Screwing South America

As FIFA President Gianni Infantino fights to save his job, one confederation was conspicuous for its silence.  UEFA is firmly against Infantino and has the support of CONCACAF and the AFC.  Africa, for the most part, is sticking with Infantino.  But no one really knew where CONMEBOL, the South American federation, stood until a few days ago.  CONMEBOL has his back, which could ultimately be Infantino's saving grace.

With only 10 members, CONMEBOL's support doesn't have as much bearing as UEFA's opposition (with its 55 members) in terms of sheer numbers.  But, despite not having the numbers, CONMEBOL still has plenty of influence, seeing as its members include Argentina, Brazil, Colombia and Uruguay.  So, CONMEBOL having Infantino's back is not insignificant.  Although, I must admit, it is a bit confusing.  Because CONMEBOL is the confederation getting screwed the most by FIFA right now.

The first World Cup took place in Uruguay in 1930.  It was hoped/expected that the centennial World Cup in 2030 would also be held in South America.  Instead, Spain, Portugal and Morocco were chosen as the primary hosts.  However, FIFA threw CONMEBOL a bone by letting Uruguay, Argentina and Paraguay host one game each before the remainder of the tournament moves to the other side of the Atlantic.

That move was calculated, though.  Under FIFA rules, after a confederation hosts the World Cup, it must wait two cycles before it can bid again.  So, Asia was ineligible for 2026 and 2030, and CONCACAF will be ineligible for 2030 and 2034.  This provision makes both UEFA and Africa ineligible to host either the 2034 or 2038 World Cup.  But, by having those three games in South America, that also counts as CONMEBOL hosting, thus making the confederation ineligible for 2034 and 2038, as well.

Since four of the six confederations were ineligible to host, that left competition for the 2034 World Cup down to just Asia and Oceania.  Which is exactly what FIFA wanted.  Because it let Saudi Arabia bid essentially unopposed for the event.  So, while the timing of the announcement that Saudi Arabia will host in 2034 took some people by surprise, the fact that FIFA finagled it so that their preferred host would get it was not.  (It also made every confederation except CONCACAF and OFC ineligible for 2038, so a return to the U.S. only 12 years later is a distinct possibility.)

Four of the first 12 World Cups were in South America.  Three South American nations have lifted the trophy a total of 10 times.  Yet the continent has hosted a grand total of one World Cup since 1978 (Brazil 2014).  After those three games in 2030, they won't do so again until 2042 at the earliest.  Which, again, is all because FIFA decided that those centennial games counted as the continent hosting the World Cup.  (Paraguay is literally building a national stadium in Asuncion for one game!)  Which is ridiculous.

During that same span, the United States and Mexico have both hosted twice.  The 2030 tournament will be the sixth in Europe and second in Spain during that timeframe.  This will also be the second in Africa.  There's been more World Cups in Asia (2) than South America (1) since then.  Granted, CONMEBOL is a small confederation in terms of membership.  But still, how could considering three games in three different countries, which were given to throw them a bone more than anything else, "hosting" be taken as anything other than an insult?

Back to 2030 for a minute, though.  FIFA's plan is to have Uruguay, Argentina and Paraguay each play their home game a week before the rest of the tournament starts, then they and their opponents will travel to Spain, Portugal and Morocco for the remainder of the tournament (with a two-week break between their first and second games).  The travel is only part of it.  It'll also be Winter in South America.  So, they'll be playing one game in the South American Winter before playing the rest of the tournament in the European Summer.

A big topic of discussion, of course, in the month since the 2026 World Cup ended is potentially expanding the 2030 tournament to 64 teams.  Should the expansion come to pass, CONMEBOL wouldn't be as affected by the increase in teams as other confederations.  CONMEBOL had six of its 10 members qualify for this year's World Cup, and Bolivia was in the intercontinental playoff.  Even if just one spot was added, CONMEBOL would see 70 percent of its teams make the World Cup, by far the highest percentage of any confederation.

Should the expansion move forward, that would naturally mean more games.  You'd have to figure that some of those games would be given to the three South American countries.  Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay could play all three of their group games at home (and, presumably, so could the other teams in their groups so they're not going back-and-forth).  So, there could conceivably be as many as 18 of 128 games hosted by the CONMEBOL teams rather than just three of 104.

Maybe that's part of the reason why CONMEBOL has given Infantino its support.  If Infantino is reelected, the chances of a 64-team World Cup with more than three games in South America would seem to be higher.  There are also rumors of a potential move that would see Mexico leaving CONCACAF and joining CONMEBOL.  While I'm not sure how much truth there is to these rumors, the idea was apparently proposed by Infantino.  Snagging Mexico away from CONCACAF would certainly be a coup for CONMEBOL.  If true and Infantino can make it happen, that may be another reason why he has CONMEBOL's backing.

Will either of those things happen if Infantino isn't reelected?  I have no idea!  Is it possible that neither happens even if he is?  Of course!  But CONMEBOL, in theory at least, stands to potentially benefit from them.  So, that might be why, too. 

Regardless, CONMEBOL coming out in support of Infantino still looks strange.  Because, on the surface, it would seem the opposite.  You'd think they'd also be against him.  Other than the financial windfall that every nation has seen during Infantino's presidency, how have the 10 CONMEBOL countries benefitted?  Or do they simply see him as better than any potential alternative?

FIFA has a one country, one vote model, so Infantino is still very much beleaguered.  The public support from CONMEBOL members is significant, though.  Will it be enough to save his presidency?  Maybe, maybe not.  But the chances are better now than they were if CONMEBOL was standing firmly against him.  Whether it'll make a difference is an entirely different question.  But, if they help him keep his job, you'd better hope CONMEBOL reaps some sort of benefit.  Which would be more than they're getting now.