Posts
The Player Extraction
The Worst Labor Deal in Sports
FIFA: Swiss Non-Profit, Global Crime — Post 5 | February 6, 2026
Post 1: The $11 Billion Question — Where FIFA's money goes
Post 2: The Stats Perform Mystery — Undisclosed payments, Vista Equity
Post 3: The Saudi Web — PIF, DAZN, circular money
Post 4: The New Corruption — Post-2015 reforms failed
Post 5: The Player Extraction ← YOU ARE HERE — 3% compensation, no CBA
Post 6: The Dealmaker — Romy Gai and AWE
Post 7: The Global Pattern — NFL to FIFA
The Numbers: 3% vs 48.8%
Let's start with the math we established in Post 1:
FIFA (2023-2026 cycle):
- Total revenue: $11 billion
- Player compensation (via club release fees): $355 million
- Player share: 3.2%
NFL (2024 season):
- Total revenue: ~$25 billion
- Player compensation (via salary cap): ~$12.2 billion
- Player share: 48.8% (CBA-mandated)
The difference:
FIFA extraction: 96.8% of revenue kept from players
NFL extraction: 51.2% of revenue kept from players
FIFA's extraction is 15.25 times worse than the NFL.
If FIFA operated like the NFL:
- $11 billion × 48.8% = $5.368 billion to players
- Actual player compensation: $355 million
- Difference: $5.013 billion
FIFA is keeping $5 billion per cycle that would go to players under an NFL-style revenue sharing model.
And the NFL isn't a paragon of labor fairness. NFL players fight for every percentage point. The 48.8% share came from decades of strikes, negotiations, and collective action.
FIFA players get 3% without any of that leverage. Because they have no leverage.
FIFA (2023-2026 CYCLE):
• Revenue: $11 billion
• Player compensation: $355 million (club release fees)
• Player share: 3.2%
• FIFA keeps: 96.8%
NFL (2024 SEASON):
• Revenue: $25 billion
• Player compensation: $12.2 billion (salary cap)
• Player share: 48.8% (CBA Article 12)
• Owners keep: 51.2%
THE COMPARISON:
• FIFA extraction: 96.8% kept from players
• NFL extraction: 51.2% kept from players
• FIFA’s extraction is 15.25x worse
IF FIFA OPERATED LIKE NFL:
• $11B × 48.8% = $5.368 billion to players
• Actual: $355 million
• Difference: $5.013 billion kept by FIFA every 4 years
PER WORLD CUP PLAYER (2026):
• 48 teams × ~23 players = ~1,104 players
• If FIFA paid like NFL: $5.368B / 1,104 = $4.86 million per player
• Actual (via club fees): $355M / 1,104 = $321,557 per player (indirect)
• Players are losing $4.54 million each compared to NFL revenue sharing
This is systematic extraction at global scale.
Why Players Can't Strike
In the NFL, players can strike. If labor negotiations break down, the NFL Players Association can call a work stoppage. Players refuse to play. Games don't happen. Revenue stops. Owners feel pain. This leverage forces owners to negotiate.
NFL players have used this leverage multiple times:
- 1982 strike: 57 days, forced owners to increase player compensation
- 1987 strike: 24 days, led to free agency reforms
- 2011 lockout: Owners locked out players, settlement reached after 132 days
The threat of strikes gives NFL players bargaining power. Owners know that if they don't negotiate in good faith, players can shut down the league.
FIFA players have no equivalent leverage. Here's why:
1. National teams, not leagues: NFL players work for 32 teams in a single league. They can collectively refuse to work. But FIFA players represent 211 national teams across different confederations. There's no single employer to strike against.
2. National pride prevents strikes: If NFL players strike, fans are disappointed but understand it's a labor dispute. If World Cup players tried to strike, they'd be accused of betraying their countries. The political and emotional pressure is enormous. Players who refused to play for their national teams would face public backlash, potential government pressure, and career consequences.
