A lot of people would be behind this, but it would likely just cause a massive schism. The question to be answered is if the world is large enough for multiple global football organizations, because it's likely many of the regional ones will stay with FIFA for the near to medium-term.

What would be better is if they can work together to root out the corruption, but as long as profitability is worshiped as openly as it is, it will tough to fight since money is so concentrated and it's now a kind of self-sustaining entity.

▲

wongarsu 3 days ago | parent [-]

You only need UEFA and CONMEBOL (South America) to agree with each other. Those two confederations include every FIFA World Cup winner so far. If they make their own organization and their own world cup, that's it for FIFA

Other confederations are important for FIFA-internal politics (especially the African votes, Infantino's biggest group of supporters), but for fans and players the quality of the clubs matters far more. And that is geographically clustered

▲

brudgers 3 days ago | parent [-]

South America’s federation has been supporting Infantno and supported the plan.

▲

owebmaster 3 days ago | parent [-]

But not the nations. At least the Brazilian association is against the plan and arguably the most important.

▲

brudgers 3 days ago | parent [-]

On the internet, everything is arguable.

On the field, Brazil doesn’t appear to be most important these days.

▲

owebmaster 3 days ago | parent [-]

It's because you probably don't know much about football (soccer?). The Brazilian football clubs dominate South America.

	▲	brudgers 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Brazil has 9 Copa America titles. Fewer than Argentina. Fewer than Uruguay. And yes, I acknowledge your cherry-picking was Libradores. Brazil has the richest league in South America and thus like England its teams can buy better players.