
FIFPro playing sports politics, not interested in solving problems – FIFA chief Emilio Garcia
Speaking at a media briefing on Wednesday with The Athletic and a number of Spanish-language outlets from South America and Spain, García criticized FIFPro president Sergio Marchi for making personal attacks against FIFA president Gianni Infantino.
Advertisement
In an interview with The Athletic, Marchi accused Infantino of running the sport as an autocracy. Garcia responded on Wednesday that FIFA is disappointed with FIFPro's stance.
'The issue here is that Sergio and FIFPro are not interested in solving problems — they're interested in making headlines and doing sports politics,' García said. 'And we don't want to play sports politics with FIFPro.'
'The truth is,' García continued, 'in recent weeks, it seems more like there's a desire to appear in the media than a genuine concern for the real problems and situations of the players.'
Before the Club World Cup final at MetLife Stadium in New Jersey on July 13, Infantino hosted a meeting in New York in which, according to FIFA, a consensus was reached regarding a defined rest period for players. FIFPro was not invited to the meeting.
Other player unions in attendance, along with FIFA, settled on a 72-hour rest period between matches and an additional rest period of at least 21 days at the end of each season. Both topics have been of great interest for FIFPro for years, with 28 days of rest having been the preferred allotment for FIFPro.
García acknowledged that both rest periods have been 'a constant demand from the players' unions — and in their case, from FIFPro.' But according to García, negotiating with FIFPro, and particularly with Marchi, has become more difficult.
These two areas are fundamental and have been a constant demand from the players' unions — and in their case, from FIFPro. But what's surprising in recent months is that when FIFA says 'we're going to implement this,' it seems like FIFPro responds, 'well, we're not interested in that.'
Upon its creation, the Club World Cup, which featured 32 teams from six FIFA confederations, was the target of disparagement for adding another major tournament to an already congested football calendar.
It was played in 11 U.S. cities and 12 different stadiums. Attendance ebbed and flowed throughout the competition, while weather delays and extreme heat were among the tournament's principal issues. Several players and coaches lambasted the heat and playing surfaces. Chelsea won the tournament, winning 4-0 in the final against PSG at MetLife Stadium.
Advertisement
'All you need to do is ask the players who didn't make it to the Club World Cup — did they want to be there? And second, those who did — did they want to play or not?' said García.
'I think there's a very, very big disconnect between the global footballers' union and the players they claim to represent,' he continued.
'(Marchi) recently said that Infantino is God — or believes he's God. I think that's a very personal way of putting it. The truth is, he certainly isn't, because he wasn't able to stop the storms and bad weather that occurred during the (Club) World Cup. He's a human being, with flaws, with mistakes, and with successes.'
García said FIFA and Infantino were working to establish plans that address the heat, among other issues, ahead of the 2026 men's World Cup, which will be co-hosted by the U.S., Mexico and Canada.
Former Argentina national team midfielder Maxi Rodríguez was also on the call on behalf of FIFA. Rodríguez, 44, retired from professional football in 2021 after a club career that included time with Atletico Madrid, Liverpool and Newell's Old Boys, among other clubs. He also represented Argentina at three World Cup finals.
'Regarding the issue of the heat, I had to play in very high temperatures all over the world,' Rodríguez said. 'I've played in all kinds of places with intense heat. And I've also had to play in extreme cold. You go from one extreme to the other. I think the player and the body adapt over time. We're athletes and we prepare throughout the year, and during the preseason in particular, in order to handle a full year of competition.'
'When it comes to the temperature, I don't think there's anything specific that can be done,' he added. 'I believe the player prepares to give their best in every competition.'
García spoke about the relationship between FIFA and FIFPro after scoffing at Marchi's claims that FIFA is not a democratic organization.
'To say that FIFA is not a democratic institution when our statutes, our accounts, our distribution model — who approves them? The president's salary? What is the salary of the president and the secretary general? This is all published,' García said.
Advertisement
'I believe there is no difference between the two parties,' he said. 'We are defending exactly the same things. In fact, I would even say — and this is objective — if you look at the latest advancements in the protection of footballers, both men and women, all of these have essentially come from FIFA, not from FIFPro.
In response to these comments, a FIFPro spokesperson said: 'The advances/new rules can only come from FIFA because they are the regulator. FIFPro cannot introduce rules.
'We believe there should be proportional negotiating rights for player unions on the match calendar and other issues affecting employment rights.'