3. National federations control selection: Players don't choose to play for their national teams — federations choose them. If a player becomes a "problem" (e.g., demands revenue sharing), the federation can simply not select them. There are always other players willing to play for free.
4. No unified bargaining unit: NFL players are represented by the NFLPA. All NFL players are members. The union can speak for everyone. FIFA players have FIFPro (international players' union), but FIFPro is a federation of national unions, not a single bargaining unit. It has no authority to negotiate with FIFA on behalf of all players.
5. Clubs pay player salaries: NFL players' salaries come from the league (via team salary caps funded by shared revenue). So NFL players care deeply about league revenue. FIFA players' salaries come from clubs. Their club paychecks aren't affected by FIFA revenue. This reduces their incentive to fight FIFA for revenue sharing.
The result: FIFA players can't credibly threaten to strike. And without that threat, they have no leverage.
NFL STRIKE LEVERAGE:
• Players work for 32 teams in single league
• NFLPA can call work stoppage
• No games = no revenue = owners feel pain
• History: 1982 strike (57 days), 1987 strike (24 days), 2011 lockout (132 days)
• Threat of strikes forces good-faith negotiation
WHY FIFA PLAYERS CAN’T USE SAME LEVERAGE:
1. NATIONAL TEAMS, NOT LEAGUES:
• 211 national teams across different confederations
• No single employer to strike against
• Can’t collectively refuse to work
2. NATIONAL PRIDE PREVENTS STRIKES:
• NFL strike = labor dispute (understandable)
• World Cup strike = betraying your country (politically explosive)
• Players who refused would face: Public backlash, government pressure, career damage
• Patriotism weaponized against labor rights
3. FEDERATIONS CONTROL SELECTION:
• Players don’t choose to play — federations choose them
• “Problem” players (demanding revenue) can be dropped
• Always other players willing to play for free
4. NO UNIFIED BARGAINING UNIT:
• FIFPro exists but is federation of national unions
• No single entity with authority to negotiate for all players
• Can’t coordinate global labor action
5. CLUBS PAY SALARIES:
• NFL: League revenue → salary cap → player paychecks
• FIFA: Club revenue → player paychecks (independent of FIFA)
• FIFA revenue doesn’t affect player salaries directly
• Reduces incentive to fight FIFA
THE RESULT:
Players can’t credibly threaten to strike. Without that threat, they have zero
leverage. FIFA can pay 3% and face no consequences.
FIFPro: The Union Without Power
FIFPro (Fédération Internationale des Associations de Footballeurs Professionnels) is the international organization representing professional football players. It's often described as the "global players' union."
But FIFPro has no real power to negotiate with FIFA.
Here's why:
1. FIFPro is a federation of national unions, not a single union. It represents 65 national player associations from different countries. Each national association has its own priorities, legal frameworks, and relationships with its national federation. FIFPro can't speak for all players with one voice because its member associations don't always agree.
2. FIFPro has no collective bargaining agreement with FIFA. Unlike the NFLPA (which has a legally binding CBA with the NFL), FIFPro has no formal agreement that requires FIFA to negotiate. FIFA can simply refuse to bargain.
3. FIFPro has no enforcement mechanism. Even when FIFPro makes demands (e.g., "players should receive revenue share from World Cup"), FIFA can ignore them. FIFPro can't force FIFA to comply because it has no legal authority and players can't strike.
4. FIFPro's funding is limited. The NFLPA has substantial resources (funded by player dues from high-earning NFL athletes). FIFPro's budget is smaller because it represents players across vastly different income levels (some earn millions, many earn modest salaries). This limits FIFPro's ability to fight long legal battles or fund global organizing campaigns.
5. National federations outflank FIFPro. FIFA's member associations are national federations (like the US Soccer Federation, English FA, etc.). These federations vote on FIFA policies. FIFPro can lobby, but it has no votes. Federations prioritize their own interests (FIFA funding) over player interests.
