A risky own goal: Why the GFA should not have broken ranks with CONCACAF

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.