Long before the opening kickoff of the 2026 FIFA World Cup, and weeks after the final whistle was blown, a cascade of controversial decisions made before, during, and after the tournament has continued to dominate global football conversations. What was supposed to be collective decision-making across the governing body has repeatedly been carried out unilaterally by a single individual, prompting critics to question whether FIFA operates as a transparent democratic organization or a private one-man enterprise.
Despite the existence of multiple statutory advisory bodies and oversight committees designed to contribute to governance, the global football community has been repeatedly shocked by top-down decisions made without broader consultation. Committee members have repeatedly hinted that they were kept completely in the dark about key policy stances before they were announced publicly. This consistent sidelining of mandated governing bodies has gradually eroded public and institutional trust in FIFA, creating a rift between leadership and the core stakeholders of the sport.
Where players, national coaches, and member associations once accepted rulings handed down from FIFA leadership without public pushback, the 2026 tournament has seen widespread public expression of discontent. For example, players and coaches openly aired frustration over last-minute scheduled water breaks, accusing FIFA of prioritizing commercial interests over the flow and integrity of the game. Another major point of contention was FIFA’s deliberate silence when tournament hosts denied entry to multiple participating players and supporters on what have since been revealed as questionable grounds. Even the mother of Cape Verde’s star goalkeeper Vozinha, who gained global fame during the tournament, was initially barred entry before the decision was reversed following public outcry, and she was ultimately welcomed to the host country publicly.
To date, it remains unclear why FIFA’s top leader made so many unreciprocated concessions to the tournament’s lead host nation, but missteps have continued to pile up. The leadership’s position already looked untenable after a controversial late decision to reverse a red card issued to an American player following a phone call from senior U.S. football officials. While widespread calls for the leader’s resignation emerged immediately after the incident, the incumbent managed to weather the immediate storm. Many observers hoped the backlash would prompt more careful governance going forward, but those hopes were quickly dashed. During the tournament final, halftime was extended to twice its standard length to accommodate entertainment performances favored by American commercial partners, a change that drew widespread criticism for disrupting the rhythm of the deciding match.
After the FIFA chief survived the wave of criticism to retain his position and wrap up the tournament, missteps reached a climax when he unveiled a controversial plan to list shares of FIFA’s flagship tournaments in a separate commercial entity and sell the stake to private investors. Critics immediately slammed the scheme, saying it amounted to a global bribery scheme: member associations that supported the proposal would receive generous financial rewards, while those that opposed it would be sidelined and receive far fewer benefits. While the FIFA president has insisted he would not personally profit from the plan, public investigations have confirmed that he would personally earn up to $30 million if the plan went through — 10 times his current annual salary of $3 million. Although the proposal has since been withdrawn in response to public pressure, the damage to the leadership’s credibility has already been done. The president’s position is now widely considered untenable, after overreaching to extract maximum personal and commercial gain from the world’s biggest sporting event, he now faces near-certain removal from office.