Sunday Essay: When BBC journalist Dan Roan asked FIFA's follically challenged bigwig Gianni Infantino whether he thought he'd lost control of 'his' event, AKA the World Cup, he wasn't being as brave as some social-media pundits and players seem to suggest the morning.

Don't get me wrong. Good for Dan for asking, what with referees, whole teams, scores of media refused entry or struggling to get into the United States to do their jobs in sport at the tip of a challenging ICE-berg era.

So, good for Dan for asking and doing his basic job. It's more than too many sitting alongside him in the media seats at major sporting events would do (or do do). Still, no act of courage was required. After all, we'd known the answer since sycophancy seized the day in Washington D.C on December 6 last year, when the football president gave the American holder of the same status in the United States, Donald Trump, the first FIFA Peace Prize, ensuring more headlines for that that the reason for the occasion: the draw for this year's World Cup.

Pass the sick bag - but don't forget to consider why Infantino would even dream of grovelling in public.

Among many clues as to what the man on the Clapham Omnibus may think are the number of brown noses and brown envelopes mentioned aplenty in the comments section of the following and many more posts and site like it - follow the social links if you must but you can also take my word for it if you choose :) ...

This BBC man wouldn’t let it lie after Gianni Infantino told everyone to ‘chill’ about the abominable state of Trump’s World Cup and had the entire internet cheering

The football World Cup kicks off in the United States this week – what do you mean you hadn’t heard? – although fears of what exactly it would like in Trump’s America already seem to be coming to pass. There’s been the outrageous treatment of the Iranian football team and their fans, the Somalian football […]

The PokeJohn Plunkett

None of it will have escaped Kirsty Coventry's notice, one would hope, as we look to the horizon of LA2028. Olympic solidarity? We'll see how that pans out in the political playbook soon enough.

Meanwhile, here's Kirsty answering a question from the Guardian's Sean Ingle, and doubling down on her view that 'at the Games', she does not believe that athletes should be paid, her view that it's for others to pay at their events, but not for the IOC to pay at its own showcase:

She mentions World Cups... of course, she doesn't - and cannot - mean THE World Cup now underway in the USA, Canada and Mexico. For example:

FIFA pays $0 directly to individual football players. Instead, FIFA pays prize money to the competing national federations and compensates the players' club teams via the Club Benefits Programme. Players receive their income for playing in the World Cup from two indirect sources: 

• National Federation Bonuses: Each country's football association negotiates its own player contracts. They usually offer a set match fee/appearance fee and performance bonuses (e.g., a massive bonus for winning the tournament) using the prize money they receive from FIFA. 
• Club Compensation: Through the FIFA Club Benefits Programme, FIFA pays clubs roughly $11,000 per player, per day for releasing them to the tournament, ensuring the players' normal club salaries continue.

Individual player earnings vary wildly, of course, but that's other-orgs money, not FIFA's. And in making sure the players get paid but doing so in a way that bypasses direct payment to players and compensates, in vast amounts, the federations whose delegates FIFA's leadership relies on for the votes that keep the FIFA leadership in power, in agreement and the status quo alive and kicking (- pun intended, though as Andrew Jennings once noted successfully - because people actually went to jail - alive and 'kickbacking':

2015 FIFA corruption case - Wikipedia

Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.Contributors to Wikimedia projects

RIP Andrew Jennings, Journalist & Giant Thorn In The Side Of Olympic Rogues

In tribute to Jennings, SOS recalls an editorial from my 2015 SwimVortex archive in which I consider a hearing of the U.S. Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, Insurance and Data Security, its focus the beautiful game and ethics

State Of Swimming +Craig Lord

We're a little over a decade on, Sepp Blatter gone, Gianni Infantino the head honcho at the helm of a global federation that is part of an economy that includes this:

Typically federations retain about 50% to 80% of the prize funds. A more detailed breakdown clarifies how the money is split:

1. Federation vs. Player Distribution

• The Player Share: Players do not have a set FIFA salary. They are paid by their respective national federations through negotiated bonuses, appearance fees, and percentages of the prize money.
• The Average Split: The typical player pool ranges from 20% to 50% of the team’s total World Cup prize money. 
• Notable Outliers: Some federations share much higher percentages. For example, U.S. Soccer pools and shares 80% of their FIFA prize money directly with the Men’s and Women’s National Team players, retaining 20% for the federation. 
• Remaining Federation Share: Therefore, national federations typically keep 50% to 80% of the FIFA money. They use this retained revenue to fund operational costs, youth academies, coaching staff salaries, and broader football development in their country. 

2. What Happens to Club Compensation?

• Club Benefits Programme: Aside from the prize money pool, FIFA allocates a massive, separate fund (e.g., $355 million for the expanded 48-team format) for the FIFA Club Benefits Programme.
• Who Gets Paid: This money is paid directly to the clubs (including lower-league teams) for releasing players to the World Cup and qualifying matches, not the players or national federations. 

