There is an old principle that applies to any power - when there is no competition, self-forgetfulness comes. The monopoly sooner or later begins to live for itself, and not for the people it supposedly serves. This is exactly what is happening more and more often with FIFA.
The latest example - the canceled red card of the American international Folarin Balogun before the match with Belgium - reopened the question of whether an organization has acquired too much power over world football. When decisions begin to look “political” and not sporting, doubts inevitably arise. Are they justified? No one can prove this categorically. But when such cases are repeated, trust begins to erode. The real problem, however, is much bigger than a single red card.
FIFA has long ceased to be simply the guardian of football. Today, it is more like a global corporation whose main product is not the game, but television time. The expansion of the World Cup is the most striking example. First 32 teams. Then 48. Then there are already talks about 64 national teams.
To where? 80? 96? Why not all FIFA members?
The argument is always the same - more countries, more representation, more football. But behind this beautiful facade lies one simple word - money. More teams mean more matches. More matches mean more television rights. More television rights mean more revenue.
And who pays the bill? The footballers.
Seasons are practically endless now. Players go straight from club championships to European qualifiers, World Cup qualifiers, Nations League, European Championships, World Cups, Club World Cups and endless tours. Then we wonder why injuries are increasing. Why quality is falling. Why footballers burn out at 30.
And as if that weren't enough, another "brilliant" idea has appeared in football - mandatory hydration breaks. Of course, the official explanation sounds wonderful - care for the health of the players. But there is another detail. Each such break means approximately three minutes during which televisions can safely broadcast advertisements.
Two breaks in one match. Another six minutes of pure advertising time. That's what we see at the World Cup. Six minutes that are worth millions. The more such interruptions there are, the more football begins to resemble a television show in which the match is simply the content between commercials.
And here comes the big question. Why should football have only one world ruler? In almost every sector, competition exists precisely to limit abuses of power. In professional boxing, there are different federations. In chess, there are competing organizations. Even in combat sports, there are different structures. Only world football continues to live with the belief that one organization should set the rules for everyone.
And why?
Why not have an alternative international federation that would also organize world championships, offer a different management model, a different calendar, a different philosophy and more transparency? Competition does not destroy sport, it makes it better. It forces organizations to work better. To be more responsible. To think about the game first, not the financial statements.
Because if today football starts changing only according to the wishes of the television partners, tomorrow we will no longer watch sports. We will watch reality shows with a soccer ball. And then the biggest enemy of football will not be artificial intelligence, nor new technologies. It will be its own greed.