ubamobile

27
Tue, Oct

FIFA President Gianni Infantino is facing increasing pressure after the organization's chief operating officer publicly criticized his proposal to sell stakes in FIFA competitions to private investors.

In a statement released made available to huhuonline.com on Friday, Kevin Lamour described the proposal as "the project of one person" and urged football leaders to "ask themselves the right questions and make the right decisions." He also claimed FIFA's administration had been "deceived" about the initiative.

Although Lamour did not mention Infantino by name, his remarks came amid growing opposition to the plans. On the same day, a third football confederation voiced its concerns, a senior adviser to Infantino resigned, and Andy Burnham said the Swiss official was "the wrong man" to lead FIFA.

Meanwhile, U.S. President Donald Trump said he had not discussed the proposal with Infantino, despite reports that the two have developed a close relationship since Trump's second term began in 2025.

Lamour said FIFA's employees are committed to serving football and argued that the organization's leadership should unite and inspire rather than divide.

"Our mission—the mission of the hundreds of passionate, dedicated, and exemplary FIFA employees—is to serve football," he said. "A president must bring people together, unite them, and inspire them. Today, we are experiencing the opposite."

Acknowledging his responsibility to both FIFA and its values, Lamour said he was prepared to accept any consequences for speaking out.

"If that means I lose my job, then so be it," he said. "I will understand and respect that decision. At least I'll sleep well tonight."

A senior adviser to FIFA president Gianni Infantino has resigned after a third football confederation publicly opposed plans to sell stakes in FIFA competitions to private investors.

Carlos Cordeiro described the proposal as "a bad deal for football" that would "mortgage football's future." His resignation came just hours after the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) announced it was joining UEFA and Concacaf in opposing the plan.

In a statement, the AFC said it "stands in solidarity" with the other confederations, arguing that the proposal could not achieve the broad consensus needed to move forward. It warned that the FIFA World Cup draws its strength from the participation of all confederations and leading football nations, and that any proposal threatening the competition's unity should be reconsidered.

The AFC also criticized FIFA for advancing a major initiative without first consulting member associations or key governing bodies. It said the process had exposed weaknesses in FIFA's governance, leaving confederations, national associations and even the FIFA Council feeling sidelined. The confederation called for an urgent review of FIFA's consultation and decision-making procedures to ensure future proposals of global importance are developed through meaningful engagement and proper oversight.

The growing opposition presents a major obstacle for Infantino's plans. FIFA has 211 member associations, and the proposal would require a simple majority of 106 votes to pass. UEFA represents 55 members, Concacaf has 35, and the AFC has 46. If all three confederations vote against the proposal, 136 member associations would oppose it, making approval highly unlikely.

Cordeiro, who served as FIFA's senior adviser on global strategy and governance for nearly five years, is the first senior official to resign over the proposal. A former Goldman Sachs investment banker, he also represented FIFA on the White House task force for the 2026 FIFA World Cup.

In a lengthy statement, Cordeiro said he "unequivocally" opposed the plan and rejected the argument that FIFA needed outside investors to unlock greater value. He argued that FIFA's responsibility is not to maximize commercial returns but to protect and strengthen football for future generations.

"The proposal has become a defining question for FIFA's future," he said. "When those principles come into conflict, football must come first."

Cordeiro stressed that he had no involvement in developing the proposal and criticized the lack of transparency surrounding it.

"Most troubling of all is the absence of answers to fundamental questions," he said. "Why this deal? Why now? What oversight exists? Who benefits?"

He added that member associations were being asked to make a decision with far-reaching consequences in less than 50 days, despite many key questions remaining unanswered.

"That is not a responsible way to determine the future of the world's game," he said.

UEFA's 55 member associations have voted to boycott FIFA competitions if plans to sell stakes in the governing body's tournaments to private investors are approved.

The decision was reached during an emergency meeting called after FIFA announced proposals earlier this week to allow outside investors to buy minority stakes in competitions such as the World Cup.

UEFA has strongly opposed the idea, describing the World Cup as "one of football's greatest sporting legacies" and insisting it should never be treated as a commercial investment.

"The World Cup cannot be treated as an investment product," UEFA said in a statement. "It has been built over generations by players, national teams and supporters across every continent. No part of it should ever be surrendered to private investors. The World Cup is not for sale."

If FIFA president Gianni Infantino's proposals are approved by member associations, UEFA says its boycott would extend to all FIFA competitions, including the men's and women's World Cups and the Club World Cup.

The first major test of UEFA's position could come in October, when the Women's World Cup play-offs are scheduled.