3. Guaranteed Payouts

• Federations are guaranteed millions in participation and preparation grants before they even advance in the bracket, with performance-based bonuses scaling up as the team advances in the tournament. 

Typically federations retain about 50% to 80% of the prize funds.

A more detailed breakdown clarifies how the money is split:

1. Federation vs. Player Distribution
   The Player Share: Players do not have a set FIFA salary. They are paid by their respective national federations through negotiated bonuses, appearance fees, and percentages of the prize money.
   The Average Split: The typical player pool ranges from 20% to 50% of the team’s total World Cup prize money.
   Notable Outliers: Some federations share much higher percentages. For example, U.S. Soccer pools and shares 80% of their FIFA prize money directly with the Men’s and Women’s National Team players, retaining 20% for the federation.
   Remaining Federation Share: Therefore, national federations typically keep 50% to 80% of the FIFA money. They use this retained revenue to fund operational costs, youth academies, coaching staff salaries, and broader football development in their country.
2. What Happens to Club Compensation?
   Club Benefits Programme: Aside from the prize money pool, FIFA allocates a massive, separate fund (e.g., $355 million for the expanded 48-team format) for the FIFA Club Benefits Programme.
   Who Gets Paid: This money is paid directly to the clubs (including lower-league teams) for releasing players to the World Cup and qualifying matches, not the players or national federations.
3. Guaranteed Payouts
   Federations are guaranteed millions in participation and preparation grants before they even advance in the bracket, with performance-based bonuses scaling up as the team advances in the tournament.

All of which translates to a different variety of outcome at each federation/in each nation (just as in Olympic sport, there are continental considerations and choices op take into account but we're not getting into that for the opposes of this particular clarification)

The two examples of FIFA/national federation interface below sit within a complex world of vast economic difference that reflects, among other things, the gap in the wealth of national leagues and the choices made as a result of the nature of and relationship between national and club economies in a global football economy that generates an estimated economic output of $40 billion to $80 billion annually during major tournament years as a dominant driver of an overarching global sports industry estimated as a US$2.3 trillion market. A huge part of that market is the world this top 5 of national leagues inhabits:

Here are two national federations as examples of how their economies are arranged in relation to the economy of FIFA and the World Cup :

1. England (The Football Association - FA)

England has a highly lucrative home market via the English Premier League, meaning the players are already multi-millionaires who do not rely on international tournament earnings.
The Setup: England players traditionally receive a modest standard appearance fee of around £2,000 per match. However, since 2007, England players have famously donated 100% of their match fees to charity via the England Footballers Foundation.
The Tournament Bonus: The FA negotiates a "performance-only" bonus pot tied strictly to how far the team advances. For example, players only earn a significant payout (upwards of £400,000 to £500,000 each) if they actually reach the final or win the tournament. If they exit early, the players make next to nothing.
What the Federation Keeps: Because players do not take a flat percentage of the overall qualification or early group stage money, the English FA retains an estimated 80% to 90% of early FIFA payouts. They use this massive surplus to fund the national football pyramid, lower-league development, and grassroots coaching infrastructure.

2. Nigeria (Nigeria Football Federation - NFF)

Nigeria represents a classic "exporter nation." The domestic Nigerian Professional Football League (NPFL) does not have lucrative TV rights, so nearly all top national team players move abroad to play in the English Premier League, Serie A, or Ligue 1. However, because the national federation is less financially stable than England’s, player payments are structured very differently.
The Setup: African nations like Nigeria, Senegal, and South Africa typically negotiate a Revenue Share System. Because players understand the financial volatility of their home federations, they demand locked-in percentages of whatever prize money the team brings in, regardless of whether they win the trophy.
The Tournament Bonus: Negotiations are often highly contentious. During international tournaments, players usually demand a 30% to 50% flat share of the total prize money. For instance, during recent Africa Cup of Nations and World Cup cycles, the Super Eagles players and the NFF famously haggled over whether the players' pool would be 25% or 30% of the federation's multimillion-dollar prize payout.
What the Federation Keeps: The NFF typically retains around 50% to 70% of the FIFA money. While this is a lower percentage than what England's FA keeps, this retained FIFA cash is vital. For an exporter nation, these FIFA payouts represent the primary source of funding to keep the federation afloat, including covering vast travel costs across the African continent, and payments to international coaches, among others.

So, there it is, even in the 'beautiful' game: an Olympic-style model - the money, no matter how big or small the sums are, is driven from one part of the machinery to another without going directly to the folk providing the fuel.

A good moment to remind ourselves of what underpins a certain form of dependency at national-federation level, the very place where the votes that decide the structures of who governs what and who gets what are cast.