Last week, FIFA accused FIFPro of blackmail and denounced the union's lack of financial transparency. This was in response to Marchi's claims that FIFA's autocratic measures were 'the biggest obstacle' to his union. FIFA's statement argued that FIFPro had 'chosen to pursue a path of public confrontation driven by artificial PR battles.'
García, in turn, said that the union's biggest problems were 'political.' He also said FIFA is 'not a government' and does not 'establish the social security systems for footballers.'
'We have been historically accused of monopolies and of violating competition laws,' said García. 'FIFA will not violate trade union freedom. There is one union that is welcome — of course, always — and its president is always welcome. That said, they are not the only ones, because football is very big, and because there are many unions — first, that are not members of FIFPro, and second, that are dissatisfied with FIFPro.'
When asked about FIFA's blackmail claims on Wednesday, García said: 'I think it's more a matter of not having a positive constructive spirit. In other words, that constructive spirit doesn't exist. I'll reiterate that we have put many proposals on the table and they're not even discussed.
Advertisement
'I believe that being the president of FIFPro doesn't mean opposing things on a daily basis,' said García. 'It's as if there's a daily attempt to try to appear more belligerent than the European groups. It's about negotiating, talking, and reaching agreements. That's what we've been missing in recent months.'
García also referred to Marchi as 'intelligent' and said that he has worked with the former Argentine professional footballer on several projects. He said that FIFA would 'never question the legitimacy of the president of FIFPro.'
'To us, Sergio Marchi is not an emperor,' he said. 'To us, Sergio Marchi is not someone who thinks he's God. We don't engage in that kind of discourse. To us, he is the president of FIFPro. The problem is that it seems he's becoming more of a problem than a solution.
'FIFPro wants exclusivity and money. FIFA is not willing to accept that,' he continued.
'It is willing to speak and negotiate with the representatives of the workers, but with all of them. Not only with those who say, 'It's us or no one.''
The Athletic approached the representatives of Sergio Marchi for comment.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Matt Wallner's RBI single
Matt Wallner grounds a base hit into center field, scoring Austin Martin and giving the Twins an early 1-0 lead


Bloomberg
26 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Brazil's Lula Says Open to US Trade Talks If Treated as an Equal
President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said Brazil is open to trade talks with Donald Trump but only if his country is treated as an equal to the US, reiterating that he won't bow to political pressure from the US president. 'We want to negotiate. We want to negotiate on equal terms,' Lula said Sunday at an event for his leftist Workers' Party in Brasilia. 'We will support our companies, defend our workers, and say, 'Look, when you're ready to negotiate, our proposals are on the table.''
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Kalshi Loss in Maryland Could Pave the Way for Supreme Court Review
A federal judge in Maryland on Friday ruled against the prediction market operator Kalshi on whether states can use sports betting laws to regulate the company's sports-based event contracts. The decision conflicts with interpretations by federal judges in Nevada and New Jersey. Kalshi immediately appealed U.S. District Judge Adam B. Abelson's denial of the company's motion for a preliminary injunction against Maryland's lottery and gaming control agency and commission to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The move sets in motion the possibility of an eventual review by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court would decide which federal court has correctly interpreted the disputed interplay between federal and state laws in the context of sports wagering and sports-event contracts. More from Ex-Stanford Coach Taylor Sues ESPN for Defamation After Firing Deflated Balls Artist Sues Pelicans Over Instagram Posts Quintenz's CFTC Nomination Paused by White House Intervention As Sportico detailed in April, Kalshi scored victories before federal judges in Nevada and New Jersey that prevented those states gaming' commissions from requiring Kalshi to obtain licenses. The Maryland decision capped a challenging week for Kalshi, which also saw board member Brian Quintenz's bid to lead the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) paused by the White House. Meanwhile, chief rival Polymarket recently signaled its intent to return to the U.S. with the pricey acquisition of a CFTC-registered exchange, a development that could limit Kalshi's growth ceiling regardless of outcomes in the courtroom. Before Abelson rejected Kalshi's arguments, U.S. District Judge Andrew P. Gordon and U.S. District Judge Edward S. Kiel, respectively, had agreed with the company that federal law appears to preempt states from regulating sports-event contracts. That is true even if sports-event contracts bear similarity to sports bets. Prediction markets such as Kalshi, which have gone live in all 50 states this year, enable users to place 'yes' or 'no' trades on subjects such as whether an MLB team will become the 'Pro Baseball Champion.' Prices for those contracts vary by team and are set by the market in a way that many states and tribal groups contend resembles odds-making. Kalshi insists that it is