The Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), the global governing body of soccer, oversees the sport’s rules, international competitions, and development initiatives. At its helm is the FIFA President, a figure responsible for steering the organization’s strategic direction and representing it on the world stage. The process of electing the FIFA President is a complex and highly regulated procedure rooted in FIFA’s governance structure. This article delves into the intricacies of how the FIFA President is elected, exploring the eligibility criteria, nomination process, voting mechanism, and historical context that shape this pivotal event.
The foundation
FIFA operates under a democratic framework, with its 211 member associations—each representing a national football federation—forming the backbone of its decision-making body, the FIFA Congress. The Congress, often described as FIFA’s “parliament,” is where key decisions, including the election of the president, take place. The FIFA Statutes, the organization’s legal and operational blueprint, outline the rules governing the presidential election, ensuring transparency, fairness, and accountability (at least in theory).
The FIFA President serves a four-year term and, since reforms introduced in 2016, is limited to a maximum of three terms (12 years total), whether consecutive or non-consecutive. These term limits were part of a broader governance overhaul following corruption scandals that rocked FIFA in the mid-2010s, notably during the tenure of former president Sepp Blatter.
Eligibility and candidacy requirements
Not just anyone can run for FIFA President. The Statutes lay out strict eligibility criteria to ensure candidates have a credible background in football governance. To qualify, a candidate must:
Have an active role in football: The candidate must have played an active role in football (e.g., as a player, official, or administrator) for at least two of the five years preceding their candidacy.
Secure nominations: A candidate must be proposed by at least five of FIFA’s 211 member associations. Each association can nominate only one candidate per election cycle, and the nomination must be submitted in writing to FIFA’s General Secretariat.
Pass integrity checks: Following the 2015 corruption scandal, FIFA introduced mandatory eligibility and integrity checks conducted by the FIFA Review Committee, a subset of the FIFA Governance Committee. These checks scrutinize a candidate’s financial history, legal record, and compliance with FIFA’s ethical standards to prevent individuals with questionable backgrounds from running.
Once a candidate meets these requirements and their nomination is validated, they officially enter the race.
The nomination process
The nomination window typically opens at least four months before the FIFA Congress, where the election is held. Member associations submit their nominations to FIFA headquarters in Zurich, Switzerland, and the list of candidates is finalized and publicized well in advance of the vote. Campaigns often involve candidates lobbying member associations, presenting manifestos, and outlining their vision for FIFA’s future—ranging from grassroots development to financial transparency and global expansion of the sport.
Historically, this phase has been marked by intense politicking. For instance, in the 2016 election following Blatter’s resignation, candidates like Gianni Infantino and Sheikh Salman bin Ibrahim Al Khalifa engaged in extensive outreach to secure support from regional confederations such as UEFA (Europe), CAF (Africa), and CONCACAF (North, Central America, and the Caribbean).
The election
The election itself takes place during a FIFA Congress, which can be an Ordinary Congress (held annually) or an Extraordinary Congress (convened for specific purposes, such as an election prompted by a vacancy). Each of the 211 member associations holds one vote, regardless of the size or influence of their footballing nation—a principle of equality that gives smaller federations like Montserrat the same voice as powerhouses like Brazil or Germany.
The voting process follows these steps:
Secret ballot: To ensure impartiality, voting is conducted via secret ballot. This anonymity aims to reduce coercion or vote-buying, though allegations of such practices have persisted in FIFA’s history.
Two-thirds majority in the first round: In the initial round, a candidate must secure a two-thirds majority (currently 141 votes out of 211) to win outright. This high threshold reflects the need for broad consensus.
Simple majority in subsequent rounds: If no candidate achieves a two-thirds majority, additional rounds are held. From the second round onward, only a simple majority (50% + 1, or 106 votes) is required. Candidates with the fewest votes may be eliminated between rounds, though all can technically remain in contention unless they withdraw.
Electronic voting: Since 2016, FIFA has employed electronic voting systems to enhance transparency and accuracy, replacing the paper ballots used in earlier elections.
The Congress is overseen by an independent chairperson, and the entire process is monitored by FIFA’s Governance Committee and external auditors to uphold integrity.
Historical context and notable elections
The FIFA presidential election has evolved significantly since the organization’s founding in 1904. Early elections were less formalized, often involving a handful of European delegates. Over time, as FIFA grew into a global entity, the process became more structured and contentious.
João Havelange’s rise (1974): Brazilian João Havelange defeated incumbent Stanley Rous by courting votes from newly independent African and Asian nations, highlighting the growing influence of non-European federations.
Sepp Blatter’s dominance (1998-2015): Blatter’s long tenure was marked by multiple re-elections, often unopposed or against weak challengers. His 2015 re-election bid, however, ended in resignation amid a U.S.-led corruption probe that exposed bribery and vote-buying schemes.
Gianni Infantino’s victory (2016): After Blatter’s exit, Infantino, then UEFA General Secretary, won a five-candidate race with 115 votes in the second round, promising reform and modernization. His election underscored the shift toward greater transparency post-scandal.
Challenges and criticisms
Despite reforms, the FIFA presidential election process remains under scrutiny. Critics argue that the one-vote-per-association system, while democratic, can favor candidates who exploit smaller federations through promises of funding or influence. Allegations of vote-buying have plagued past elections, notably in 2011 when Mohammed bin Hammam withdrew his candidacy amid bribery accusations.
Moreover, the influence of regional confederations—such as UEFA (55 votes) or CAF (54 votes)—often shapes outcomes, leading to bloc voting that can overshadow individual association preferences. The integrity checks, while a step forward, rely on FIFA’s internal bodies, raising questions about impartiality.