The decision to shelve the FIFA Forward Enterprise proposal may have closed one chapter, but it should not silence the wider conversation about how football is run. The questions raised reach far beyond a single transaction or governing body: who holds the power to make the sport's most consequential decisions, who is consulted before those decisions are taken, and where does independent scrutiny come from?
These are fundamentally questions of stewardship. Football's leaders are temporary custodians of institutions they did not create and which should outlast them. Their duty is not merely to maximise commercial returns but to leave those institutions stronger, more trusted, and more resilient. A board should be the place where important decisions are tested and improved, not simply where decisions shaped elsewhere are rubber-stamped.
Governance must keep pace with commercial growth
This matters as football enters a new commercial era. Private capital is not inherently the problem; the sport needs investment, which can bring expertise, innovation, and growth. But as ownership and commercial structures become more sophisticated, governance must evolve at the same speed. Transformational decisions require equally rigorous governance: a clear rationale, meaningful stakeholder consultation, independent challenge, and confidence that the long-term interests of the institution have been properly considered.
One reason I have long argued that football's governing bodies would benefit from independent non-executive directors is that the strongest boards combine deep institutional knowledge with people able to challenge assumptions, ask uncomfortable questions, and bring experience from other sectors. This is not a new argument. In 2023, Women in Football launched our Open Doors Agenda after FIFA invited women to “push the doors” and say what football needed to change. Our response was that the structures behind those doors must themselves be fit for purpose.
The Open Doors Agenda called for greater transparency in appointments, genuinely diverse leadership, independent non-executive representation, fixed terms of office, effective safeguarding and reporting mechanisms, and meaningful representation of those working and playing within the game. These proposals are much more than diversity measures. They strengthen challenge, create transparent recruitment, and reduce the risk of closed networks. Term limits reduce concentrations of power. Effective reporting systems make accountability real. Representation changes who is in the room. Governance determines whether those voices can make a difference once they get there.
Beyond the top tier: lessons from Reading and Ebbsfleet
The same principles apply well beyond international governing bodies. The experience of Reading Women, whose team was withdrawn from the Championship after the parent club ceased funding it, demonstrated how decisions driven by financial realities can have much wider consequences. Further down the pyramid, financial problems at Abdulla Al-Humaidi-owned Ebbsfleet United, which led to the club's suspension from the National League, reminds us that governance standards cannot be reserved for football's wealthiest institutions. Financial distress rarely appears overnight. The warning signs for Ebbsfleet are well documented. Strong boards should be asking questions about sustainability, risk, and ownership before players, employees, creditors, and supporters are left dealing with the consequences.
Different circumstances, but similar questions: where is power concentrated? Who provides independent challenge? How transparent is decision-making? And do stakeholders have a meaningful voice before decisions are effectively final?
Football has made extraordinary commercial progress. Media rights have grown, new competitions have emerged, and institutional investors have entered the sector. Governance has not always developed at the same speed. That gap matters. Good governance should never be portrayed as an obstacle to investment, innovation, or commercial ambition. It is what makes sustainable growth possible. It gives investors confidence, improves decision-making, and protects institutions from becoming overly dependent on individuals. Most importantly, it protects one of football's most valuable assets: trust.
Football cannot function without trust. Supporters must trust the integrity of competitions. Players must trust the institutions responsible for their welfare. Employees must trust the systems designed to protect them. Investors and commercial partners must trust the organisations with which they do business. There is also an important distinction between consultation and communication. Too often, stakeholders are informed once a decision has effectively been made. That is communication. Meaningful consultation happens earlier. It allows relevant perspectives to shape the questions being considered, not simply react to the answers.
Boards and executives must ultimately make decisions and be accountable for them. But having the authority to make a decision does not automatically create confidence in the way it was reached. The conversation prompted by FIFA should not end with FIFA. Underneath sit the same questions: who holds power, how is that power challenged, who has a voice, and how are leaders held accountable? Every organisation in the game should ask whether its governance structures are keeping pace with the scale and complexity of the institutions they oversee. As the united front against Infantino shows, the pressure for reform is not going away. The sport's future depends on answering these questions honestly.
