Fifa's governance has come under renewed scrutiny following criticism of how the organisation conducted itself during the recent World Cup, with observers accusing the body of bending its own rules — from suspension lengths to the duration of half-time — in pursuit of greater commercial gain. In response, governance experts and campaigners have outlined several proposals for reforming an institution many believe has become too centralised and too opaque.
One recurring suggestion is to separate Fifa's various functions into distinct entities. Critics argue that the organisation cannot fairly police the sport while also profiting from its biggest events. Miguel Maduro, a former chair of Fifa's governance committee, believes creating a "Chinese wall" between commercial and regulatory arms would prevent one from corrupting the other. "Those who are seeking to maximise commercial income should not be dependent on the regulatory rules and those working on the regulatory side should not be influenced by commercial considerations," he said. Notably, president Gianni Infantino's shelved Fifa Forward Enterprise scheme reportedly would have created a similar separation, though insiders say it was designed for different purposes.
A second proposal calls for external oversight. Maduro argues genuine reform cannot come from within Fifa itself and has floated the idea of a body akin to the World Anti-Doping Agency to monitor governance standards across football. "Change needs to be imposed from the outside. It won't happen from the inside," he said, suggesting the European Union could serve as a starting point for such an initiative, potentially joined by other nations including the UK.
Limiting presidential power is another key theme. Maduro noted that checks meant to constrain the president, including oversight from the Fifa council, have failed in practice. Governance expert Mark Pieth pointed to an idea once raised by Uefa president Aleksander Ceferin: rotating the Fifa presidency among the heads of the six continental confederations, similar to Switzerland's rotating ministerial leadership. "The effect is nobody gets really powerful," Pieth said. "Then you ask yourself, well, why would a Fifa president need power anyway? He's there to organise matters."
Transparency remains a persistent complaint. Nick McGeehan of Fair Square questioned the absence of audited accounts detailing how Fifa's substantial development budget is spent. "Go on their website and you can find all sorts of data about what money is spent, but if you actually wanted to verify what that money is being spent on, it's impossible," he said. He also criticised Infantino's limited engagement with the press, saying it reflects "an authoritarian state-style distrust of the media."
The distribution of Fifa's finances has also drawn criticism. Despite this year's World Cup reportedly generating $15 billion, with each member association set to receive $8 million between 2027 and 2030, critics say funds are shared equally regardless of need — meaning smaller nations like Montserrat or Gibraltar receive the same as larger ones such as Nigeria or India. One critic argued this approach has made football "more Eurocentric now than it was 20 years ago," with associations often spending heavily on senior national teams rather than grassroots development.
Finally, there are calls to reshape who actually votes on Fifa's decisions. One senior football figure lamented the lack of representation from people with genuine playing, coaching or club experience among decision-makers. Political consultant Ashish Prashar advocated for greater fan involvement, suggesting supporters should have a formal role through ambassadors or elections. Maduro agreed that diversifying the electorate could naturally produce better checks and balances, saying it would help "lead to better decision-making in the interests of football and all its stakeholders."
Fifa was approached for comment.
Based on reporting from The Guardian.