Sources described the atmosphere at UEFA's emergency meeting as highly charged, with delegates expressing overwhelming opposition to the proposals. England FA chair Debbie Hewitt and chief executive Mark Bullingham were among those who spoke during the discussions. Despite serving as one of FIFA's vice-presidents, Hewitt is understood to have had no prior knowledge of Infantino's plans.

Opposition is also growing outside Europe. Concacaf, which represents 41 national associations across North and Central America and the Caribbean, announced that it had also rejected the proposal. Sources suggest confidence in Infantino's leadership is weakening among Concacaf members.

The standoff marks one of the most significant governance disputes in world football in recent years, with the future ownership and control of FIFA's flagship competitions now at the centre of a growing conflict.

The almost chaotic scenes at the final match of the 35th edition of the African Cup of Nations in Morocco in January this year should have prepared the minds of football lovers for the man-made orchestrations in this year’s FIFA World Cup that nearly brought the beautiful game of football to disrepute. Never has there been so much deep-seated sour taste in the mouth in any edition of the global showpiece as the 2026 edition hosted by Mexico/United States/Canada.

Admittedly, one must salute the high level of football artistry on display by the 48 participating countries, including the quality of a few any football fans might have hitherto dismissed with a wave of the hands. The politics, manipulations, and glaring inactions by Gianni Infantino’s FIFA and a few ego-filled teams point to a dangerous dimension that portends serious danger to the health of the beautiful game.

In his 10th year in charge of FIFA, Infantino is clearly on a descent, and towards an unplanned exit that may save the Italian from drowning himself in shame.

Never has a FIFA president demonstrated his readiness to be manipulated by the powerful regardless of the risk of such a move. This man has strangely and obviously demonstrated his preference for certain teams over others. Only Infantino would be able to explain why he was able to threaten fire and brimstone after the drama at the AFCON final in Rabat between eventual champion, Senegal, and hosts Morocco, but curiously became blind after the embarrassment football was subjected to by ‘FIFA-anointed team’, Argentina, who deservedly lost the final match to European champions, Spain, penultimate Sunday.

Don’t miss the point: I love football, having played the round-leather game to my God-given capacity; I only show my partisanship when the Super Eagles played well and lost, not the lame and duck displays the national team put up when struggling to qualify for the just-concluded competition. Interestingly, Nigeria still managed to win some ‘trophies’ at the World Cup in which it did not participate. You know the ‘unnamed trophies’ more than I do. So, you don’t need my help to list them.

Up until this moment, I still do not understand what Argentina deserved at the end of the final whistle of the 2026 World Cup with the level of football they played against Spain in the final. I won’t take away the respect the Argentines deserved, going through the group stages; through the knockout matches (especially with the help of malleable referees), and landing at the final while fighting to retain the crown they won four years ago in Doha, Qatar.

With the benefit of hindsight, one is tempted to submit that the quality of the La Albiceleste at the 2026 World Cup was below the quality of the squad that won the cup in Qatar, where they lost their opening match 1-2 to Saudi Arabia.


In 2026, some remote arrangements, however, ensured that despite a few lapses, the Argentines progressed seamlessly into the knockout stages, where they suddenly realised they were the ‘FIFA hot favourites’ for the ultimate prize, signposted by unexplainable favourable and strange decisions. The marketing prospects of keeping the South Americans in the competition obviously overshadowed all considerations in FIFA’s calculations and deliberate inactions.

As in all facets of human life, there are certain gaps that wouldn’t be covered forever by man-made arrangements. Despite tolerating the customary excesses of the Argentines in the first half, Slovenian Slavko Vincic stamped his authority, which resulted in the sending off of the usually pompous Enzo Fernandez and the eventual capitulation of the La Albiceleste.

The deserved defeat of the Argentines in the one-sided match against Spain is not my interest in this piece, by the way. It is the disgraceful attitude of the losers and the criminal silence of the Infantino-led FIFA since the embarrassing episode of the aftermath of the World Cup final match penultimate Sunday.

Anti-apartheid icon and former South African President, Mr Nelson Mandela, once said, “Sports can create hope, where there was once only despair. It is more powerful than governments in breaking down racial barriers. It laughs in the face of all types of discrimination.” By the way, this particular statement might have been erased even in South Africa itself by narrow-minded nincompoops masquerading as leaders in the nation’s current setup.

A former US diplomat and civil rights leader, Andrew Young, while supporting some of the good attributes of sports, said, “I’ve always seen the Olympics as a place where you could act out your differences on the athletic field with a sense of sportsmanship and fairness and mutual respect,” the latter part being the anchor of the statement. Also, a former US President, Theodore Roosevelt, examined the good and bad sides of sports prowess. “Character counts for a great deal more than either intellect or body in winning success in life. Athletic proficiency is a mighty good servant, and like so many other good servants, a mighty bad master,” he stated.

