Infantino as secure as ever at FIFA – the Balogun Farrago is no resigning matter, and here’s why… | OneFootball

We all enjoyed watching FIFA’s little plan to help the USA get past Belgium into the World Cup quarter-finals come crashing down against the unsolvable problem of the USA being quite sh*t, but the main thing all agree on is that the whole scandal must now have serious consequences.

Mustn’t it? There are surely going to be serious consequences? It can’t just carry on like this, can it? After such blatant and unprecedented politically-influenced host-nation favouritism?

You can all insert your best Mick McCarthy impression here.

Here is why we are where we are and there is no plausible route that leads to Infantino leaving or being removed from office.

No, we’re not having that. Surely Gianni Infantino’s position has now become that most journalese of words – untenable?

You’d like to think so, wouldn’t you? But no. It absolutely hasn’t. His position is as strong as ever after this World Cup. Stronger, even.

But UEFA are p*ssed mad at him? You can’t run FIFA with UEFA p*ssed mad at you?

You absolutely can. Infantino does and will continue to do so.

UEFA have butted heads with Infantino before and can continue to be an irritant and a thorn in his side. They can make him squirm uncomfortably in his padded seat from time to time. But on their own – and the key is that they are on their own – there is really nothing they can do.

Nothing?

Well, nothing that matters. They can engage in petty point-scoring, and let us be clear that we have all the time in the world for them doing just that.

Things like handing Somali referee Omar Artan the UEFA Super Cup gig after FIFA just shrugged and Infantino told everyone to ‘chill’ when the USA border thugs denied him the biggest moment of his professional life, for instance.

Or pointedly coming out and saying tickets for games at Euro 2028 will cost less than a new car. And that there won’t be Hydration Breaks. Or red cards for covering your face. That kind of thing.

But righteous as some of it is – although to be honest we like the red card for covering of the face because it does make it harder for racists to be racist (which is good) but also easier for all of us to see just standard random insults the best footballers in the world hurl at each other (also good) – it is all just little more than lashing out, tilting at windmills.

But why is UEFA so powerless? It’s the biggest and strongest confederation?

In a way it’s precisely because of their dominance that they are so ineffectual. UEFA can largely finance themselves, but the other confederations rely on FIFA far more. And former UEFA lackey Infantino has done the maths. Funny now to think that UEFA is his home, really. You might remember him from such early work as toe-curlingly awkward and excruciatingly lengthy Champions League draws in which he would attempt some wildly unsuccessful mutual second-language banter with Clarence Seedorf or Oliver Kahn over a fruitbowl filled with ping-pong balls.

But he knows he doesn’t need UEFA. And, ultimately, UEFA know it too.

How does that work then?

Simple maths. We mustn’t kid ourselves that UEFA’s problem with Infantino is that he is controversial or corrupt or anything else. UEFA might be on the right side of history in this specific case, but that’s largely happenstance. They have plenty of skeletons in their own controversy closet.

Why UEFA no longer care for their former protégé is that he has successfully triangulated that the further he weakens UEFA’s grip on the game, the stronger his becomes.

His – wildly successful – approach has been to woo all the other federations. For as long as he keeps the money river open, he’ll have their support. FIFA has delivered all manner of programmes to smaller confederations around the world and some of them are genuinely excellent, even if that is of secondary importance to their primary goal of furthering Infantino’s cause.

But the key point here is: it works. Expanding the World Cup by 16 teams and giving UEFA only three of those extra teams is just the most obvious (and, in fairness, successful) example of his general approach. Woo the smaller, less financially independent confederations and leave UEFA wealthy but impotent to enact any real change on the global stage.

Infantino simply doesn’t need a single thing from UEFA, or to throw them a single bone.

What’s the maths, then? Why is Infantino so smugly secure?

The FIFA presidency is decided every four years by one member, one vote. There are 211 countries currently within FIFA, so that means you need 106 votes to secure the presidency.

