After Blatter: How much will FIFA change?

The ding-dong-the-witch-is-dead chorus of euphoria that followed Tuesday’s news of FIFA President Sepp Blatter resigning may be as much about wishful thinking as it was a sober reflection on the significance of the change. Supporters and opponents of the idea greeted it as signaling a European takeover of the global game — Blatter may be Swiss, but his support base in global soccer’s governing body has always been the global south. Some even speculated that the change at the top would presage a revisiting of the decisions to award the 2018 World Cup to Russia and the 2022 tournament to Qatar. But amid the giddy carnival of speculation, it’s worth examining not only how much has changed, but also how little.

Herewith, five key questions whose answers remain to be seen, but which will determine the future of governance of the global game:

1. Has power actually shifted in FIFA?

Blatter was voted into a fifth term as head of FIFA less than a week ago, by 133 of the world’s 209 national football associations.  Only 73 voted for his opponent, Jordan’s Prince Ali bin-al-Hussein — who was backed by the European federations.  Now, the same electorate will chose Blatter’s successor.

The member associations don’t only decide the winner, they also decide who can run for president of FIFA. Under current regulations, introduced by Blatter to protect himself from outsider candidates, aspirants need five nominations. Jerome Champagne, formerly a FIFA official and the only person who offered the prospect of real reform last time out couldn't even get on the ballot. Like their parent body, the member associations in each country are neither transparent, democratic nor publicly accountable. Any attempt by a government to oust a corrupt football administration results in that country’s swift ban from all international competition under rules designed to prevent “political interference.”

It’s a safe bet that many of those who will vote for FIFA’s next president are more focused on their own survival and interests right now than on the common good of the game.

2. Will FIFA’s election offer real alternatives? 

There is little evidence, thus far, to suggest that the majority of the world’s football associations are ready to countenance real challenges to their power. The current front-runners, Prince Ali and UEFA chief Michel Platini, have previously put themselves forward and not done too well. Ali was widely viewed as a decent if uninspiring figurehead. Platini had consorted with Blatter before they parted ways, and his vote for Qatar to host the 2022 World Cup put him at odds with European power brokers who most vociferously opposed Blatter.

History suggests that a candidate backed by Europe and North America will struggle to win enough votes elsewhere to prevail. In the coming weeks, some new candidates are likely to emerge to rally the Blatter electoral majority by professing reformist intentions, but whose main agenda would be to preserve a status quo from which most members of FIFA’s electorate have richly benefited.

3. Is there hope for immediate reform even before Blatter’s successor is chosen?

There was much talk at Tuesday’s press conference by Domenico Scala, chairman of FIFA’s Audit and Compliance Committee, of reforms and inquiries being pursued even during the period of at least six months during which Blatter will remain in power. In particular, FIFA will vet its executive committee — a number of whose members faced arrest or questioning last week — rather than leaving that to the regional confederations. That may be a step forward, but it’s rather late in the day and may prove too little to assuage critics. There’s unlikely to be a major reform push in the months preceding a leadership election, and while criminal proceedings are underway. 

4. Will world soccer’s grass-roots public have any say?

With a high-stakes election looming, the public debate over FIFA’s future will inevitably be led by the candidates for president. The collective track record and the narrowness of the perspective of all of those who have thus far stepped forward suggest the debate will be limited — the manifestos of Blatter rivals last time around did little to address desperately needed structural reform. New FIFA Now, a reform movement, has been campaigning for an independent global commission to be assembled to guide that process. It will be interesting to see whether any of the putative candidates make any effort to significantly mobilize the game’s grass-roots constituencies beyond the existing corridors of power. Even more interesting to watch, in the coming months, will be any efforts by players, coaches, fans, clubs and critics to have a real impact on the debate.

5. Will the Russia 2018 and Qatar 2022 World Cup decisions be revisited?

It’s too soon to tell, and the answer may rest less with the current FIFA electorate than with the Swiss Attorney General, who last week announced an investigation into the decision-making on 2018 and 2022 host countries. More uncomfortable revelations are likely to emerge about those decisions and raise pressure, even though the reform consensus in FIFA is likely to be more oriented to the future than to revisiting past decisions. But as the organization looks to reorient itself after 17 years under Blatter, things could get very messy.