So FIFPro exists. It issues statements. It advocates for player rights. But it can't force FIFA to share revenue. And without enforcement power, advocacy doesn't change the extraction.
WHAT IS FIFPRO:
• International organization representing professional football players
• Federation of 65 national player associations
• Often called “global players’ union”
WHY IT HAS NO REAL POWER:
1. FEDERATION STRUCTURE, NOT SINGLE UNION:
• 65 national associations with different priorities
• Can’t speak with one voice (members don’t always agree)
• Compare to NFLPA: Single union, all NFL players are members
2. NO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT:
• NFLPA has legally binding CBA with NFL (requires good-faith negotiation)
• FIFPro has NO formal agreement with FIFA
• FIFA can simply refuse to bargain
3. NO ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM:
• FIFPro makes demands → FIFA ignores them
• FIFPro has no legal authority to force compliance
• Players can’t strike (national pride, federation control)
• Result: Advocacy without power
4. LIMITED FUNDING:
• NFLPA funded by high-earning NFL players (substantial resources)
• FIFPro represents players across vast income ranges (many earn modest salaries)
• Limited budget = can’t fight long legal battles or fund global campaigns
5. NATIONAL FEDERATIONS OUTFLANK FIFPRO:
• FIFA’s voting members = national federations (USSF, English FA, etc.)
• FIFPro can lobby but has no votes
• Federations prioritize FIFA funding over player interests
THE RESULT:
FIFPro exists. Issues statements. Advocates for players. But can’t force FIFA
to share revenue. Advocacy without enforcement = players still get 3%.
National Federations: The Intermediaries Who Won't Help
You might think national federations would pressure FIFA on behalf of players. After all, federations select players, organize national teams, and have direct relationships with FIFA.
But federations don't pressure FIFA for player revenue sharing. Here's why:
1. Federations depend on FIFA funding. FIFA distributes hundreds of millions to national federations via programs like FIFA Forward (development grants). Federations that antagonize FIFA risk losing funding. So federations stay quiet about player compensation.
2. Federations benefit from the current system. Under FIFA's model, federations receive World Cup prize money (e.g., $42 million for winning 2022 World Cup). Federations decide how much of that to distribute to players. Some federations keep significant portions for "administration." If FIFA paid players directly, federations would lose control over that money.
3. Federations are often poorly governed. Many national federations have their own corruption scandals, opaque finances, and undemocratic structures. These federations aren't going to advocate for player rights when they're busy protecting their own interests.
4. Federations vote on FIFA policies. FIFA Congress (where major decisions are made) is composed of national federation representatives. These are the people who elect the FIFA President and approve budgets. They're not going to vote for revenue sharing that reduces their own FIFA grants.
So players are trapped: FIFPro has no power. National federations won't help. And FIFA faces zero pressure to change.
The Club Release Fee Model: 3% and Indirect
FIFA's only direct payment related to players is the Club Benefits Programme: compensation to clubs for releasing players to national teams.
For the 2026 World Cup, FIFA will pay $355 million total to clubs worldwide. The formula:
- $10,000 per player per day
- Covers preparation period (before tournament) and tournament duration
- Includes compensation for players released during qualifiers (new for 2026)
Example: A club that releases 5 players for the World Cup might receive $500,000-1 million depending on how long those players' teams stay in the tournament.
But this isn't player compensation. It's club compensation. The money goes to clubs, not players. Clubs decide whether to pass any of it to players (most don't).
So when we say "players get 3%," that's even generous. The $355 million goes to clubs. Players themselves get zero from FIFA.
What players get:
- Appearance fees from national federations: Some federations pay players for making the squad (e.g., $30,000-50,000)
- Performance bonuses from federations: Win bonuses, tournament progression bonuses (varies by federation)
- Prize money distributions: Some federations share World Cup prize money with players (e.g., US women's team negotiated equal prize money sharing)
But all of this comes from national federations, not FIFA. And it's tiny compared to the $11 billion FIFA generates.
