It crackles in the highest echelons of global football. Both the world football association FIFA and the European association UEFA are flexing their muscles for spots in a crowded calendar, with a two-yearly World Cup as the highest bet. Background to a fierce battle that will determine the future of football.
Believe it or not: in the football news of the past few months there was a topic that was discussed even more often than the referees or VAR.
Every day at least one player or driver complained about it. Or was there a high football body that discussed the plans. Supplemented with a handful of studies.
All on the same topic… the football calendar. Where does all the commotion come from?
Revenue stream
The planning of the world’s top football is based on the “international match calendar”. A schedule that determines the moments for club and country football for a period of 10 years.
The current cycle will end in 2024.
The time to set the calendar for a new decade is approaching. The decision could be made on December 20. That is why major powers such as FIFA and UEFA are currently lobbying to see their interests translated as best as possible in the new calendar design.
These interests are (obviously) mainly of a financial nature.
A look at FIFA’s turnover figures shows why they are mainly pushing for a biannual World Cup from 2028.
In the years of a world championship (2014 and 2018) there is a clear peak in the income of the world football association. During the other years, losses are invariably incurred. Do you understand a little better why FIFA is so eager to double the number of World Cups?
UEFA, on the other hand, is much less inclined to the idea – even if they could also organize a biannual European Championship. The European Football Association is much less dependent on that one country tournament, because they enjoy a high annual income stream thanks to the Champions and Europa League.
The revenues of FIFA (blue) and UEFA (green) compared: note the striking high blue peaks in the World Cup years.
high voltage
In recent years, FIFA has already tried to get a piece of that lucrative club football. Among other things, by expanding the World Cup for clubs to a format with 24 teams. Conversely, UEFA got involved in national football by setting up the Nations League. According to FIFA, however, the latter tournament is “impossible to explain to people and should be deleted”.
This mixing in the football calendar caused high tension between the two parties. But now that FIFA is determined to push through a biennial World Cup, the disagreement is reaching a climax. Partly because the first “double” edition in 2028 would coincide with a European Championship.
However, the marketing department of the World Football Association pulled out all the stops to convince everyone that doubling the number of World Cups is indeed a good idea. With some ex-stars who conducted transparent promo talks and a completely skewed poll among fans.
The research found that a World Cup every four years is still the most popular option among all age groups – even among young people. However, FIFA did not mention this in its press release.
New calendar
Criticism of the idea is deafeningly loud from all quarters.
Many players and trainers fear an even fuller calendar. Romantics warn of a devaluation in value if there are suddenly twice as many World Cups. Even the UCI and the Olympic Committee expressed their concerns that it would undermine other sports.
And according to UEFA, it would damage the quality of club football. Although they are of course brooding on plans to expand the Champions League.
It leaves FIFA all cold. For the time being, they eagerly continue with their plans to shake up football. This week Arsene Wenger, FIFA’s director of football development, held a meeting with all national coaches to discuss options for a reform of the calendar.
Two options are on the table – both with far fewer international matches. Plan A is one long break in October, plan B two shorter ones in March and October. Major tournaments can then take place in June. And in July there is a mandatory rest period of 25 days.
FIFA is promoting that model with figures showing that the number of air miles would be drastically reduced. For example, Messi traveled no less than 324,000 kilometers between 2014 and 2018 to show his tricks everywhere. In the new proposal, that would be more than halved.
Yet even that cannot convince the critics. They again counter the new calendar with a handful of arguments. Are fans waiting for so many international matches in a row? What if a country has many injured key players just in that one decisive period? And what do clubs think about not seeing their expensive players for three full months a year?
Consensus
In recent weeks, the European Football Association in particular has not shunned the language of war to put a stop to the revolution.
For example, UEFA president Aleksander Ceferin announced that he is prepared to boycott the tournament. “As far as I know, the South Americans think the same. So good luck with a World Cup without those countries.”
Only the two continents together do not have enough votes (65) to stop the reforms during the possible meeting on December 20. Moreover, an increase in the number of World Cups is attractive for Asian and African countries.
Still, FIFA chief Gianni Infantino remarkably stepped back on Wednesday by declaring that he wants to find a consensus. He had previously been under fire for an hour by European federation presidents in a video call.
Which superpower will be the first to make concessions?
