Privatisation

Three confederations release letter criticising FIFA’s president over his proposal to sell off stakes in the World Cup.

FIFA President Gianni Infantino has come under renewed fire as a joint letter from three confederations – UEFA, CONCACAF and AFC – declared that football “belongs to no individual”.

Infantino has received scathing criticism ever since launching, and then withdrawing within days, a plan to bring in private investment into FIFA competitions, including the World Cup.

FIFA had hit back on Saturday, claiming “a concerted and ongoing effort by some to undermine” football’s governing body and Infantino.

However, Monday’s letter from the governing bodies of European football (UEFA), North and Central America (CONCACAF) and Asia (AFC), showed his critics were unbowed.

“Leadership in football is not a possession. It is not about holding – or demanding – power to be held,” they wrote.

“When trust is broken through deception, when an individual places himself above the collective that entrusted him with authority, that duty has been abandoned,” the confederations added.

The three confederations called for a fully ⁠independent review into the stake sale proposal.

“Football’s strength has ⁠always been its unity,” the statement concluded. “We call for that unity to ‌be honoured now, for leadership that serves football, not ‌seeks ‌to command it.”

They also criticised a FIFA emergency meeting in Morocco last week, saying there was only one elected official present, while also calling for an independent review which FIFA would have ⁠no role in, to determine what led to this “profound failure of judgement”.

On Friday, Norwegian Football Federation (NFF) President ⁠Lise Klaveness, seen by some as a potential candidate to replace Infantino, called on the 56-year-old to step down from the presidency immediately. Klaveness has long been an outspoken critic of Infantino.

After quelling in-house dissent at the emergency meeting on Wednesday, FIFA apologised to the 211 federations and Infantino rallied his support among the six confederations that ⁠make up the world governing body.

Africa’s confederation CAF released a statement on behalf of its 54 members backing Infantino on Thursday, with CONCACAF member Mexico following suit along with South American countries Argentina, Paraguay, Ecuador and Bolivia.

On Friday, as Infantino attended the inauguration of Colombia’s new President Abelardo De La Espriella ⁠in Cali, FIFA released a blistering attack on the president’s critics, saying attempts to challenge his leadership must follow the governing body’s statutes and democratic procedures.

FIFA also echoed the statements of several of the bodies that supported Infantino, as well as one from South American confederation CONMEBOL.

FIFA’s ‌statement came after reports by The Daily Telegraph about payments made by UEFA to a former employee during Infantino’s time as the European governing body’s general secretary, allegations he has denied and that FIFA has rejected as unfounded.

Almost 70 of FIFA’s 211-member associations have said publicly they will ‌vote ‌for Infantino, with about a dozen either withdrawing previously promised support or saying they will not vote for him.

UEFA apart, the confederations that say they have lost confidence in Infantino are not completely united, with several Asian nations backing him as well as Mexico from CONCACAF.

Modern conflicts are not just waged by state sponsored armed forces. In the last two decades there has been a rapid growth in the international recruitment of Private Military Companies (PMCs), used for everything from protecting top-level diplomats from harm in the Middle East to defending resource mining sites throughout Sub-Saharan Africa.

These commercial security contractors are indispensable partners to states, NGOs and corporations the world over. The growth of privatized conflict presents structural issues for international law and diplomacy.

The Loopholes of Modern Legal Systems in War

Among the most consistent and frequent challenges to global peace and security is the glaring accountability vacuum relating to non-state actors. When a uniformed state soldier is found to have committed crimes they are subject to the rigorous legal structures of the military justice system, including the Geneva Convention. By comparison, PMC operators often exist in a legal grey area.

Host nations where such operators act, often experience a level of domestic instability where their own legal systems are overstretched, or politically weak to effectively take action against powerful private security forces. The nations routinely lack either the will or capacity to pursue legal action against heavily armed foreign PMC personnel. The home states of PMCs are never eager to prosecute for alleged offences committed abroad by the corporations which they sanction. This leads to an accountability vacuum.

Bringing the War-Zone Back Home

Attempts by domestic prosecutors to seek convictions for offenses such as murder or assault against their country’s PMC operators has led to lengthy and complex legal proceedings. Acts normally described a felony assault charge were made all the more difficult due to a defence team pointing to the hostile environment, self-defense and chain of command arguments during combat.

Diplomatic Fallout and Tensions

International Cooperation Needed for PMC Regulation