $4.4 billion in revenue over a four-year cycle compared with the current quadrennial tournament, according to a speech by the president of the world governing body. He said there was probably enough support among members to approve this right now, but that he would hold more consultations to make broader, more-holistic reforms.
Many stakeholders, including the World Association of Professional Football Leagues and the players' union, FIFpro, as well as clubs and federations primarily in Europe and South America, are opposed to the idea.
What is going on here? Are we going to a World Cup every two years? The FAQ will help you understand this.
Why didn't Infantino call for a vote if he was certain that a majority of the members supported the World Cup?
He said "probably," so maybe he's not completely certain. He understands that there is still a lot of opposition from some of the wealthiest, most influential parts of the world. You're not getting that extra $4.4 billion if you don't have the support of CONMEBOL and the European Union.
Why are they against each other? They want to make more money.
They want to be the ones who distribute the money. A biennial World Cup would mean shifting continental tournaments to odd-numbered years, which would mean there would be a major tournament every summer. Since the World Cup is the biggest event and there are only so many sponsor and broadcast dollars out there, a biennial competition could cannibalise revenue that would otherwise go to continental competitions. If you generate money through your own tournament, you get to decide who gets it. The World Cup is run by the organization. The world's largest soccer organization gets to make a decision.
LaLiga, MLS, FA Cup, more are included in the guide.
- You can watch FC Daily on the internet.
Do you not have ESPN? Get immediate access.
There's more to come. The international match calendar, the master document that determines when all football is played, would have to be redrawn if the World Cup were to happen again. Regardless of what happens with the World Cup, the game's power brokers will have to come up with a new agreement regardless of the latest match calendar. It is a delicate system, balancing the needs of clubs with internationals. At a time when many are warning that top players compete in too many games, this is all happening.
It's not a good idea to commit to a biennial World Cup when there are other things to do.
Can Infantino have forced it through if he has the votes? Once it's in place, figure out the master schedule?
It would have been between the reckless and the dictatorial. Majority rule is great, but you still have to protect minority rights. It's always better to rule by consensus.
CONMEBOL and the president of the European soccer body, Aleksander Ceferin, seem determined to stop Infantino's plan and have a lot of clout. Most of the game's biggest stars are from South America or Europe, and that's where the biggest clubs in the world reside. Europe and South America have formed an alliance that is likely to lead to South American clubs participating in the Europa Nations League.
Real Madrid, Barcelona and Juventus are taking legal action against the Super League, but they probably wouldn't want more international, since most of the big clubs in Europe have political backing for Ceferin.
Why is Infantino still pursuing this if that is the case? Is it about money?
That shouldn't surprise anyone. I wrote a column about it. It's not as if they just sit on a pile of cash once they make more money. The money is redistributed to their members around the world. The more they redistribute, the more likely they are to reelect the president.
The game's mission is to be developed. It takes organisation and infrastructure to do that. Most of the funding for the world's football federations comes directly from FIFA. The men's World Cup accounts for more than 90 percent of the organization's income. The simplest way to grow revenue is to hold the World Cup more often or to squeeze more money out of it.
The economic impact of the World Cup can be studied by independent researchers. We don't know what the impact would be.
If we switch to a biennial World Cup, the additional $4.4 billion figure will be created by a commissioned figure by the soccer organization. They found that if every confederation hosted a biennial continental tournament, it would generate an additional $6 billion every four years. A study done by a group called OpenEconomics predicts that the world's gross domestic product would increase by more than $180 billion and create 2 million permanent jobs over 16 years with a World Cup every two years.
Sounds good, right? A report was commissioned by the organization that said changing the international calendar to accommodate a biennial World Cup would cost European federations up to $4 billion in lost revenue. The World Leagues Forum had a study that was even gloomier. The study predicts $9 billion in lost revenue, matchday income and commercial agreements.
The European and South American federations are not happy with the idea of a biennial World Cup.
How could these studies be different?
They measure slightly different criteria. The revenue of the biennial World Cup was measured by FIFA, while the Oliver & Ohlbaum study looked at the impact on European national associations, not just of the biennial World Cup.
When these studies are published, they tend to highlight information that supports whoever commissioned the report. European club football and European federations would be hurt by a biennial World Cup, as it would generate more money for FIFA. The key issues are how much and whether it's desirable.
It's not just about making more money, it's also about being the person who distributes it. Even if it were to net out, I don't think they would be happy.
Infantino is too smart to win battles.
What do you mean?
Dan Thomas is joined by Craig Burley, Shaka Hislop and others to debate the biggest storylines. You can stream on the U.S. only.
There's an easy way for him to change the subject. Make it about rich people in Europe not wanting to share their wealth with the rest of the world. Even if the biennial World Cup never comes to pass, you will still get the support of most of the world because you tried.
What is the most likely outcome?
I don't think we're getting a biennial World Cup, but there will probably be some sort of compromise where everybody takes a step back and compromises. It's the dangers of democracy. More than half of the member nations will never see a World Cup on TV. They probably wouldn't exist without direct funding from FIFA. They're going to want more opportunities to qualify and more money from the soccer organization. They could vote in a different president.
Which is the reason why they want to increase revenue. If it's not another men's World Cup, it could be another competition, something that will generate revenue but not require a whole new qualification process like the World Cup. The host nation of the next World Cup, winners of continental competitions, Nations League winners and whatever else you need to get to, could be included in the expanded Confederations Cup. You would still get a lot of heavy hitters there, but it would be less disruptive.
The Club World Cup could be held every four years. Even if the clubs want their cut, that would be even more lucrative. You wonder if the big clubs would feel bad, given that most of the cash and interest is generated by them.
An agreement on the international match calendar is very important. There seems to be a broad consensus to reduce the number of international breaks, but how and when you schedule those needs to be hammered out. If world football doesn't reach a deal at least nine to 12 months before the current deal expires in June 2024, it will be hugely damaging to the game financially, considering it will be impossible to plan and sell media and commercial rights.
Football's powers unite because they don't like to get hit in the wallet.
