ubamobile

27
Tue, Oct

Celta Vigo’s LaLiga season opener against Osasuna has been postponed after a fungus outbreak severely damaged the playing surface at Estadio de Balaídos.

The match, originally scheduled for Sunday, was called off after an inspection found that the condition of the pitch had deteriorated despite efforts by Celta to treat the problem. LaLiga said the decision was agreed upon by the clubs and the Spanish Football Federation (RFEF), citing an illness affecting the stadium’s playing surface.

The two clubs, however, disagree over when the postponed fixture should be played.

Osasuna said Celta had worked to address the fungus and that it understood why the original match could not go ahead. The club claimed, however, that the two teams had agreed to reschedule the game for September 24 or 25, during the international break.

According to Osasuna, that arrangement would have limited the impact on both teams’ schedules and provided players with additional recovery time early in the season.

LaLiga and the RFEF instead scheduled the match for August 27. Osasuna said the decision was made without its consent, despite league and federation officials being aware of the agreement between the clubs.

“The team most affected by the initial postponement for reasons beyond its control is again the most affected by the new schedule,” Osasuna said.

The club also criticized the timing of the postponement, arguing that the decision came only three days before kickoff and reflected what it described as a broader pattern of late calendar changes.

Celta said LaLiga had inspected the pitch the previous week and approved the work being carried out to eliminate the disease. However, the club said recent weather conditions slowed the recovery of the field and ultimately made postponement unavoidable.

The pitch was inspected again by league officials on Wednesday before the decision was finalized.

While both clubs accepted that the damaged surface made the original fixture impossible, Osasuna remains unhappy with the replacement date. The dispute now centers on whether the match should be played on August 27 or moved to the September international break.

Osasuna ended its statement with a pointed criticism of the league’s handling of the situation: “This is not football — it’s La Liga.”

A growing alliance of football’s major continental confederations is preparing a new blueprint for how the global game should be governed, amid an escalating confrontation with FIFA president Gianni Infantino.

UEFA, Concacaf and the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) are understood to be working together on a policy document that would outline a possible alternative model for FIFA. The initiative reflects mounting frustration over what the three organisations regard as an increasingly centralised and opaque style of leadership under Infantino.

People familiar with the discussions say the group is considering fundamental questions about FIFA's future. These include the organisation's core responsibilities, the way its leadership should be structured, how decisions should be made and how FIFA's substantial financial resources should be distributed among its members.

The use of FIFA's reserves is expected to be a particularly important issue. With the governing body holding billions of dollars in reserves, the confederations want to examine whether the money could be distributed and invested in a way that provides greater long-term benefits for national associations and football development.

The move comes after a major dispute over Infantino's recently abandoned proposal to create a commercial vehicle that would allow private investors to acquire an interest in World Cup-related assets. FIFA eventually withdrew the plan following widespread opposition, but the episode has deepened concerns among several of its most powerful members about transparency and consultation.

Rather than waiting for FIFA's leadership to initiate the governance review they have requested, UEFA, Concacaf and the AFC have begun developing their own proposals. The resulting framework could eventually become the platform for a challenger seeking to defeat Infantino in FIFA's next presidential election.

There is also a more dramatic possibility. If the dispute cannot be resolved, the proposals could potentially provide the foundations for an alternative structure outside FIFA, although such a development would represent an extraordinary rupture in international football.

The three confederations have already signalled that they are prepared to consider more direct action. In a joint statement, they called for leadership that serves football rather than concentrates power, while discussions have reportedly begun about the possibility of staging alternative competitions if the conflict with FIFA's leadership continues.

UEFA's position has become particularly confrontational. European officials have threatened to boycott FIFA competitions unless the governing body agrees to an independent investigation into the controversy surrounding the World Cup investment proposal and provides firm guarantees that similar decisions will not be made without proper consultation in the future.

One immediate consequence could involve the Under-20 Women's World Cup. UEFA has indicated that European teams could withdraw from the tournament if FIFA fails to respond to its demands quickly enough.

The growing alliance also has potential implications for the FIFA presidency. Concacaf president Victor Montagliani is currently viewed as one of the strongest possible candidates to challenge Infantino. Montagliani has previously insisted that his immediate priority is securing his own re-election at Concacaf, but his public comments about leadership and accountability have closely reflected the language now being used by FIFA's critics.

The political manoeuvring is intensifying as senior European football officials gather in Salzburg for meetings surrounding the UEFA Super Cup. UEFA president Aleksander Čeferin is expected to meet with Nasser Al-Khelaifi, chairman of European Football Clubs, as European football seeks to maintain a united position over FIFA's leadership.

The meetings come at a critical moment for Infantino. Although FIFA has apologised for mistakes surrounding the failed investment initiative and withdrawn the proposal, opposition from major confederations has continued.

