Gianni Infantino has inadvertently shown football fans that the FIFA president matters — so perhaps it is time to rethink how the role is filled, argues Matt Readman, chief strategy officer at sports creative agency Dark Horses.

A year ago, I wrote an article arguing that the role of a sports leader is to be caretaker, not a king. The warning was simple: make the story about yourself and you risk flying too close to the sun. The higher you climb, the harder the fall. It was not aimed exclusively at Gianni Infantino, but he featured heavily. A year on, it is tempting to say: I told you so.

The biggest crisis of Infantino's presidency

Infantino's attempt to open the World Cup to private investment has produced the biggest crisis of his increasingly controversial presidency. The plan was designed to raise around $4.2bn, but it collapsed within days after furious opposition from UEFA, the Asian Football Confederation and Concacaf, alongside a growing revolt from national associations and clubs.

It also cost Infantino one of his most senior executives. FIFA's chief operating officer, Kevin Lamour, publicly attacked the proposal before his employment was terminated. Senior adviser Carlos Cordeiro resigned over it as well.

The pattern of increasingly autocratic behaviour is alarming. The warning signs were already there when Infantino stated his intention to run for a fourth term, arguing that his first term should not count because he was completing Sepp Blatter's interrupted mandate. That is the sort of re-engineering of the rules we have come to expect from political dictators, not administrators. It also carries a particular historical weight at FIFA, an organisation that adopted governance reforms after the 2015 corruption scandal engulfed Blatter's administration and led to criminal investigations of numerous officials.

Infantino would no doubt be appalled by that comparison. He would point out that he was elected. He has delivered spectacular financial growth. He expanded the World Cup from 32 to 48 teams. FIFA has poured billions into development through its Forward programme. And, as he will repeatedly remind you, he has spent a decade insisting that his mission is to "serve" football.

Infantino has created his own potential downfall

He is, however, the product of a system in which a president can accumulate enormous personal authority while facing remarkably few meaningful checks. In 2023, he was re-elected unopposed. FIFA's 211 member associations may hold the votes, but ordinary supporters have none.

When surrounded by people whose careers depend, at least in part, on your goodwill, it becomes easy to confuse loyalty with agreement. The longer you remain in office, the easier it becomes to believe that your interests and the institution's interests are the same thing.

There is a certain irony in how Infantino has created his own potential downfall. He has spent years making himself and the FIFA presidency more famous than ever, becoming a household name instantly recognisable to the average football fan. And fans now know not only who he is, but exactly what he does.

They know the FIFA president can put his name on the Club World Cup trophy. They know he can launch a FIFA Peace Prize and personally present the inaugural award to a national president. They know he can introduce hydration breaks at every match of a World Cup. They know he can expand tournaments, create new competitions and turn the global calendar upside down. And now they know the FIFA president can attempt to sell a slice of the commercial future of the World Cup to private investors.

Make the FIFA president accountable to fans

That is quite an education. The more Infantino has promoted himself, the more he has opened football fans' eyes to the power of the presidency. And once people understand where power sits, they tend to start asking why they have no say over who wields it.

There is an interesting parallel in political science. Modernisation theory, in its simplest form, suggests that authoritarian regimes can sometimes preside over rapid economic and social development. But once the population becomes more educated, more connected and more politically engaged, people increasingly question the very authority that delivered that success in the first place.

Perhaps Infantino has fallen into the same trap. He has unwittingly created a more engaged global football audience. Fans now understand that the FIFA president matters — so maybe we should rethink how one is elected?

Technically, FIFA's presidential election is democratic. In practice, it is a democracy of football associations rather than football supporters. There has never even been a female candidate for the presidency, something called out by the campaign "10th FIFA President".

So why not change the system? Give fans a vote. Publish the results. Make national associations explain why they voted. Let presidential candidates campaign not just in hotel conference rooms, but in front of the people who actually watch the sport.

It would cost almost nothing, but it might change the psychology of the job. A FIFA president who knows they are accountable to millions of fans around the world might think differently about what success means. Infantino has inadvertently demonstrated just how serious a job it is — so perhaps it is time we started taking it seriously.

Matt Readman is chief strategy officer at sports creative agency Dark Horses.