In that sense, the peace prize is the most honest FIFA trophy than the World Cup.

that pattern is hard to read as success. De facto, FIFA does function more as a political organisation than a sporting one. It negotiates with governments and allocates tournaments in ways that serve state interests even though it is not held to account like a political institution.

football globally. Some federations have qualified for the World Cup without a functioning professional league and depend heavily on diaspora players who are trained and professionalised in other countries’ systems. If the core task is to build sustainable local football infrastructures and pathways

Also! What is “developing nations” in FIFA’s register? Sporting or Economic? Either way, If most “developing nations” are already receiving concessional loans from China for infrastructure (including stadiums), and FIFA Forward money for football development…then what exactly is Saudi financing?

73% of DRC first team squad tonight against Nigeria, were born outside the continent. DRC does not allow dual nationality above 21 years old, yet, in practice, bends that rule for elite athletes.

Then the product should not pretend to be an elite sporting competition. Nevertheless, If FIFA insists on democratic governance while claiming to deliver elite sporting merit, it will collapse under its own contradictions. And these contradictions , should be FIFA’s pressure points.

If FIFA’s mandate is:
to develop football, advance competitive excellence and to produce elite tournaments, then governance by political-democratic logic is misaligned with the mission. Conversely,
If FIFA’s mandate is representation, inclusion, global political equalisation...

The democratic model has done little to develop the sport in small nations. Using Africa‘s FAs as a case study, national teams of the most “developed” FAs are filled with Europe-developed players.
Which brings us to the question, what is FIFA’s actual mandate?

Because democracy drives decision-making, sporting outcomes reflect political incentives, not competitive excellence. Which makes the World Cup format a political product, not a sporting product.

Decisions made democratically shape the meritocratic product. There is a direct thoroughline:

Equal FA votes → Confederation power → FIFA Council influence →
Tournament formats → Slot allocations → Qualification outcomes → Sport quality.

Thus, boardroom democracy inevitably shapes on-field merit.

A system cannot enforce merit in its product while enforcing equality in its governance without creating contradictions. FIFA’s democracy (expanding the World Cup) will undermine the sporting mandate the institution claims to have, and will expose its true allegiance.

“Advantage”

Revolutionary times 😉