What began as a dispute over one controversial commercial proposal has therefore evolved into a much broader argument about who should control the future of global football.

For the first time in years, influential parts of the football world are not simply demanding changes from FIFA—they are beginning to consider what a different FIFA could actually look like.

Amazon founder Jeff Bezos is reportedly part of a consortium that is close to acquiring a significant minority stake in Liverpool Football Club.

According to Sky News, the consortium, led by British-Indian businessman Amit Bhatia, is nearing a deal to purchase roughly one-third of the Premier League club from current owners Fenway Sports Group (FSG).

FSG confirmed last month that it had been approached by Bhatia’s investment group, which includes Bezos and Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin.

An FSG spokesperson said: “An investment consortium led, managed, and represented by Amit Bhatia has expressed interest in making a strategic minority investment in Liverpool Football Club.”

Sky News reports that an announcement could be made in the coming days. The proposed transaction could value Liverpool at approximately £4.5 billion ($6 billion).

Bezos, whose wealth is estimated at around $257 billion, has previously explored opportunities to invest in professional sports. Last year, he considered bids for the NFL’s Seattle Seahawks and Washington Commanders but ultimately did not pursue either deal.

Bhatia, a British-Indian millionaire and former co-owner of Queens Park Rangers, is the son-in-law of billionaire steel magnate Lakshmi Mittal. He confirmed his departure from QPR’s board last month, around the same time FSG acknowledged discussions with his consortium.

FSG acquired Liverpool in 2010 for around £300 million, when the club was facing significant financial difficulties. Since then, Liverpool have won two Premier League titles and the UEFA Champions League, while also benefiting from major investment in Anfield and the club’s training facilities.

FSG also owns the Boston Red Sox and sold a minority stake in Liverpool to investment firm Dynasty in 2023. That investment provided the club with additional capital following the pandemic but was not intended to fund future player transfers.

If completed, the proposed deal would give Bezos and his fellow investors a substantial financial interest in one of the world’s most valuable and successful football clubs, while FSG would retain overall control of Liverpool.

FIFA has accused some of its critics of carrying out a coordinated campaign to weaken the organisation and force out president Gianni Infantino.

The governing body issued the statement after a report by the *Daily Telegraph* made allegations concerning Infantino's private life. The newspaper reported that a woman allegedly involved in an affair with Infantino while he was UEFA general secretary later received a severance payment from UEFA.

Infantino has strongly rejected the allegations, with FIFA describing the claims as "categorically untrue". The organisation also criticised what it called speculation, misinformation and claims that have not been properly substantiated.

The dispute comes as Infantino faces increasing opposition from European football authorities following the collapse of his proposed FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE). The plan would have established a new company responsible for commercial and ticketing rights, with a 21% stake potentially being sold to a private investment firm.

UEFA has publicly stated that it no longer has confidence in Infantino and has warned that a boycott of FIFA competitions remains possible. The European governing body has also said it has yet to receive guarantees that the FFE proposal cannot be brought back in another form.

Opposition has grown beyond UEFA, with Norwegian Football Federation president Lise Klaveness calling on Infantino to step down.

FIFA, however, insists that Infantino continues to have a legitimate mandate after being elected by its member associations.

"The FIFA president was democratically elected by FIFA's Member Associations and continues to serve with their mandate," the organisation said.

FIFA also argued that anyone seeking to replace Infantino should do so through the organisation's established democratic procedures rather than through public accusations or what it described as misinformation.

The strongest resistance to Infantino has so far come from Europe. Elsewhere, he continues to enjoy significant support.

The Mexican Football Federation has backed the FIFA president, despite taking a position different from its regional governing body, Concacaf. Mexico joined South America's CONMEBOL in opposing any attempt to remove Infantino without a vote involving all 211 FIFA member associations.

Infantino also has unanimous backing from the 54 member associations of the Confederation of African Football (CAF).

The growing divide therefore reflects a broader battle over FIFA's leadership and commercial direction, with Infantino facing serious criticism in Europe while retaining substantial support across other regions of world football.

US President Donald Trump has warned that it would be a “terrible mistake” for FIFA to remove president Gianni Infantino from his position.

Trump’s comments come after UEFA, Concacaf and the Asian Football Confederation issued an open letter accusing Infantino of breaking their trust “through deception” over his proposed FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE).

The FFE plan would have involved creating a new company to manage the commercial and ticketing rights for FIFA competitions, including the World Cup. Under the proposal, a 21% stake in the company would have been sold to a private investment group.

“FIFA would be making a terrible mistake if, for any reason, they even considered replacing president Gianni Infantino,” Trump wrote on social media.

“He is fantastic, having just presided over the most successful World Cup, by four times, ever presented. If he is gone, it will never be as successful or profitable again.”

The 2026 World Cup was co-hosted by the United States, Canada and Mexico, with Spain winning the tournament after defeating Argentina in the final.