FIFA’S CLUB BENEFITS PROGRAMME:
• Total for 2026 World Cup: $355 million
• Formula: $10,000 per player per day
• Covers prep period + tournament duration + qualifiers (new for 2026)
• Payment goes to CLUBS, not players
EXAMPLE:
• Club releases 5 players for World Cup
• Players’ teams stay in tournament 30 days average
• Payment: 5 players × $10,000/day × 30 days = $1.5 million to club
• Players receive: $0 from FIFA (club decides whether to pass any on)
WHAT PLAYERS ACTUALLY RECEIVE:
• From national federations (not FIFA):
- Appearance fees: $30,000-50,000 (varies by federation)
- Performance bonuses: Win bonuses, progression bonuses
- Prize money shares: Some federations distribute World Cup prize money
• From FIFA directly: $0
THE PROBLEM:
• FIFA generates $11B from player performances
• Pays clubs $355M (3.2% of revenue)
• Pays players $0
• National federations distribute small bonuses (funded by federation, not FIFA)
• Total player compensation: Tiny fraction of value they create
COMPARE TO NFL:
• NFL revenue → salary cap → player paychecks (direct)
• FIFA revenue → FIFA reserves → clubs get release fees → players get $0 (indirect)
Players generate 100% of FIFA’s $11B revenue. FIFA pays them nothing.
Why This Will Never Change
FIFA's player extraction won't change because the structure prevents it:
1. Players can't strike (national pride, federation control, no unified union)
2. FIFPro can't force negotiations (no CBA, no enforcement power)
3. National federations won't help (depend on FIFA funding, benefit from current model)
4. FIFA faces no external pressure (Swiss non-profit law permits extraction, no shareholders to hold accountable)
5. Players are atomized (211 countries, different legal systems, no collective leverage)
The only scenario where FIFA would share revenue with players is if:
- Players could credibly threaten to not play (requires overcoming national pride barriers)
- National federations collectively demanded it (requires federations to prioritize players over FIFA funding)
- Legal action forced it (requires finding jurisdiction where FIFA's extraction violates law)
- Sponsors demanded it (requires sponsors to care about player compensation more than branding)
None of these are likely. So FIFA will continue extracting 97% of revenue while paying players nothing.
Post 6 will profile the man negotiating FIFA's deals: Romy Gai, whose consulting firm had Saudi operations and whose current role makes him the face of FIFA's post-reform corruption model.
WHAT’S CONFIRMED (Primary Sources):
• FIFA revenue: $11B (2023-2026 cycle) — FIFA budget documents
• Club Benefits Programme: $355M (2026), $10k/player/day — FIFA press releases
• NFL revenue share: 48.8% to players (CBA Article 12) — confirmed in NFL CBA
• FIFPro structure: Federation of 65 national associations — FIFPro documentation
• FIFA Forward grants: FIFA distributes development funding to federations — FIFA reports
• NFL strike history: 1982 (57 days), 1987 (24 days), 2011 lockout (132 days) — documented
WHAT’S CALCULATED (Showing Math):
• Player share of FIFA revenue: $355M / $11B = 3.2%
• If FIFA paid like NFL: $11B × 48.8% = $5.368B (vs $355M actual)
• FIFA extraction vs NFL: 96.8% / 51.2% = FIFA 15.25x worse
WHAT’S INFERRED (Clearly Labeled):
• “Worst labor deal in sports”: Our characterization based on 3% vs 48.8% comparison
• “Structure prevents change”: Our analysis of why players have zero leverage
• “Will never change”: Our assessment based on structural barriers
WHY THIS MATTERS:
FIFA generates $11B from player performances. Players get $0 directly (clubs get
$355M release fees = 3.2%). No CBA. No strike leverage. No union with power.
This is 15x worse extraction than the NFL — and players can’t fight back.
No comments:
Post a Comment