How FIFA Corrupted the World Cup

On Christmas Day 1914, in the middle of World War I,

British and German soldiers climbed out of their trenches,

walked into no-man’s-land, and started playing football.

With no referees or teams, two groups of people decided for

a few hours that this game mattered more than

the war they were fighting.

Football is the most universal language on Earth,

and more people watch the World Cup than any other event

in human history, drawing five billion viewers.

However, the organization that controls this game,

decides where the World Cup is played, and dictates

where the money goes is one of the most powerful

and least accountable institutions on Earth.

It has more members than the United Nations,

makes billions of dollars, pays virtually no taxes,

and has never been held accountable by any government,

any courts, or the billions of fans who love the sport.

The Structure of FIFA

Officially, FIFA is a nonprofit registered in Zurich, Switzerland,

under a legal category called a “verein,”

which is the same legal status as a local hiking club

or a neighborhood book group.

Despite this status, FIFA made $7.5 billion in its last cycle,

sits on nearly $4 billion in cash reserves, and its president,

Gianni Infantino, earns roughly $6 million a year tax-free.

FIFA has 211 member countries,

compared to the United Nations’ 193.

Every single one of those 211 members gets a vote,

meaning Montserrat, with a population of 4,000,

has the same voting power as Brazil.

While this layout may sound democratic,

about 70 percent of those 211 member associations run

on annual budgets under $2 million,

and up to half of that money comes directly from FIFA

through its flagship Forward program.

The FIFA Forward program distributes $2.25 billion per cycle,

providing up to $8 million per member over four years.

Because the member countries tasked with holding FIFA’s

president accountable are financially dependent on him,

the setup functions as a patronage system rather than a democracy.

As a result, Infantino was reelected unopposed in 2023

and is expected to run again in 2027,

which could keep him in power until 2031.

The World Cup Contract Terms

Every four years, FIFA runs the biggest sporting event on the planet,

forcing the host country to sign a highly one-sided contract.

FIFA’s bidding documents demand full tax exemption

for the organization and all its subsidiaries for an entire decade,

unrestricted import and export of any foreign currency,

automatic work permits for designated personnel,

and special intellectual property enforcement.

Furthermore, all legal disputes must be settled under

Swiss law in Zurich, regardless of where the tournament takes place.

If a country’s internal laws conflict with these demands,

FIFA expects the host nation to change them.

For example, when Brazil hosted the World Cup in 2014,

FIFA demanded that Budweiser be permitted

to sell beer inside stadiums.

Brazil had a pre-existing public safety law banning alcohol

at sporting events due to fan violence.

Because Budweiser was a major FIFA sponsor paying hundreds

of millions of dollars, Brazil’s Congress passed a temporary

overriding law to satisfy the demand.

Other examples include South Africa creating a tax-free bubble

around FIFA venues and Qatar offering blanket exemptions for FIFA,

its clubs, broadcasters, and service providers.

Under these agreements, the host country covers the costs

for stadiums, security, transport, and infrastructure.

FIFA runs the tournament, collects all the broadcast revenue,

sponsorship money, and ticket sales, and then leaves.

Host countries consistently agree to these terms

because the alternative is losing the event entirely.

This immense market power allows FIFA to evade regulation,

operating as an industry that writes the rules, enforces the rules,

and sells the product all at once.

The FBI Investigation and Systemic Corruption

For decades, suspicions of corruption surrounded FIFA,

but definitive proof remained elusive until the FBI launched

an investigation involving an American soccer official

named Chuck Blazer.

Blazer was making millions of dollars from FIFA,

owned two expensive apartments in Manhattan,

and had not paid income taxes in over a decade.

In 2011, federal agents intercepted Blazer and gave him the

choice to cooperate or face immediate arrest.

Blazer became an informant, using a keychain with a hidden microphone

to record conversations with FIFA colleagues,

including during the 2012 London Olympics.

His cooperation uncovered a system of bribes

and kickbacks that had been operational for over two decades.

The US Department of Justice eventually filed a 164-page

indictment alleging more than $150 million in bribes.

By the end of the investigation, 45 individuals were charged,

and over $200 million in bribes were documented.

During the proceedings, FIFA requested that the US government

grant the organization itself victim status.

Following the resignation of longtime leader Sepp Blatter,

Gianni Infantino was elected on a platform of total reform.

However, once in power, he consolidated his position

by implementing a rule that allowed the FIFA Council

to fire members of the Independent Audit Committee.

The chairman of that committee resigned in protest,

stating the move undermined good governance.

Subsequently, both ethics committee chairs were removed,

and the independent human rights advisory board

was dissolved, effectively dismantling the guardrails established

after the corruption scandal.

The Cost to Host Nations and Human Toll

While FIFA generates billions, host countries

and their citizens pay a heavy price.

In Qatar, an investigation compiled government data indicating

that 6,500 migrant workers from India, Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka,

and Pakistan died in the country between the time Qatar won

the World Cup bid and the tournament itself.

Many of these individuals worked under the “kafala” system,

a sponsorship arrangement where employers controlled

their visas, housing, and passports,

creating conditions akin to forced labor.

Workers frequently paid steep recruitment fees,

experienced months without pay, and were legally barred from

leaving the country.

Despite charitable calls for FIFA to create

a $440 million worker compensation fund to match the tournament’s

prize money, FIFA declined,

choosing instead to launch a $50 million legacy

fund focused on other agencies.

In Brazil, the 2014 World Cup cost over $11 billion,

leading to widespread public protests with citizens demanding funding

for hospitals and education rather than stadiums.

Following the tournament, multiple venues became

expensive, underutilized properties.

The stadium in Brasilia, which cost $900 million to construct,

was later used as a bus parking lot because

the city lacked a first-division team.

Another $300 million stadium in the middle of the Amazon jungle

faced high monthly maintenance costs against minimal

local attendance, while another venue saw unused spaces

occupied by homeless individuals.

In each instance, the host nation funds construction

while FIFA captures the profits.