Trump’s latest remarks mark his strongest public defence of Infantino since details of the FFE proposal emerged on 28 July. When he first addressed the issue on 31 July, Trump said he had not discussed the proposal with Infantino.

Thrive Capital, the US venture capital firm founded by Joshua Kushner, was expected to lead the proposed investment group. Kushner is the brother of Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law.

The FFE proposal was ultimately abandoned, but the controversy has intensified scrutiny of Infantino’s leadership and FIFA’s plans for managing its lucrative commercial rights.

Twice in World Cup history, FIFA has overturned a red-card suspension. Both times, a head of state made a call. The question is not simply whether the reversals were justified, but how far sport’s justice system can be pushed before it stops looking like justice.


Folarin Balogun, sent off for a foul on Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Tarik Muharemović, was cleared to face Belgium after FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee invoked Article 27 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code. His one-match suspension was suspended for a year and replaced with a $40,000 fine. On paper, a technical ruling. In practice, one of the tournament’s defining controversies.

There was a striking precedent. In 1962, Brazil’s Garrincha was sent off in a World Cup semi-final for kicking a Chilean opponent. FIFA overturned the suspension, allowing him to play in the final, which Brazil won. Political pressure accompanied the decision: Chile’s president cosigned a petition seeking clemency, while Peru’s president reportedly called the referee to play down the incident. Sixty-four years later, football appeared to find itself in much the same place.

 


Trump and Balogun

The controversy over Balogun was not merely the outcome, but the process. Reports suggested the disciplinary chair acted alone, without other committee members normally expected in a case of such significance. More troublingly, U.S. President Donald Trump confirmed that he personally called FIFA requesting a review. FIFA’s president acknowledged the call but maintained that it did not influence the decision.


Whether FIFA was actually influenced is almost beside the point. Once a head of state is known to have lobbied a governing body while a case is pending, and to have secured a favourable decision through a rarely used route, the appearance of interference is already damaging. Belgium lodged a formal complaint, and other federations soon began citing the Balogun ruling in seeking leniency in their own cases. One exception can quickly unsettle an entire disciplinary framework.

The issue is therefore bigger than whether Balogun deserved his suspension. That is a football question. The sharper question is whether sporting justice can remain credible once it appears to bend towards political pressure rather than legal principle.

 

Why Independence Isn’t Optional

A disciplinary body has one fundamental obligation: to apply the rules consistently, regardless of who is watching. Once outside pressure begins shaping outcomes, the institution risks ceasing to be a judicial body and becoming a negotiating table. And negotiating tables do not command the respect courts do.

Remove independence, even in one high-profile case, and the consequences spread. Athletes doubt that sanctions are evenly applied. Clubs question whether outcomes reflect rules or influence. Fans wonder whether results are earned on the pitch or settled off it. Eventually, the competition itself loses legitimacy.

Sports justice should not be held to a lower standard than “real” justice merely because games rather than liberty are at stake. A disciplinary panel considering a red card is still performing a judicial function: applying a code to facts through a prescribed process and producing a binding outcome. Compromise that function, and it becomes discretion wearing justice’s clothes.

 

What FIFA’s Own Rules Say

FIFA does not need to invent a standard for independence. It has already been written once.

Its Statutes require member associations to manage their affairs independently and without outside influence. They demand political neutrality and processes that guarantee the independence of internal bodies. These principles are not decorative. FIFA has suspended national federations, including Nigeria, Kuwait and India, when governments crossed the line.

Strictly speaking, those provisions apply primarily to member associations rather than FIFA’s own disciplinary committees. But the principle is difficult to escape: FIFA cannot demand independence from institutions beneath it while appearing comfortable with political pressure directed at itself.

The FIFA Code of Ethics goes further, requiring integrity, independence, objectivity and freedom from conflicts of interest. The problem is not limited to proving that someone was actually influenced. The appearance of compromised judgment matters because confidence in justice depends on both reality and perception.

The Disciplinary Code itself is grounded in due process, including the right to be heard, appeal rights and proportionality. Article 27 gives FIFA discretion to suspend sanctions, but discretion must operate within procedural safeguards. Discretion is not the problem; discretion exercised outside its protections is.

 

Five Guarantees Every Athlete Is Owed

Across FIFA’s Disciplinary Code, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) framework and wider principles of due process, five basic guarantees emerge:

Clear notice of the allegations.
A genuine opportunity to respond before a decision.
An impartial tribunal is protected from outside pressure.
A reasoned decision capable of scrutiny and challenge.
A meaningful right of appeal, insulated where possible from pressure affecting the original decision.
These principles extend beyond FIFA. Wherever disciplinary power exists, fairness must accompany it.

CAS Had to Earn Its Independence Too

The Court of Arbitration for Sport was created in the 1980s, in part, to address the uncomfortable problem of sporting federations effectively adjudicating their own disputes. But CAS itself had to prove its independence.

