It has floated as an idea sometimes in the past, but the cups of the Biennial World of FIFA (both male and women) were formally proposed in May this year By the Saudi Arabia Football Federation in the 71st Fifas Congress.
The arguments to organize world glasses every two years include the greatest opportunity for more nations to organize the event, they killed the players who have more a chase of playing in the next and, of course, more frequent income for the governing body, Some of which would be assigned for development. The arguments against include the fatigue of the player, the clashes with an already overvalued sports calendar (including events such as the Olympic Games) and greater risks for the seasons of the clubs through players injuries while they are in International Cuty. And that is without touching the “What do fans want?” Debate.
Which leads us to governance issues. How something that would impact so fundamental not only the sport of which your organization has responsibility but also other organizations of which you are a member (such as the IOC) is floating without the main stakeholders? In spite of everything, it seems that lessons of the European Super League debacle were not learned earlier this year. Or at least not the fundamental one: you must commit to your main interested parties (fans, players, clubs, etc.) before deciding to move forward with your new and exciting innovative plan. The discussions of help to provide some practicality to the initial overexcitation that can generate a “new idea.” It can also reduce perceived differentials, spreading situations before they reach the stage of insults released publicly.
So what constitutes good government when it comes to decision making? And is the consultation always the answer? Decision-Making, If you are a private enterprise, does not need to meet consultion, though there is a reason why (a) Successful companions tend to have an active and variedus board of directors and (b) must firms behavior market market researcch and ugasibility plans plans plans plans plans plans plans plans and feasibility and feasibility Feasibility Plans and Feasibility and Feasibility Plans and Feasibility and Feasibility Plans and Feasibility and Feasibility Plans and Feasibility and Feasibility and Feasibility Given Fifa’s Structure, There are Two The opposite drivers in force here: to reach the agenda propose it in your congress (as it was done). Consult with interested parties before proposing this can be considered less transparent (and FIFA has been working hard to improve its transparency). However, consulting with interested parties before presenting a proposal in a government organization is also key to having an idea of where the problems are found (Money” Player’s fatigue” Sports calendar clashesto name a few) and whether they are solutionable or not.
There has been a lot of governance reform in FIFA in recent years, but there is clearly some way to go. Perhaps it is time for FIFA to consider its decision -making propressions, given the damage to its reputation to which the public can lead to which a change of proposition can lead.
