Firstpost Explains: What is FIFA's biennial World Cup plan and why the opposition

On Thursday, FIFA unveiled the proposal to conduct the men’s World Cup every two years instead of the current format of every four years. The men’s World Cup has been held every four years since 1930 apart from the 12-year break between 1938 and 1950 due to the second World War. The women’s event has been held every four years since its first edition in 1991. Former Arsenal manager Arsene Wenger, currently FIFA’s head of global development, has laid out a plan for a new calendar with a major international tournament every summer and the World Cup, Euros on alternate years. Not so surprisingly the pushback from European football body (UEFA) and leagues has been swift. Wenger’s plan targets a 2028 window for the biennial World Cup – the same time when Los Angeles is scheduled to host the Summer Olympics and Paralympics. Not so surprisingly, IOC are pretty miffed too. At the heart of the whole plan and suggestions of reforms is one thing: money. What is FIFA proposing? The overall plan is to reshape the schedule of international football from 2024. The presentation suggested more top-level tournaments and fewer qualifying games as the priority with a biennial men’s World Cup the key takeaway. FIFA-managed calendar mandates when clubs must release players for national teams. Wenger said his priorities were less travel for players and less disruption for their clubs plus giving young talent worldwide “a chance to shine” by playing more meaningful games. The current system — that sees players based in Europe taking long-haul flights throughout the season in short breaks for national-team games — could be replaced by a single block of fewer qualifying games in October. International tournaments would occupy June each year, with players proposed to get a mandatory 25-day vacation in July before rejoining their clubs. Who is in the FIFA camp behind biennial World Cup? About 80 former internationals such as Ronaldo, Jurgen Klinsmann, Roberto Carlos, Dider Drogba, Peter Schmeichel, Tim Cahill went to Qatar for two days of FIFA-hosted talks and emerged with consensus for playing the tournament twice as often. “We all agreed with the new proposal of the calendar,” said Brazil great Ronaldo, who went to four World Cups and won twice. He described FIFA’s proposal as “just amazing.” “The current calendar, as far as the World Cup is concerned, was conceived almost 100 years ago, and so the world has completely changed since then. I believe that the moment has come for us to evolve with them, with the new generations, the fast-paced information – this is very important for us, and I believe that,” he went on to add. The plan has recently found support in national federations of Bangladesh, Maldives, Nepal and Sri Lanka. Earlier, president of the Moroccan football federation had called the biennial World Cup to be “more democratic” while lambasting the opponents as “egotists” protecting their own interests. Confederation of African Football had also supported the idea in July. Who are the opponents and what are they saying? “We can decide not to play in it. As far as I know the South Americans are on the same page, so good luck with a World Cup like that. I think it will never happen as it is so much against the basic principles of football. To play every summer a one-month tournament, for the players it’s a killer,” said UEFA chief Aleksander Ceferin in an interview with The Times . He said the biennial World Cup would “kill football” and criticised FIFA for going public without proper consultation. Speaking at the General Assembly of the European Clubs Association earlier this week, Ceferin said holding the World Cup every two years would “lead to more randomisation, less legitimacy and unfortunately, dilute the World Cup itself”. He made clear UEFA would not introduce a Euros every two years if the new calendar went through. “It might be good for UEFA financially but the problem is we would be killing football like that,” he said. “We are killing the players. I don’t see the clubs allowing the players to go and that would divide us completely." “I have spoken to Zvonimir Boban (UEFA’s chief of football) and he has said players are not fully recovered from a World Cup or Euros until the November. Imagine that happens every year?” “A biennial World Cup would negatively disrupt the football economy and undermine players’ welfare in a calendar that is already overloaded,” read a statement by the World Leagues Forum – an association of professional football leagues. European Leagues Board of Directors which has members in Spanish, English, German, Italian, Portuguese, French leagues among others said, “Leagues have firmly and unanimously opposed any proposals to organise the FIFA World Cup every two years.” “New competitions, revamped competitions or expanded competitions for club and national team football both at continental level and/or at global level are not the solutions to the current problems of our game in an already congested calendar,” the statement went on to read following a meeting in Nyon, Switzerland. World Athletics president and International Olympic Committee member Sebastian Coe also expressed his displeasure with the plan. “I can see no good reason for it,” he said to The Guardian . “There may be vested interests here but the summer sports are protective about the landscape as it’s hard enough for them as it is to grab space in the traditional or digital media. A biennial World Cup will inevitably start clashing with the Olympic Games too." “And my gut instinct is that you can keep cramming stuff into the calendar if you really want to, but less is more sometimes,” said four-time Olympic medallist Coe. What is the history behind the biennial World Cup plans? The plan was first mooted by former FIFA president Sepp Blatter in 1999 and again in 2001. “We are living in fast and rapid times and therefore should adapt our World Cup to our times,” Blatter had told Reuters in 1999. UEFA had opposed the idea then as well. Among the players, England’s Sir Bobby Charlton was against it while it was backed by World Cup winners Franz Beckenbauer and Dino Zoff. It was brought back to the table in 2018 by Alejandro Dominguez, head of South American football federation (CONMEBOL). In May, upon Saudi Arabian football federation’s request, a feasibility study was approved on a 166-22 vote. This despite the fact that a previous feasibility study, conducted by FIFA in 2016, found that “the highest absolute quality would be achieved under the current format.” What do the football associations have to gain? FIFA, while arguing it is acting in the best interests of world football, has already managed to expand the World Cup from 32 teams to 48 teams from 2026. The next course of action, it appears, is to have more competitions run by FIFA. Giving more countries the chance of playing in a World Cup, and promises of more cash windfall, panders to many of the 211 national federations whose reelection votes the FIFA chief Gianni Infantino requires. For administrators, the prospect of more money is more appealing than possible degradation of a competition and burnout caused to players. “You don’t need to be an Einstein,” Infantino had said, “to know that if you have two World Cups in four years you will double the revenues.” Bizarrely he followed that up by saying: “This will not happen.” FIFA earns up to $6 billion from media and sponsorship deals for each World Cup and with more games, more frequent competitions that could go up. However, it is not certain considering the pull for broadcasters is in the infrequency of the competition just like the Olympics.