It often feels like a war fought without weapons
Dr Ashraf Abul Saud
FIFA began as an international sports body. Today, it behaves more like a multinational corporation. It sets rules for its members as if it were a government, while at the same time running a highly profitable commercial machine.
During the Covid years, it recorded $7.568 billion in income between 2019 and 2022, a figure that would make many national governments envious.
The organisation itself was founded in 1904 in France by representatives from Belgium, Denmark, Spain, France, the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland. European federations held the reins from the beginning.
The global spread of the game has long been linked to British soft power, an unofficial extension of an empire that travelled quietly into colonies and beyond.
For some nations, a place inside FIFA came to feel more important than a seat at the UN. Football turned into a form of international recognition and a powerful way to affirm national identity.
The numbers tell their own story. The UN has 193 member states. FIFA has 211 national associations, representing both countries and territories.
These are grouped into confederations, such as CONMEBOL in South America, OFC in Oceania, UEFA in Europe and others. UEFA even includes Israel, a country that sits geographically in Asia. That decision was never purely sporting.
Palestine, by contrast, has held full FIFA membership with equal voting rights since 1998. The UN only granted it observer status in 2012.
Hong Kong joined FIFA in 1954 and keeps a distinct status within China. It is not a UN member, yet it has a recognised place in world football.
The UK appears as one country at the UN, but FIFA treats England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as four separate associations.
Countries, leaders and politicians have always understood the power of sport. They use it as soft power, and also use it as leverage.
Boycotts became a way of fighting without firing a shot. The US and many of its Western allies stayed away from the 1980 Moscow Olympics to protest the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
Four years later, the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies returned the favour, boycotting the Los Angeles Games and accusing Washington of turning the event into a political stage.
These absences never produced open war, but they worked as quiet forms of pressure, especially on smaller nations that depended on economic or military support.
The same pattern runs through World Cup history. Uruguay, the first champions, refused to defend their title in Italy in 1934 because the Italians had stayed away from the 1930 tournament in Montevideo.
In 1938, Argentina and Uruguay again stayed home, this time protesting FIFA’s decision to stage two consecutive tournaments in Europe and ignore the rule that tournaments should alternate between continents.
In 1966, 15 African nations walked away from the qualifiers for the England World Cup, objecting to the single shared place given to Africa and Asia, and to FIFA’s decision to reinstate the South African team despite its apartheid policies.
Political tension around Israel has been a recurring theme since 1958. Several African and Asian teams withdrew from the Sweden World Cup qualifiers over Israel’s participation.
Israel’s place in regional groups remained a source of friction for years. It was moved into the European zone in 1970, later shifted to Asia, and still faced refusals, including North Korea’s rejection of matches against what it called an “occupying power”.
In 1969, the game itself sparked actual fighting. When Honduras defeated El Salvador in a World Cup qualifier, the result helped ignite a brief but real conflict known as the Football War, or the Hundred Hours’ War.
In 1994, Yugoslavia was barred from both the qualifiers and the finals under UN sanctions linked to the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The 2018 World Cup in Russia became another arena for geopolitical rivalry. What appeared to be a sporting event gave Moscow a chance to push back against American criticism over human rights, anti-gay legislation and doping allegations from the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi.
Russia used the tournament to project openness, display modern infrastructure and stage matches in the western part of the country, an area culturally closer to Europe and rich in tourist sites.
Through careful presentation and organisation, Russia turned the World Cup into a soft-power success and eased some of the international pressure it faced.
For a few weeks, football looked less like a game and more like a quiet continuation of the Cold War.
By Dr Ashraf Abul Saud
Writer and an international relations scholar
