Two Visions of Football Governance: The UK’s Blueprint and FIFA’s World Cup Reality

English football has spent the past year digesting what many have called a watershed moment in how the sport is governed. The Football Governance Act 2025 (“the FGA”) has established an Independent Football Regulator built on principles of financial sustainability, transparency, meaningful stakeholder engagement and diversity. Meanwhile, the 2026 FIFA World Cup has offered a rather different vision of what football governance looks like in practice — raising questions about accountability, consistency and inclusion at the sport’s highest level.

The Act’s Promise

The FGA establishes minimum standards around financial sustainability and governance and places fans and stakeholders at its centre, codifying the requirement for meaningful consultation on changes to a club’s home ground, crest or primary kit colours, with major heritage-altering decisions requiring the support of a majority of supporters. Clubs must publish annual Corporate Governance Statements, creating a culture of transparency which is a welcomed and overdue development. On diversity, equity and inclusion, the FGA signals that DE&I is a structural concern, not an afterthought — advancing fan empowerment, protecting supporter rights and demanding proportionate, stakeholder-engaged decision-making from licensed clubs. The philosophy is clear: well-governed institutions build trust, attract responsible investment and protect communities.

FIFA’s World Cup: A Governance Stress Test

Against this backdrop, events at the 2026 World Cup have highlighted what happens when consistent governance is not prioritised or is unenforced at the top of the global game.

The tournament’s most glaring controversy centred on US forward Folarin Balogun, shown a straight red card following a VAR review for a challenge on a Bosnian defender. What followed raised question marks in relation to the integrity of the sport: FIFA suspended the automatic one-match ban, we understand, after direct contact between President Trump and FIFA President Gianni Infantino, sparking widespread accusations of political interference. UEFA said FIFA had “crossed a red line,” noting that the automatic suspension is embedded in football regulations and “is not a discretionary option.” Where the Football Governance Act enshrines independent, rule-based decision-making, FIFA appeared to bend its own rules for reasons that are unclear.

VAR inconsistency compounded the damage. Egypt’s formal complaint after their round-of-16 defeat by Argentina — in which a goal was ruled out for a foul spotted in the build-up nearly 20 seconds earlier — captured a wider pattern of disputed and apparently inconsistent officiating that dominated the tournament. The absence of communication from the VAR room fuelled accusations of double standards, with former FIFA referee Mark Clattenburg criticising inconsistent application of the laws and former England manager Sam Allardyce warning the tournament risked appearing “rigged.”

Beyond inconsistency in applying the rules, FIFA also changed them mid-tournament. New laws officially came into force on 1 July, despite FIFA having clear discretion to delay their implementation — and despite some changes having received barely any testing in widely broadcast competition. A revised “mistaken identity” clause was introduced via a late IFAB circular, a second batch of changes approved at a special meeting just months before the tournament. The handball law, meanwhile, has been rewritten so many times it has become almost indecipherable. Basic, long-standing laws — such as the automatic yellow card for removing a shirt in celebration — went entirely unenforced. Good governance begins with clear rules, applied consistently and communicated plainly. At this World Cup, FIFA did not meet these expectations.

Two Games, Two Governance Cultures

Perhaps the starkest contrast with the Act’s DE&I ambitions came in relation to the treatment of Somali referee Omar Artan — named CAF’s Best Referee of 2025 and set to become the first-ever Somali World Cup official — who was denied entry to the United States despite holding valid credentials. FIFA’s response was to say the matter was beyond its control. Infantino told critics to “chill and relax.” It was a response that encapsulated the tournament’s broader governance failures: no advocacy, no accountability, no transparency.

The Football Governance Act reflects a hard-won understanding that governance is the foundation upon which trust, inclusion and competitive integrity are built. The 2026 World Cup has served as an unintentional but powerful argument for why those principles matter — and what the global game stands to lose when they are absent.

What’s next?

With UK clubs approaching the provisional license application window (November 2026 – February 2027) there is much to be learnt from the World Cup. As a lifelong football fan and long-time governance professional I am looking forward to supporting clubs across the pyramid as they grapple with these new requirements and related scrutiny.

To find out more about our football governance solutions visit our webpage.