a distinct product from gambling because odds aren't being set in the same fashion as sportsbooks, though it has at times appeared to undermine its argument here through its marketing materials. At preliminary stages in the litigations, Gordon and Kiel agreed with Kalshi that its legal arguments are enhanced by the CFTC. The CFTC is an independent federal agency created by the Commodity Exchange Act of 1936 (CEA), a statute that has been amended several times. The CFTC enjoys exclusive jurisdiction to regulate commodities and futures on designated exchanges, is intended to craft uniform and national set of regulations for futures markets and has cleared Kalshi to offer prediction contracts under new leadership this year. While Nevada and New Jersey insisted that CEA's exclusive jurisdiction doesn't extend to sports-event contracts, the judges concluded that CEA doesn't explicitly say that, and that CFTC has implicitly allowed Kalshi to offer sports-event contracts. But Abelson, the Maryland judge, offered a contrasting viewpoint of Kalshi's activities. He highlighted that while Congress envisioned a substantial role for the CFTC, it also 'expressed a concern that some event contracts' would be 'contrary to the public interest.' Abelson further noted that while Kalshi self-certified (which the CEA authorizes) its sports-event contracts earlier this year, it could have instead 'requested pre-approval from the Commission regarding whether Kalshi could lawfully conduct sports betting on its platform.' During President Joe Biden's term, the CFTC contested Kalshi over its range of event contracts, which also include the ability for users to put money on elections. The agency's outlook on Kalshi changed with President Donald Trump taking office and Caroline Pham, a Republican, becoming the agency's interim chair. In May, the CFTC voluntarily dismissed an appeal of a 2024 court decision that allowed Kalshi to offer contracts on the 2024 election. As Maryland's gaming enforcers see it, 'event contracts based on the outcome of sporting events' are simply a form of sports wagering. In Maryland, sports wagering is a regulated activity that, under a state statute, is defined as 'the business of accepting wagers on any sporting event by any system or method of wagering, including single-game bets, teaser bets, parlays, over-under, moneyline, pools, exchange wagering, in-game wagering, in-play bets, proposition bets, and straight bets.' Kalshi maintains Maryland law doesn't apply to sports-event contracts because state law is preempted by the CEA. Maryland disagrees, asserting that sports-event contracts don't fall within the meaning of the CEA, and that even if they do, the CEA doesn't preempt Maryland's sports betting laws. Central to the debate is the Supremacy Clause found in Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. The Clause establishes that the Constitution and laws of the U.S. 'shall be the supreme Law of the Land.' The Supremacy Clause allows the federal government to preempt states on certain types of legal questions. On the other hand, as Abelson detailed, Congress has also 'long recognized states' authority to regulate gambling conducted within their borders' because gambling can be 'vice activity' that imposes 'social costs' on states. This tension underscores much of the legal debate surrounding Kalshi's sports-event contracts. Abelson concluded that while CEA generally preempts state regulation of prediction markets, he wasn't persuaded that Congress 'clearly and manifestly intended to strip states' of the ability to regulate a company 'offering . . . wagering opportunities' and in turn require that company to gain state approval via a license. In that same vein, Abelson distinguished CEA having 'some' preemptive effect from a more expansive preemption of 'state gambling laws and specifically sports wagering laws.' He cited other cases for the precedent that courts must avoid 'interpreting the scope of the preempted field too broadly.' Abelson was also moved by the potential repercussions of siding with Kalshi on other industry actors. To that point, a group of tribes and gaming associations filed an amicus brief urging Abelson to side with Maryland. As the tribes see it, federal, state and tribal gaming laws apply to sports event contracts. Striking a supportive position of the tribes and gaming associations' concern, Abelson worried that an interpretation of the CEA as preempting state gambling laws for Kalshi contracts 'would necessarily mean that the CEA impliedly (albeit partially) overrides the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.' This act, better known as IGRA, is central to a lawsuit brought last month by three tribal groups from California against Kalshi. IGRA established a system for reservations to launch, oversee and retain revenue from gaming—including sports betting—on their lands. Federal courts in different circuits reaching conflicting interpretations of law has problematic implications that sometimes attract the attention, and willingness, of the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene. The primary worry with circuit splits is that legal rights and obligations for people, businesses and government agencies vary based on which circuit they reside and where a legal dispute is litigated in the U.S. Here, the question of whether Kalshi's offerings ought to count as sports bets is the headline. However, the meat of the dispute is how a court should interpret a federal law that, through clearly contested language, preempts states from regulating an activity. Best of College Athletes as Employees: Answering 25 Key Questions