Stakeholder Consultation in Football: From Governance Theory to Regulatory Reality
🕒 5 min read By Andrew M. Werners | Founder, Pitchside Sports Consulting
In 2025, FIFA appears to be listening more than it used to.
After years of criticism—and real legal pressure following the Diarra ruling (CJEU Case C-650/22)—FIFA has introduced a wave of consultation initiatives: public feedback portals, regulatory roundtables, iterative working groups such as the AWG. Even the Football Law Annual Review (FLAR) reads more like a reformist manual than a retrospective.
But having worked from within one of FIFA’s officially recognized stakeholders, I can tell you: this is not an open democracy. It’s not even a co-authorship. It’s a choreography.
Yes, the formats have improved. Yes, consultations are now documented.
But power in football regulation remains centralized, and participation is still mistaken for influence.
🧠 Context: How We Got Here
The modern history of consultation in football governance is riddled with blind spots. In 2022, FIFA adopted the Football Agent Regulations (FFAR) after years of technical working groups with stakeholders such as FIFPRO, the World Leagues Association (WLA), and the European Clubs Association (ECA). But just before adoption, major amendments were pushed through—gutting key clauses like “client pays”—without further notice, let alone agreement.
Similarly, Article 19 RSTP reforms designed to protect minors were introduced globally without adaptation for regional football models like North America’s college-to-pro pathway. Stakeholders weren’t consulted. They were notified.
These episodes revealed the limits of FIFA’s then-existing consultation structure: decisions could be made—and materially altered—without the genuine participation of those most affected.
🏛️ 2025: A New Process or a New Performance?
To FIFA’s credit, there have been real changes:
A public stakeholder feedback platform was launched for proposed Article 17 RSTP amendments.
A legally responsive interim framework on contract breaches was adopted in 2024 following litigation threats.
The FLAR now includes case summaries, consultation stages, and legal rationales—raising transparency standards across FIFA’s legal affairs.
It’s more coordinated. It’s more accessible.
But is it more democratic?
🧩 Understanding FIFA’s Stakeholder Consultation Structure
Per Article 39 of the FIFA Statutes, the Football Stakeholders Committee (FSC) is one of FIFA’s standing committees—charged with matters relating to the structure of the game and the relationships between players, clubs, leagues, member associations, and FIFA itself. However:
Membership is appointed by the FIFA Council, not elected by stakeholder bodies.
The FSC’s powers are advisory only—it cannot veto, legislate, or enforce.
The Professional Football Department, which coordinates this process, exists as an administrative body without formal legal standing in FIFA’s governance instruments
This creates a vertical relationship: stakeholders are expected to “promote FIFA’s interests” in return for a seat at the table. Article 24 of the FIFA Governance Regulations makes this expectation explicit. Stakeholders are bound to act "faithfully, loyally and independently in the best interests of FIFA.
Not to their own stakeholders. Not to their leagues. Not to their Players Associations.
to FIFA.
📚 Revisiting the Principles of Good Governance
In a 2022 article I co-authored with the World Leagues Association General Secretary, “Governance, Good Governance and Football”, we outlined the foundational governance principles that still apply today:
Transparency – stakeholders must be fully informed of agendas, processes, and drafts.
Accountability – decision-makers must be held to account by those affected.
Checks and Balances – regulatory, enforcement, and adjudicative powers must be separated.
None of these principles are genuinely embedded in the current consultation process. FIFA remains legislator, regulator, and enforcer, accountable only to itself. And while new processes may simulate inclusion, they do not transfer power.
🔍 Where Consultation Still Falls Short
1. Consultation ≠ Co-Creation
FIFA controls:
What gets proposed
Who gets invited
When decisions are made
Stakeholders may comment, but they do not co-author. The distinction is fundamental. In true democratic governance—whether in corporate boards, labour negotiations, or public administration—affected parties are co-designers of the rules that bind them. That isn’t happening here.
2. Imbalanced Representation
Even now, FIFA disproportionately prioritizes feedback from stakeholders with institutional and geographic proximity—UEFA, ECA, WLA, FIFPRO all with a seat in Europe. Meanwhile, federations and stakeholders from the Caribbean, Africa, Central America, and Southeast Asia remain underrepresented.
This is not just a participation issue—it’s a governance gap.
3. Reform Driven by Pressure, Not Principle
The true catalyst for FIFA’s new “consultation culture”? The CJEU’s Diarra judgment, which found aspects of FIFA’s regulatory framework incompatible with EU law. Only after the legal threat materialized did FIFA adopt more collaborative posturing.
Reforms imposed under duress are not evidence of institutional maturity. They are evidence of vulnerability.
🧭 What Real Reform Would Look Like
If FIFA wants consultation to be more than a legitimacy tool, it must reimagine its governance structure. Here's what that could look like:
🗳️ Binding consultation timelines before regulatory votes
🌍 Regional representation quotas in all reform committees
📢 Mandatory public disclosure of stakeholder positions
✍️ Shared authorship of major drafts (RSTP, FFAR, FIFA Code of Ethics)
⚖️ Final Word from Pitchside
As a legal advisor who has worked within FIFA’s legal architecture—particularly on the stakeholder side—I understand how difficult reform is. But I also understand how necessary it has become.
FIFA has made progress.
But governance reform by invitation is not the same as governance by design.
Until stakeholders become true co-creators of the rules, consultation will remain what it’s always been: a performance of legitimacy—not a redistribution of power.
📚 Recommended Reading
FIFA Football Law Annual Review (FLAR) – 2025 Edition
Governance, Good Governance and Football – Football Legal, Issue #17
FIFA Stakeholder Portal – Article 17 Consultation Page
WLA Legal Memo on FFAR Amendments – 2022
CJEU Case C-650/22 – Lassana Diarra v. FIFA