Ivković: Infantino will have the support of countries that are not important after this World Cup

Tomislav Ivković, a sports commentator for Croatia's HRT, stated during a broadcast of the Americana program that FIFA President Gianni Infantino will gain support from countries with less global influence following the 2026 World Cup. The tournament, which concluded its final stages with matches for third place and the championship game between Argentina and Spain, has been described as both the largest and most controversial in history. Ivković made his remarks after reflecting on the tournament’s impact and the leadership style of FIFA officials. The World Cup reached its climax with Argentina facing Spain in the final, set for Sunday at 21:00 local time. Earlier, England and France competed for third place on Saturday night. Ivković criticized the top figures within FIFA for their apparent detachment from the broader participants, players, coaches, and the working class, arguing they had acted indifferently toward issues raised throughout the competition. He suggested this approach communicated a message that FIFA would proceed according to its own preferences, regardless of external input. However, he noted that despite these criticisms, Infantino would likely emerge with increased respect from nations that hold less international significance. Ivković highlighted several technological and procedural controversies that marked the tournament, including the use of video assistant referees (VAR), chip technology embedded in the ball, and alleged manipulation of player suspensions. These elements have sparked ongoing discussions and debates among fans, analysts, and officials alike. Despite these challenges, FIFA achieved record-breaking revenue and television viewership numbers, particularly in American stadiums, indicating a financial success for the organization. The World Cup was held in three host nations, United States, Canada, and Mexico, for the first time in its history. This expansion brought logistical complexities and heightened scrutiny over how the event was managed. While the tournament attracted unprecedented global attention, it also faced criticism regarding infrastructure, security, and the treatment of players and staff. Some reports indicated that certain teams and individuals felt marginalized by the decision-making processes involving FIFA officials. FIFA’s financial gains from the tournament were substantial, with broadcasting rights and sponsorships contributing significantly to its coffers. According to internal filings and public statements, the organization projected record revenues, driven largely by the high-profile nature of the event and the large audiences drawn to matches in North America. These earnings could potentially fund future projects aimed at improving global football governance and expanding opportunities for underrepresented regions. Reactions to the tournament varied widely. Fans in major footballing nations expressed frustration over perceived injustices and inconsistencies in officiating decisions. Meanwhile, officials from smaller footballing countries praised the opportunity to participate in such a prestigious event, even if they did not advance far in the competition. Some critics argued that the tournament’s structure favored teams from traditional powerhouses, while others pointed to the benefits of increased exposure for emerging markets. As the World Cup drew to a close, questions remained about the long-term implications of its controversies and successes. The performance of Argentina and Spain in the final would determine the champion, while the outcome of the third-place match would settle another key result. The tournament’s legacy would depend on how FIFA addressed concerns raised during the event and whether it could leverage its newfound financial strength to implement meaningful reforms.