In the Goal: Governance and Transparency on Demand
I do not know how governance can be treated as a sacred principle when we need it, only to be reduced to a minor detail that can be bypassed when its outcome displeases us!
This question arose following a statement issued by the Qatar Football Association, on behalf of its President, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa bin Ahmed Al Thani, in which he criticized the Asian Football Confederation (AFC). Implicitly, the criticism was directed at AFC President Sheikh Salman bin Ibrahim Al Khalifa, for taking a position on behalf of member associations without consulting them or obtaining their approval. The Qatar FA confirmed that it had neither been consulted nor informed prior to the joint stance issued by the AFC alongside UEFA and CONCACAF against FIFA President Gianni Infantino.
The irony here is that Sheikh Salman bin Ibrahim was, just a few weeks earlier, one of the most vocal critics of the dangers of unilateral decisions. He had criticized Infantino over the proposal to create a commercial company to manage FIFA’s commercial rights and competitions, insisting that such major issues must not be addressed without consultation, governance, and transparency. His words were beautiful and convincing, almost serving as a lesson in sports governance. However, it seems the lesson itself did not reach the corridors of the AFC or its president’s office. When Infantino made a decision without consulting continental and national associations, it was deemed a violation of governance principles. Yet, when the AFC took a position on behalf of its members without asking them, it became a collective stance! This is precisely where an explanation is needed, because governance should not be like a restaurant menu, where we pick what suits us and leave the rest.
Perhaps the most puzzling aspect of the situation is that the European and North American allies, when they wanted to take a collective stance, went to their confederations, held meetings, consulted, voted, and emerged with a position representing their members. In contrast, the AFC, representing the largest and most populous continent, had its president—or whoever was responsible—cut corners and take a position on behalf of everyone without bothering to hear their opinions. The question that naturally arises is: Why all this haste? Why were members not invited to a clear and explicit meeting to discuss the matter and then be left to make the decision? This is especially pertinent given that the AFC itself states that the future of football must be built through consultation, collective dialogue, and respect for existing governance structures.
In the end, we must emphasize that the problem is not that the AFC or its president is against Infantino; that is their right. Nor is the problem that they disagree with him; that is natural. The problem lies in rejecting the principle of unilateral decisions when they come from Zurich, while practicing them when they come from Kuala Lumpur. Here, we can only say: “Governance is a very beautiful concept, provided it is not tailored to fit our convenience!”
Perhaps the strangest part of the stance is that the European and North American allies, when they wanted to take a collective position, went to their confederations, held meetings, consulted, voted, and emerged with a position representing their members. The AFC, representing the largest and most populous continent, had its president—or whoever was responsible—cut corners and take a position on behalf of everyone without bothering to hear their opinions. The question that naturally arises is: Why all this haste? Why were members not invited to a clear and explicit meeting to discuss the matter and then be left to make the decision? This is especially pertinent given that the AFC itself states that the future of football must be built through consultation, collective dialogue, and respect for existing governance structures.
In the end, we must emphasize that the problem is not that the AFC or its president is against Infantino; that is their right. Nor is the problem that they disagree with him; that is natural. The problem lies in rejecting the principle of unilateral decisions when they come from Zurich, while practicing them when they come from Kuala Lumpur. Here, we can only say: “Governance is a very beautiful concept, provided it is not tailored to fit our convenience!”
Thank you, Hamad bin Khalifa, for your stance, which confirms that governance and transparency are not tools used against opponents, but fixed, indivisible principles that transcend any position supporting or opposing a person or organization. A true principle does not change with changing individuals, nor does it shift with changing interests; otherwise, it loses its meaning and becomes merely a slogan raised when convenient.