In Gundel v FEI in 1993, questions arose over whether CAS was too closely connected to the International Olympic Committee to be genuinely independent. Although the Swiss Federal Tribunal upheld CAS, the scrutiny triggered important reforms, including the creation of the International Council of Arbitration for Sport to provide greater institutional separation.

The issue returned in Mutu and Pechstein v Switzerland. The European Court of Human Rights accepted CAS as sufficiently independent, while finding that Claudia Pechstein had wrongly been denied a public hearing in proceedings affecting her livelihood. The lesson was clear: institutional independence matters, but so do procedural guarantees.

 

FIFA Has Punished Political Interference Before

FIFA’s history makes the Balogun controversy particularly uncomfortable.

Nigeria was suspended in 2014 after government intervention in the Nigeria Football Federation. Kuwait endured a roughly two-year suspension after legislation interfered with federation independence. India was suspended in 2022 after a court-appointed committee took control of its federation. Pakistan was suspended twice, in 2017 and 2021, for undue third-party interference.

FIFA’s response was severe: entire countries, athletes included, were excluded rather than allow political interference to stand. That is the standard against which the Balogun controversy deserves to be judged.

 

The Difficult Balance

Should political leaders remain silent when sporting decisions affect national interests? Probably not. Public disappointment and criticism are inevitable.

But there is a meaningful difference between criticising a decision and directly contacting the governing body while that decision is being considered. Ordinary legal systems recognise the distinction: criticising a judgment afterwards is legitimate public discourse; calling the judge while the case is pending is something altogether different.

Sporting integrity is tested precisely in difficult moments — when the caller is powerful, the tournament politically important, and the price of saying no considerable. If independence survives only when no one important challenges it, then it was never really independence. It was convenient to wear Independence’s clothes.

Conclusion

Sport derives its legitimacy not merely from the rules of the game, but from confidence that those rules are applied fairly. A decision’s popularity should matter far less than whether it was reached independently, transparently and according to established law and procedure.

That is why the Balogun controversy reaches beyond one red card, one footballer or one World Cup match.

Once politics begins shaping — or appears capable of shaping — sporting justice, the greatest casualty may not be the player who is suspended or cleared.

It may be the game’s credibility.

By Abdulhakeem Damilare Orovwuje, a legal practitioner with an interest in sports law and dispute resolution, lives in Agbado, Lagos

Jorge Messi, the father and longtime representative of football superstar Lionel Messi, has died at the age of 68 in Rosario, Argentina, following a prolonged illness.

According to Argentine media reports, Jorge passed away at a sanatorium in Rosario at around 10 p.m. on Friday. His death marks a deeply personal loss for Lionel Messi and the family who stood behind his remarkable journey from Argentina to the pinnacle of world football.

Jorge played a crucial role in shaping his son’s early career. When Lionel was just 13, he helped make the life-changing decision to move to Spain and pursue an opportunity with Barcelona. The move also gave Lionel access to the growth hormone treatment he needed, which had been difficult for the family to afford in Argentina.

During Lionel’s first challenging years in Spain, Jorge remained by his son’s side while other members of the family stayed in Argentina. He supported Lionel through the uncertainty of adapting to a new country and helped him remain focused on his dream of becoming a professional footballer.

Lionel has previously spoken about the difficult decision he faced as a teenager, recalling how his father asked whether he wanted to continue chasing his dream in Spain or return home. Lionel chose to stay — and Jorge stayed with him.

Beyond his role as a father, Jorge became a key figure in Lionel’s professional career, overseeing many aspects of his son’s business and commercial affairs while generally keeping a low public profile.

Concerns about Jorge’s health became more widely known during the 2026 World Cup, when Lionel appeared emotional following Argentina’s opening match. The family later indicated that Jorge was undergoing treatment and recovering.

Jorge Messi is survived by his wife, Celia Cuccittini, and their four children — Lionel, Rodrigo, Matias and Maria Sol.

For Lionel Messi, the loss is not only that of a father but of the person who stood beside him from his earliest days in Rosario, supported his biggest dreams and helped him take the first steps toward becoming one of football’s greatest-ever players.

More Articles ...

  1. Infantino Denies Allegations That UEFA Paid Off Alleged Former Lover
  2. Barcelona or Real Madrid? Rodri Faces Major Decision Over His Future
  3. Infantino Retains FIFA Presidency Following Executive Backing
Page 3 of 17
Today301
Yesterday296
This week597
This month17960
Total1451736

Visitor Info

  • IP: 216.73.217.112
  • Browser: Unknown
  • Browser Version:
  • Operating System: Unknown

Who Is Online

4
Online
2026-10-27

Joomla! Debug Console

Session

Profile Information

Memory Usage

Database Queries