FIFA bows to King Trump under Gianni Infantino

FIFA has always loved regimes and dictatorships. Italy was chosen in 1934 because fascism would ensure discipline. When the Soviet Union refused to play the 1973 playoff match in Pinochet’s Chile (because the pitch was a concentration camp), FIFA disqualified the USSR.

The men's soccer World Cup, which kicks off in three months in the United States, Canada and Mexico, will be the most political and politicized in history – even more so than the tournaments held under Italian fascism in 1934 or the Argentine dictatorship in 1978. 

This is because the new leadership of FIFA, headed by its high prophet, FIFA president Gianni Infantino, has bowed down so disgracefully at the feet of Donald Trump that the “king” had an easy time declaring he didn’t deem Iran's participation in the tournament appropriate – as he happens to be currently bombing the country’s schools and hospitals – despite the fact that the Iranian national team officially qualified on the pitch.

No one was surprised by this blatant political interference in sports. Up until a few years ago, FIFA protocol – however hypocritical – did not stop politics from deciding the fate of soccer, but it at least required it to operate in the shadows. Under the new regime, however, everything has changed.

Ever since becoming FIFA president, Infantino has openly applauded Trump's victory. He accompanied the US president on his trips to the Gulf states, created the “FIFA Peace Prize” out of whole cloth specifically for him and participated alongside him in various diplomatic initiatives, from the ill-fated Abraham Accords to the shameful Board of Peace. 

At the latter’s meeting last month, Infantino showed up wearing a red cap emblazoned with “USA” and, together with Argentine President Javier Milei and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, began dancing (atop the corpses of the Palestinians) to the tune of Elvis Presley's “Burning Love.” He then declared that FIFA would do its part in the real estate speculation over the rubble of Gaza by building around 50 soccer fields, despite having remained completely silent in the face of stadiums and sports infrastructure being razed to the ground in Palestine, and the hundreds of male and female soccer players killed by Israeli bombs.

Of course, FIFA has always loved regimes and dictatorships. Italy was chosen in 1934 because fascism would ensure discipline. When the Soviet Union refused to play the 1973 playoff match in Chile because the Santiago stadium had been turned into a concentration camp by dictator Augusto Pinochet, FIFA disqualified the USSR and awarded the victory to Chile. And in 1978, while political opponents were being tortured just a short distance from the stadium, FIFA stated without a hint of irony that the people were happy and the restaurants were full, confirming the World Cup in Argentina.

The migrant workers who died building the cathedrals in the desert commissioned by Qatar for the 2022 World Cup, and those currently dying for the exact same reason in Saudi Arabia – which was automatically awarded the 2034 tournament – are recent in historical memory. But such a brazen alignment with a theocratic and obscurantist regime like Trump's United States has never been seen before.

This is only the second time in history that a country qualifies for the World Cup but cannot play in it because it has been invaded or bombed – and in this case, moreover, by the very country hosting the competition. The first time was Austria in 1938 when it was annexed by Nazi Germany. Everyone is free to draw their own comparisons.

Beyond Trump's words – which, incidentally, came after the Tehran sports minister's statements regarding the impossibility of participating, but before the Iranian Football Federation's statements asserting their right to participate – Iran's presence at the World Cup would be incredibly complicated regardless. Drawn into Group G alongside Belgium, Egypt and New Zealand, the team is scheduled to play in California, home to the largest Iranian community in the US. This would pose a serious public order problem. While it is true that the exiled community is almost entirely hostile to the regime, it is even more hostile to the way their home country is currently being bombed.

But the trouble doesn’t end there. For the expanded 48-team World Cup, 13 matches are scheduled in Mexico, 13 in Canada and no less than 78 in the United States. A travel ban is currently in effect in the US, barring entry for citizens of about 40 countries. This, of course, includes Iran, but also other qualified teams like Haiti, Ivory Coast and Senegal. Furthermore, given the wanton and arbitrary nature of the deportations, entering the United States is highly inadvisable for the fans of many South American teams, even if it is technically possible. The exact same thing happened during last summer's Club World Cup, which resulted in empty stadiums.

And here we come to the heart of the matter. It is clear that a number of FIFA executives, especially the European ones, do not appreciate Infantino's groveling before Trump at all. But the cult governing FIFA's new leadership is about catering to consumer society. After declaring revenues of over $7 billion for the 2019–2022 cycle, Infantino has projected and promised no less than $12 billion for the 2023–2026 cycle.

Money is everything for the high priests at FIFA. So far, Infantino has kept his position safe thanks to generous donations – in the form of sponsorships – from the Gulf states, the very same ones he visited alongside Trump. But the holy war waged by the American theocracy and the erasure of teams and fans from the tournament are not only becoming politically hard to sustain, but they could soon become economically unviable as well. Only in that scenario will FIFA decide that perhaps it needs a new prophet. For now, the organization is quite content to have found yet another king to bow down before, even if this “king” takes it upon himself to decree who can and cannot participate in the World Cup.

Ultimately, it has always been this way; those who owned the means of production have always called the shots. The only difference with dictatorships and regimes is that they can do so more overtly. At least as long as they bring in the cash.

© Il Manifesto Global