by Michael Bascombe
When a football association as
small as Grenada’s enters a dispute at the highest level of the world game, its
position should be guided by one question: What best protects the long-term
interests of football in Grenada?
The statement issued by the Grenada Football Association in support of FIFA President
Gianni Infantino does not convincingly answer that question.
The GFA welcomed Infantino’s
withdrawal of the proposed FIFA Forward Enterprise initiative, praised his
“swift action,” declared its commitment to good governance, and warned that it
would not support any association or confederation seeking to undermine FIFA’s
institutional processes.
It then reaffirmed its support
for Infantino “for the years to come.”
That was not a neutral statement.
Against the background of a FIFA presidential election in 2027, it sounded very
much like an advance political endorsement. Its reference to actions by a
“Member Association or Confederation” could also reasonably be interpreted as a
rebuke of CONCACAF, the Asian Football Confederation, and UEFA.
The chronology matters.
On July 28, FIFA presented a plan
to create a commercial subsidiary valued at US$20 billion and sell a minority
interest of up to 20 per cent to outside investors, raising as much as US$4.2
billion. Member associations were told they could potentially access up to
US$40 million each through expanded development funding and an optional Fast
Forward programme.
The money would be extremely
attractive to smaller associations. However, the size of the promised benefit
made proper scrutiny even more important.
On July 29, Concacaf
said it had learned about the proposal through media reports and expressed
concern about the absence of consultation and due process.
The following day, CONCACAF said
it convened the presidents of its 41 member associations. According to the official
statement issued after that meeting, the membership rejected the proposal
and instructed its representatives on the FIFA Council to address the matter
through the procedures established in the FIFA Statutes.
That is an important point.
CONCACAF did not announce that it
was abandoning FIFA’s institutional processes. It said it was using those
processes. It instructed elected FIFA Council members to act within the FIFA
system.
Infantino withdrew the proposal
on July 31, after opposition spread across the football world. The withdrawal
was necessary and should have been welcomed, but it was not a personal favour
to Grenada or anyone else. The person who withdrew the proposal was also the
person who advanced it.
Putting out a fire after the
alarm has been raised does not erase the circumstances in which it started.
On August 10, the AFC, CONCACAF, and UEFA went further. Their joint
open letter argued that the proposal had been pushed on a compressed
timetable without meaningful consultation. They called for a fully independent
review, rather than an investigation conducted by FIFA into itself.
The Caribbean Football Union, of
which Grenada is a member, subsequently joined U.S. Soccer, Canada Soccer, and
the Central American Football Union in calling for meaningful changes to FIFA’s
governance, transparency, and accountability.
Against that background, the
GFA’s warning about confederations undermining FIFA’s processes appears
misdirected. The regional bodies were demanding that proper processes be
respected.
The GFA may continue to reject the substance of the Forward Enterprise proposal but
objects to talk of boycotts, breakaways, or the removal of Infantino. If that is
its position, it should say so plainly. The present statement mixes separate
issues and offers loyalty to an individual without explaining what Grenadian
football gains from doing so.
The Guyana Football Federation (GFF) chose a more responsible approach.
The GFF said the proposal was
circulated to its Council for review. It convened an emergency meeting,
considered the concerns of its members and stakeholders, and reported that the
Council unanimously agreed to support CONCACAF’s position.
Guyana did not attack FIFA. It
reaffirmed its willingness to work with FIFA, CONCACAF, and other associations
while defending transparency, accountability, and institutional integrity.
That is what good governance
looks like: a meeting, deliberation, a recorded decision, and an explanation to
the public.
The GFA statement does not say
whether its Council met, whether a vote was taken, or who authorised the pledge
of support for Infantino. It also leaves several questions unanswered.
Was Grenada represented at the
July 30 meeting of CONCACAF’s 41 presidents? Did the GFA support the collective
rejection of the proposal? If it subsequently changed its position, when was
that decision taken and by whom? Does “for the years to come” amount to an
endorsement of Infantino’s 2027 candidacy?
These are fair questions because
CONCACAF issued its original statement in the name of all 41 member
associations, including Grenada.
Grenada is entitled to disagree
with CONCACAF. Every FIFA member association has its own vote, and no
confederation should dictate how that vote must be cast. Independence, however,
does not mean isolation. Dissent should be based on a clearly stated football
or governance principle, not on an open-ended pledge to one officeholder.
Supporting CONCACAF on this
matter would not require the GFA to pledge personal loyalty to CONCACAF President Victor Montagliani either. It would mean supporting the regional
position on due process, collective bargaining, and an independent review.
Grenada’s immediate football home
is CONCACAF. The confederation provides a competitive pathway for senior national teams, youth teams, women’s football, and clubs. The 2026-27
Nations League, in which Grenada will compete in League B, includes all 41
associations and serves as the qualifying route to the 2027 Gold Cup.
Grenada has no fully professional
domestic league, while the men’s national team is ranked 163rd in
the world. Those realities make regional cooperation more important, not
less.
A single Grenadian vote is
valuable to anyone seeking the FIFA presidency. But one vote provides little
bargaining power once the election is over. Grenada has far more influence when
its concerns are carried collectively by 41 regional associations and supported
by other confederations.
There is no question that FIFA
funding has benefited Grenadian football. FIFA’s own impact page lists
approximately US$4.74
million in completed and ongoing commitments for infrastructure,
competitions, national team support, and other projects.
That support should be
acknowledged. It should also be properly managed, audited, and measured against
sustainable results.
However, FIFA Forward money is
not a personal gift from Gianni Infantino. FIFA describes the programme in
terms of financial
entitlements available to every eligible member association, subject to
approved projects, reporting requirements and independent audits.
The money comes from football’s
commercial assets. It does not come from the private pocket of the FIFA
president.
That distinction is important.
Once institutional funding is presented as the generosity of one man, gratitude
can easily be converted into political loyalty.
International reporting has
already highlighted this danger. Reuters
reported that smaller associations dependent on FIFA funding could be important to Infantino’s political survival. Critics of the system argue that
legitimate development funding can also create a relationship in which
financial power produces political influence.
That does not prove that the GFA
or any of its officials was promised a personal benefit. No such evidence is in
the public domain, and it would be irresponsible to present suspicion as fact.
Nevertheless, the GFA created an
unfortunate perception. It thanked one man for institutional funding,
criticised unnamed confederations, and pledged its support “for the years to
come.” If the statement was not intended to secure future access, favourable
treatment, or goodwill from the FIFA leadership, the Association should explain
what national football objective it was designed to achieve.
Travel by national teams is
welcome, but travel alone is not a development strategy. Grenadian football
must still confront the absence of a professional league, limited
infrastructure, player-development challenges, and a men’s team sitting 163rd in
the world.
Cabo Verde’s World Cup
appearance, cited by the GFA, is an inspiring achievement. It should not be
reduced to the benevolence of a FIFA president. It reflects the work of
players, coaches, administrators, clubs, the diaspora, and years of national
planning.
The wiser GFA statement would
have welcomed the withdrawal, acknowledged FIFA’s development assistance,
supported an independent review, and reaffirmed Grenada’s commitment to working
with FIFA, CONCACAF, and the CFU.
That would have preserved
Grenada’s independence without placing the Association on the wrong side of its
own region.
Small associations need strong
rules even more than powerful ones do. If development funding is treated as a
favour that must be repaid with loyalty, it stops being an entitlement and
becomes leverage.
The GFA may have gained attention
in Zurich by declaring its support for Infantino. What it risked losing at home
and within the region was something more valuable: its credibility.