The next nominal date for elections is next year, and we say nominal because Infantino won unopposed in 2019 and 2023, and the 2027 race is, effectively, already won.

CONMEBOL have already bent the knee again. That’s 10 votes. Africa’s governing body CAF and Asia’s AFC have also pledged Infantino their votes. CAF has 54 members, and the AFC has 47.

If you’re quick at mental arithmetic, you’ll have already worked it out. That’s 111 votes. Even if UEFA could identify a suitable candidate, they simply do not have the numbers to take him on.

But could this latest controversy have changed that?

CONMEBOL, AFC and CAF all pledged their support to Infantino in April and May this year. So yes, it’s technically possible that the Balogun Farrago, which sounds like a John Grisham thriller you buy at an airport against your better judgement and never read, could be the straw to give the camel spinal problems.

But ask yourself how likely that is. Think of what had happened before this that didn’t put those confederations off a man who gives them such a bigger slice of the World Cup pie among other benefits and treats.

They weren’t put off by anything around the Qatar World Cup. They weren’t put off by the way the 2030 World Cup was sneakily turned into a global centennial celebration across Europe, North Africa and for a few token yet vital games South America to give Asia – and thus in practical terms Infantino’s Saudi mates – a free run at 2034 with Oceania the only remaining confederation even technically able to have bid for that one.

Giving Donald Trump a peace prize and pledging the sport’s unyielding, unquestioning support to his cause while he was actively provoking the other two countries he was hosting the World Cup with, and shortly before going to actual war with another qualifier, didn’t shift the needle for them.

There seems little reason to believe this latest little slice of Trump kowtowing will change anything either.

So it all means nothing then?

We wouldn’t say nothing. We do think it’s good, in a way, that it’s happened. We all knew Trump was capable of pulling this kind of stunt, crying his eyes out, stamping his feet and demanding special treatment. And we all knew Infantino was likely to cave to any such demand.

But seeing it all actually play out is another thing. And seeing FIFA genuinely squirming and trying to insist Trump had nothing to do with it, while naively expecting a narcissist who claims credit for everything not to immediately claim credit even if it actually wasn’t down to him (which remains technically just about possible) is still good.

Infantino and Trump deserve to be tainted by this World Cup. They deserve to be embarrassed. We deserve this small W. But make no mistake, they win in the end.

It might all be a bit more out in the open. UEFA might be a bit more further entrenched in its suspicion of FIFA’s operations. But nothing material will change.

It doesn’t matter how many buttoned-up European journalists righteously and indignantly call for Infantino’s resignation. It only becomes a resigning matter if he decides it’s a resigning matter. And he obviously won’t.

Unless and until he loses the support of Asia, Africa and South America, he’s untouchable and Europe are howling into the void.

What can UEFA do, then?

The nuclear option remains on the table, we suppose: withdraw from FIFA altogether. Ronaldo was mocked for saying winning a Euros is as good as winning a World Cup, but he’s not that wrong is he?

Even at what has been considered a difficult tournament for UEFA teams, their strength at the top end is close to absolute. Even at a World Cup played in the least hospitable conditions for European teams, five of the six confirmed quarter-finalists are from UEFA, and Switzerland could make it six of the last eight.

With due credit extended to Argentina and Morocco specifically right now, the location of the on-field balance of power is, if anything, clearer than it has ever been.

Africa have shown plenty of depth at this World Cup, but CONCACAF and the AFC have been badly exposed by the fragility below their established top nations.

A World Cup without UEFA would cease to be a World Cup. But can UEFA even think of it? It’s the ultimate nose-removing, face-spiting operation, because no tournament featuring solely European nations will ever be considered a World Cup either. It’s mutually assured destruction if UEFA take this route, with absolutely no reason to think anyone comes out of it better. UEFA’s hand is just too weak to even attempt such a bluff.

Unless, we suppose, they can go full Eurovision with it and just randomly invite Argentina and a couple of the stronger African sides to the party.