Inferno Infantino #3

Walter Sperger

2 hours ago

5 min read

Applause instead of a ballot – how to award a World Cup without actually awarding it

Just take a proper look at the picture: a world governing body with 211 member associations, gathered on 11 December 2024 in a congress hall in Bangkok – and instead of a secret ballot between rival bids, there is… applause. No voting slips, no debate, no real contest. Just clapping. That is how Saudi Arabia was officially confirmed as host of the 2034 World Cup – just as Spain, Portugal and Morocco had been for 2030, with three centenary matches thrown in for Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay.

Last week, "Inferno Infantino #2" was about Wales, Infantino's ever-tighter grip on power and the tug-of-war with UEFA. This week I want to take a step back and look at the system itself – the one that produces decisions like these in the first place. Because anyone who has seen that picture from Bangkok can't help asking: how can a World Cup end up looking like a deal done behind closed doors rather than a contest that was won?

One country, one vote – a fine idea that falls short

At the FIFA Congress, each of the 211 member associations has exactly one vote – Germany just the same as an association that can barely keep a league of its own afloat. At first glance, that sounds like democracy in action. In practice, though, the principle becomes a lever: whoever hands out big sums to small associations through development programmes such as FIFA Forward quietly builds up voting blocs that can be relied upon at elections and host decisions – regardless of whether the decision makes any footballing sense at all.

The democratic idea behind it is a lovely one, at least on paper: one vote per country, however big or small. But it counts for little when that single vote says nothing about whether the country has a footballing base anywhere near comparable to the traditional football nations. England isn't called the home of football by accident – the Football Association was founded in 1863, and generation after generation has grown up since on rec grounds, on kickabout pitches and in grassroots clubs. Germany's DFB, the German Football Association, reports a record 8.2 million members in 2026. Italy, Spain and the great South American football nations have carried this history with them for more than a hundred years – there, the game has grown from the bottom up over generations, not least because the climate and everyday life allow jumpers-for-goalposts football all year round. In countries such as Saudi Arabia or Qatar, things look rather different: the sport has been built from the top down in just a few years with enormous sums of state money, rather than carried by a grassroots base that has grown over generations – partly because temperatures of 40 degrees and more for much of the year make a Sunday-league kickabout simply hard going. A voting system that gives both the same weight ignores exactly that difference.

Awarded or sold?

Just how little this still has to do with a genuine bidding contest is shown by the numbers behind Saudi Arabia's 2034 bid: Australia and Indonesia withdrew their interest, leaving a single candidate standing. FIFA itself gave the bid 419.8 out of 500 points – the highest score any World Cup bid has ever received – even though eight of the fifteen planned stadiums have yet to be built and human rights, scheduling and infrastructure were all rated "medium risk". Norway and Switzerland lodged formal objections to the process, and Amnesty International fiercely criticised the decision. None of it made a blind bit of difference.

I'm not accusing anyone of lining their own pockets – I want to be absolutely clear about that. But as the Swabians in southern Germany would say, it certainly has a "G'schmäckle" – a whiff of something not quite right.

Heat, fixtures, climate

With all due respect, Saudi Arabia is no more an established football nation than Germany is a rugby nation – and nobody would seriously dream of handing us a Rugby World Cup. With summer temperatures there topping 40 degrees, there is now open talk of moving the 2034 tournament to the winter of 2034/35 – clashing with Ramadan, the 2034 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City and the Hajj pilgrimage in March. It's exactly the same pattern as Qatar 2022, only this time with even more fixture chaos for leagues, players and supporters. talkSPORT aptly calls it an "unprecedented scheduling dilemma".

Scientists are sounding the alarm over the 2030 World Cup too, spread as it is across six countries and three continents: every expansion of the tournament pushes its carbon footprint even higher. According to experts, transatlantic flights alone produce 1.5 to 2 tonnes of CO2 per person, and air travel accounts for 80 to 85 per cent of a World Cup's emissions – a share FIFA itself says it can barely reduce. On top of that, a Swiss watchdog found that FIFA had made misleading claims about the carbon neutrality of the World Cup in Qatar. When a global governing body officially commits to cutting its emissions by 50 per cent by 2030 and reaching net zero by 2040, yet every new decision heads in exactly the opposite direction, that isn't a climate strategy. That's greenwashing – and a spectacular own goal.

Germany's "Sommermärchen" wasn't spotless either

Yes, Germany's 2006 World Cup – our "Sommermärchen", the summer fairy tale – has still not been fully cleared up to this day: a payment of around 6.7 million euros that has never been satisfactorily explained has been hanging over it for years. That doesn't let anyone off the hook – in all honesty, it simply belongs in the picture. But the difference remains: Germany is, and always was, a football nation, with infrastructure that grew over time and a population that genuinely got behind the tournament – not multi-billionaires on the touchline representing values that a global organisation simply cannot stand for any more in 2026.

My appeal: award it, don't sell it

To the FIFA Congress: Introduce binding, verifiable criteria for every World Cup award – climate, player welfare, infrastructure, human rights and a genuine, home-grown footballing base. Acclamation instead of competition must not remain the way things are done.
To UEFA and the European associations: If you criticise the system, put your own reform proposal on the Congress table – not just press statements.
To us, the fans: With every new award, don't just ask "where?" but "why there?". Those who never ask get the World Cup they deserve.

#AwardedNotSold

Stay healthy – and may the ball always run your way.

Cheers, Walter