By Ademola Oni

In sports especially, which help to unite people of all races (at least, so it seems) more than most governmental structures in the world today, there will always be songs of victory and the lamentation of defeat. Essentially, what separates the two is the mood and the maturity the parties bring to it.

A line in ‘Beast of No Nation’, one of the iconic masterpieces of Abami Eda, Fela Anikulapo-Kuti, kept popping up as I was battling to keep Long Range in check. This line simply says “This uprising will bring out the beast in us.” Fela was not the originator of this line, by the way.


PW Botha, one of the apartheid leaders in South Africa, had made this unguarded statement to belittle the uprising, protests and physical violence against apartheid rule in South Africa in the mid-80s. Pitiably, illiterate, ignorant and ungrateful black South Africans have turned on other blacks in the former apartheid enclave, killing some, looting their property, shutting down their businesses and telling them to go ‘beck’ to their countries.

It is basically impossible for the hands of the clock to go back many years. This current generation of South Africans, including their pretentious leaders, shouldn’t have been part of the package of freedom, if you ask me, but thank you for not asking.

Let’s go back to the World Cup. At the penultimate tournament in Qatar, after the Kylian Mbappe-inspired France lost the FIFA World Cup final to Argentina, French President Emanuel Macron personally embraced the players, encouraging them to be proud of their outstanding display. The players and officials didn’t bring down the stadium, nor did they turn the presentation ceremonies into a showpiece of crass moral ineptitude like our South American ‘superstars’ exhibited in New Jersey.

I’m not a mind reader, but I’m sure something else was going through the minds of the Argentine players and officials at the end of the match in New Jersey on July 19 that so many people didn’t see. Like Spain crippled the machinery of Mbappe-led France attack in the semi-finals, the European champions equally shut down the Lionel Messi troops in a more spectacular fashion in the final. The South Americans did not register a single shot on goal throughout the 120 minutes of football action. Even our dear Super Eagles, on their day, would have done better.

So then, can someone explain to me why the Argentines decided to bring out the beast in them on this occasion? Why would national team players throw decorum to the wind, preferring the mentality of beasts? Would punching the Spaniards assuage the pain of the defeat on the night? The Argentines were, however, lucky that a player like Sergio Ramos was not in the Spain squad on the day. Cape Verde, Egypt and England partly lost to the Argentines, not because of superior football mastery but to the obvious conspiratorial machinations of Infantino and FIFA, a very dangerous trend.

The Argentines didn’t start their shenanigans in the final. After their 2-1 victory over England in the semi-finals, the still embittered South Americans decided to mock England for losing the Falkland Islands to the Europeans after their defeat in the 74-day battle in 1982. The question is, why on the field of play? Were they reprimanded?

How does one categorise the role of Infantino’s FIFA in the excesses of the Argentines at the World Cup? At the end of the AFCON final in Rabat and the drama that attended the match in January, the FIFA president started spitting fire, culminating in the purported stripping of the Senegalese of their well-deserved AFCON title.


More than a week after the Argentines’ show of shame in New Jersey, Infantino has not found his voice in roundly condemning the South Americans for bringing the beautiful game to global disrepute. Who is this man trying to please?

It is clearly a crime against humanity for a team to believe that through sheer manipulation, the trophy of the FIFA World Cup could be handed over to it no matter how poorly it played. In this case, Argentina (and by extension, Infantino) lost the World Cup on the field of play, deservedly so, and outside the field, the respect of the global football family by bringing out the beast in them.

FIFA has insisted that "nobody is selling football" as it pledged to continue consulting members over its controversial proposal to allow private investors to buy stakes in its competitions.

The plan has faced strong opposition from football's regional governing bodies. UEFA, which oversees European football, voted on Thursday to boycott future World Cups if the proposal moves forward. Concacaf, the governing body for North and Central America and the Caribbean, also announced that its 41 member associations had rejected the plan put forward by FIFA president Gianni Infantino.

FIFA has 211 member associations, and the proposal would require the support of at least 106 to pass. Together, UEFA and Concacaf represent 96 votes, making their opposition a significant obstacle.

In a statement released on Friday, FIFA said the consultation process had been affected by "incorrect media reports" but stressed that it remained committed to an open and democratic discussion.

"We respect the feedback and concerns expressed publicly and remain committed to an open and democratic consultation," the statement said. "We will continue this process to ensure every member association can cast its vote based on the facts.

"Nobody is selling football. This is not something FIFA would ever entertain."

FIFA President Gianni Infantino has proposed a plan that could significantly change the future of the FIFA World Cup by allowing private investors to buy a stake in its commercial operations. The proposal has sparked strong opposition, particularly from UEFA, which argues that football's biggest tournament should not be treated as a commercial asset for outside investors. Some European football officials have even suggested boycotting future World Cups if the plan moves forward.

