Power Struggle at the Top of World Football: UEFA, FIFA, and the 'World Football Clubs' Deal

I once misread a contract live on air, so now I cross-check three sources before speaking. And when three independent sources confirm a power struggle escalating between UEFA and FIFA, I am compelled to write.

It all started with a fairy tale. In a speech in Copenhagen, UEFA President Aleksander Ceferin told the story of "the emperor's new clothes" – a metaphor not hard to decipher. He said: "No politics or amount of power gives anyone the right to sell football." That statement, recorded by Goal.com, was not just criticism. It was a declaration about control over world football's commercial assets.

At 56, I don't believe in the word "certain" at the negotiating table; I only believe in clauses. And the clause in dispute here is commercial rights – the financial lifeblood of both FIFA and UEFA.

Context: When two giants no longer look the same way

The war between FIFA President Gianni Infantino and UEFA President Aleksander Ceferin is not new. But it has shifted from quiet disagreements to open confrontation, with mutual accusations and a proposal to create a new body called "World Football Clubs".

According to Goal.com, tensions stem from disputes over commercial rights and transparency. Ceferin accuses FIFA of trying to transfer commercial rights to a subsidiary – a structure often used to ring-fence assets, attract private investment or sovereign funds. FIFA, in turn, accuses UEFA of running a "misinformation campaign" to influence the upcoming presidential election in March.

This is not a player transfer rumor. It is a battle for control over the money flow of global football. And it is being taken to US courts, where disputes over investment proposals are underway. Once the fight leaves the pitch and enters the courtroom, the rules change completely. It is no longer about winning on the table, but about who holds the power to decide the sport's financial future.

This war affects not only federations. It also impacts broadcasters and sponsors holding long-term rights contracts. If commercial rights are transferred to a subsidiary, existing contracts could be voided or renegotiated. That creates uncertainty – and in business, uncertainty equals risk.

History shows FIFA and UEFA have clashed before. In 2026, the European Super League plan was jointly quashed by FIFA and UEFA. But this time, the battle lines have shifted. Clubs, through the EFC, are siding with UEFA, and some continental confederations as well. This is a war where both sides believe they are protecting football's future.

Analysis: The three numbers of a power struggle

Every contract has three numbers: the announced, the real, and the one they want you to believe. In this case, the announced number is "football's interest". The real number is control over broadcasting, sponsorship and commercial packages of competitions. And the number both sides want us to believe? That they are fighting for the fans. But when we look at the financial structure, we see a different picture.

Look at the structure. UEFA controls Europe's biggest club competitions – Champions League, Europa League – and national leagues. FIFA controls the World Cup and global tournaments. Both have huge revenues from broadcasting and sponsorship. But when FIFA proposes transferring commercial rights to a subsidiary, UEFA fears this structure will erode its power and create a hard-to-control financial system.

Nasser Al-Khelaifi, Chairman of the European Club Association (EFC), is emerging as a central figure. The PSG owner is pushing the idea of "World Football Clubs" – a body representing clubs globally, parallel to six continental confederations. He calls it an effort for "unity, transparency and honesty". But in journalistic circles, we know: insiders are often silent, outsiders are often certain. Al-Khelaifi is not silent. He is building a coalition.

Based on my experience covering matches and transfers, this model is familiar. It is a political gamble: uniting clubs and continental confederations to isolate FIFA. Six continental confederations are reportedly leaning toward the proposal. If successful, it will change the global balance of power. If it fails, it could leave a rift hard to heal in football governance.

Remember: the pandemic didn't kill the transfer market, it exposed who was playing with real money. Here, real money lies in commercial rights. And this war has no room for empty promises. Without specific numbers, no one can verify. Ceferin talks about "selling football" but gives no valuation. Infantino accuses "misinformation" but offers no evidence. All are statements designed to gain advantage before the election.

No balance sheets have been published. No asset valuations. No cash flow figures. All we have are statements. And in my world, statements are worth less than numbers.

Contrarian view: The blind spot of the official story

Media are focused on the "misinformation campaign" accusation and the March election. But that is the surface. The real blind spot is in US courts. Legal disputes over investment proposals are being heard there, and they could set precedents on how football is owned and sold. This means the war is no longer in the hands of football federations. It is being pushed outside football's own governance system. Once courts intervene, decisions will no longer rest on federation votes but on legal arguments and evidence.

Another blind spot: no one gives specific numbers. No contract values, no transfer fees, no asset valuations. Only words. And without numbers, we cannot know who is telling the truth. I once misread a contract live on air, so I know: emotion never replaces data. In this case, both sides are trying to create an emotional story – one of "protecting football", the other of "fighting monopoly". But neither offers concrete financial evidence.

Moreover, Al-Khelaifi's role raises a conflict-of-interest question. He is both EFC chairman and PSG owner. If "World Football Clubs" succeeds, he will have greater influence over European football's commercial decisions. This is not necessarily wrong, but it must be weighed. In football, money and power always go together. And when one person holds both, transparency is a prerequisite.

Takeaway: The next domino

The FIFA presidential election in March will be the flashpoint. If Infantino keeps his seat, the "World Football Clubs" proposal may be pushed back. If the Ceferin-Al-Khelaifi axis gains the upper hand, world football's power structure could change forever. But don't forget: a player's price is not the number on screen, but the sum of rejections. Here, the price of power is transparent rejections.

The question is not who will win, but who will pay. And will fans still be mentioned in negotiations, or just a footnote in a contract? When football becomes a legal and political war, fans – those who pay for tickets and broadcast subscriptions – risk being left behind. That is the next domino we must watch.