Dr. Simon Ličen
Associate Professor in Journalism and Associate Director of the John Curley Center for Sports Journalism at Penn State University. Originally from Slovenia, he studies the theory and practice of sports journalism, broadcasting, event management, governance, and the intersection of sport, media and society, especially in international contexts.
Twitter: @DrSimonLicen
Email: sbl6178@psu.edu
The expansion of the 2026 FIFA World Cup to 48 participating teams has had many critics.
One of the most influential among them is Aleksander Čeferin, the president of UEFA (the European governing body of football), who in a panel organized by Slovenian media corporation Pro Plus in early June said:
‘I don’t think this is a good decision, because we have many games that are completely uninteresting. Europe had 13 teams at the World Cup in Qatar, now it has 16. This is a small change, while some national teams that wouldn’t win a single game in Europe qualified for the World Cup. On the other hand, this allows even such small countries to participate and experience the vibe of the World Cup, which is a big deal.’
The comment prompted mixed reactions, and 13 participating nations from Africa, Asia and the Caribbean released a joint statement to “express their profound disappointment” with Čeferin’s complaints and “his characterization of many matches as being ‘uninteresting’.”
Čeferin’s assessment may have been well-intentioned—he acknowledged the importance of tournament participation for “small countries”—but turned out to be imperfect. The Confederation of African Football, which gained five slots compared to the 2022 World Cup, advanced nine of its ten teams to the Round of 32. These “surplus” teams also accounted for some of the tournament’s most memorable storylines. Cabo Verde’s competitive run included a goalless draw with eventual champions Spain and a Round of 32 loss after extra time to eventual finalists Argentina. Bosnia and Herzegovina’s passionate fan following galvanized global audiences and united a country that is dysfunctional by design.
More importantly, the comment was a tactical faux-pas for an often-cited candidate to challenge Gianni Infantino as FIFA President—an option Čeferin has thus far rejected. The organization’s Statute allocates one vote per member association. Čeferin, currently a FIFA Vice-President by virtue of his role in UEFA, may very well have alienated most, if not all, of the 16 votes that supported the initial change in competition format, as well as many more who may vie for one of the additional 16 spots floated by Infantino for the 2030 tournament.
If Gianni Infantino is often criticized for his politicization of the office of the FIFA President and the excessive commercialization of the World Cup, Aleksander Čeferin lacked diplomatic tact and foresight when discussing a potential voter bloc—admittedly one that has little incentive to switch allegiances. This is ironic for someone who is routinely identified as a candidate for the highest political offices in his native Slovenia (also rumors he routinely dismisses).
Aleksander Čeferin has thus far ruled out running for FIFA President. In 2024 he pledged not to seek a fourth term as the leader of the European confederation. He later backtracked and may now seek re-election in 2027. His institutional and personal aversion to Gianni Infantino is well-documented. This summer he capitalized on several opportunities to manifest it. After criticizing the expansion of the World Cup and the high ticket prices, he likely orchestrated Omar Artan’s appointment as referee for the 2026 UEFA Super Cup days after American immigration authorities prevented the Somali referee from officiating the World Cup. (Which begs the question: Could FIFA’s appointment of a Slovenian referee to the World Cup final have been a show of force, using Čeferin’s tactics against him?)
Čeferin also skipped the final between Spain and Argentina, apparently to protest FIFA’s deferment of Folarin Balongun’s one-game ban. Yet, if Čeferin is indeed to run for FIFA President in March 2027, he has not yet offered a structured alternative to the dislikable incumbent. He earned flattering accolades early in his term as UEFA President—which, in hindsight, seem more an acknowledgement of his leadership potential than a reflection of actual accomplishments—and successfully crushed the European Super League initiative in 2021. Yet, under his watch, both foreign and multi-club ownership continue to expand. The record commercial growth experienced during his reign comes in part at the expense of smaller leagues and clubs. He also expressed opinions on sanctioning Russia, Belarus, and Israel which prompted some scrutiny. The two presidents differ in style, but the 58-year-old lawyer from a small European country does not seem to offer a dramatically different program than the 56-year-old lawyer from another small European country 320 miles away.
Calls for the reform of FIFA—from the outside or inside, top-down or bottom-up—are increasingly loud and frequent. Aleksander Čeferin is living up to his claims of not wanting to run for the FIFA top job. Fair enough. He is indeed better positioning himself to run for the fourth term at UEFA he had said he did not want. A true FIFA reformer could hail from one of the nations that were mercifully awarded a spot in the FIFA World Cup in the name of profit. That would free up Infantino and Čeferin to pursue—or not—any political ambitions they may have.