What Is FIFA's Proposal?

FIFA plans to create a new company called FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE) to manage the commercial side of its competitions, including broadcasting rights, sponsorships, ticket sales, and licensing. FIFA would then sell a minority stake in this company to private investors, aiming to raise as much as $20 billion.

According to FIFA, it would retain majority ownership and full authority over football matters such as tournament rules, governance, and the international match calendar.

Why Is FIFA Doing This?

FIFA says the investment would help unlock the commercial value of the World Cup and generate more revenue for football worldwide. Every one of FIFA's 211 member associations would receive an immediate payment of about $20 million if the proposal is approved, followed by additional payments totaling around $86 million through 2038. For many smaller football associations, this funding could make a significant difference in developing the sport.

Why Is the Plan Controversial?

Many football organizations believe that introducing private investors could shift the focus from sporting values to financial profits. Critics worry that investors may push for higher ticket prices, more commercial advertising, larger tournaments, or more frequent competitions to maximize returns.

UEFA argues that the World Cup belongs to the global football community and should not be partially sold to private investors. It has also criticized FIFA for announcing the proposal without sufficient consultation with member organizations.

Why Is UEFA Threatening a Boycott?

UEFA believes the proposal could permanently change football governance and reduce the independence of the World Cup. Since Europe is home to many of the world's strongest national teams and most successful domestic leagues, a boycott by UEFA members would greatly reduce the prestige and competitiveness of the tournament.

However, FIFA decisions are made on a one-country, one-vote basis. Although UEFA has 55 member associations, FIFA has 211 members in total, meaning the proposal could still pass with support from other regions.

Who Could Invest?

The initial proposal reportedly came from Thrive Eternal, a permanent holding company led by investor Josh Kushner. If the plan advances, other investors, including sovereign wealth funds and international investment firms, could also seek to purchase a stake.

What Could Happen Next?

Several outcomes are possible. FIFA members may approve the proposal, allowing private investment to move forward. Alternatively, UEFA and other opponents could persuade enough member associations to reject it or force FIFA to revise its plans. UEFA has also discussed the possibility of boycotting future World Cups if the proposal is adopted.

Conclusion

The debate is about more than raising money. It concerns who should control the commercial future of the world's most prestigious football tournament. Supporters believe the plan would provide valuable funding for football development worldwide, while critics argue that it risks placing commercial interests ahead of the sport, its players, and its supporters. The outcome will depend on how FIFA's member associations vote in the coming months.

Cape Verde goalkeeper Josimar Dias, widely known as Vozinha, is set to join Chilean football powerhouse Colo Colo after his remarkable performances at the 2026 FIFA World Cup.

The 40-year-old veteran emerged as one of the tournament’s surprise stars, delivering a series of impressive displays against eventual champions Spain and defending champions Argentina.

While the transfer has not yet been officially completed, Colo Colo hinted at the move on Friday by sharing an image believed to feature Vozinha’s trademark curly hair.

“Bienvenido. Welcome. Bem-vindo. We look forward to seeing you at the Monumental Stadium,” the club posted on its social media platforms, sparking excitement among supporters and Chilean football fans.

Chile, meanwhile, missed out on qualification for a third consecutive FIFA World Cup, making the arrival of an international star of Vozinha’s profile even more significant for local fans.

Reuters reported that Aníbal Mosa, president of Blanco y Negro — the company that manages Colo Colo — confirmed the goalkeeper would travel to Chile in the coming days to complete the move.

“Vozinha is going to be a Colo Colo player. In the next few days, he will travel to Chile, undergo the necessary medical examinations, and then be presented here at the Estadio Monumental,” Mosa said.

The club president praised Vozinha’s World Cup performances, noting that his displays earned him the opportunity to join Colo Colo while also providing the club with additional commercial value.

Vozinha joined the World Cup after leaving Portuguese second-tier club Chaves and quickly became a global name. He was selected by fans for FIFA’s World Cup Dream Team after helping tournament debutants Cape Verde secure a goalless draw against Spain and take Argentina into extra time in the Round of 32.

The experienced goalkeeper captained Cape Verde during their historic first World Cup appearance before the African side were eliminated by Argentina in a dramatic 3–2 extra-time defeat.

His performances also brought him worldwide attention off the pitch, with his social media following reportedly growing from fewer than 50,000 followers before the tournament to nearly 29 million

More Articles ...

  1. LeBron James Joins 76ers for Final NBA Run, Signs Two-Year, $8 Million Deal
  2. NSC: Deplorable Stadiums, Epileptic Policy, Mediocre Bought ForeignDruggist
  3. Sports View On Political Change: What Must Be Said
Page 5 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