Miguel Delaney answers your questions on Fifa’s crisis – from Infantino’s grip on power to a possible Uefa breakaway

This World Cup has delivered some of the most dramatic football in years – but it has been overshadowed throughout by a genuine crisis of trust in Fifa , something that came through clearly in my latest Ask Me Anything Q&A . Many of your questions centred on the Folarin Balogun case and the sense that Fifa had crossed a line by interfering with what happens on the pitch, as well as the wider question of whether Gianni Infantino could actually be forced from office given the voting maths that currently protects him. There was also strong interest in the structural side of the crisis – from ticket pricing and its effect on atmosphere, to whether Uefa ’s biggest nations could ever realistically break away from Fifa altogether. Here are some of your questions – and my answers from the Q&A: Q: Unlikely though it is, how exactly could Infantino be forced out of office? Gluben A: A lot of this comes down to maths. Infantino needs106 votes to continue as Fifa president, and Fifa’s redistribution of prize money – without audited accounts from many federations being returned – basically secures the incumbent president’s vote for a lot of smaller countries. Other power dynamics mean he has Africa and Asia largely tied up, taking him past 100. Because he already has so much guaranteed, more critical associations feel they have to fall in line, or else believe they’ll never get a chance at hosting a World Cup in future. It’s a bit absurd given how transactional it looks, and how limited the actual opportunities are. The big European nations do have the clout to come together and leverage change, but inexplicably don’t, leaving this vacuum. The only real potential for change is splitting his voter base, which the row over the Somali referee had the potential to do. Once the tournament finishes, though, some of the more questioning federations will just see the huge prize money. With Balogun, there briefly looked like a moment in Europe – only for key federations to refuse to go public. It says it all. Q: Is knockout football impossible to mess up? Or is there a breaking point that could seriously impact Fifa and its leadership? Anonymous A: Yes, this is both the glory and the problem of the World Cup – the two sides of it. A journalist friend of mine, Lars Sivertsen, put it well the other day: so much of it has been inexcusable at the same time as so much of the football has been transcendent. Fifa and other powers know the football perseveres. But that’s precisely why the Balogun case could be a hinge moment – because it’s Fifa messing with football as it’s actually played on the pitch. That’s close to a breaking point, even if the response so far shows it hasn’t got there yet – not enough associations are publicly enraged. The irony is that if there isn’t proper pushback, the possibility grows of something worse happening. It’s like we’re on a slippery slope. Q: How on earth didn’t Fifa think about the Pandora’s box they would open? Jean-Louis A: I totally agree. The Pandora’s box is the precedent it now sets for legal challenges to on-pitch decisions. This is a major problem with the Infantino iteration of Fifa, where so much is done top down and ad hoc, with so little strategy or foresight of proper process. You can extend that to something more trivial but still telling. During the Qatar World Cup, they decided overnight that this tournament would have four-team groups rather than three – just like that, no proper process. Absurd. And that’s how you get to situations like this. Q: In your opinion, who has been worse for Fifa: Blatter or Infantino? MichaelBowden A: There’s an interesting dynamic here. The issues with Infantino have led to a bit of revisionism on Blatter, which I don’t fully agree with. First, Blatter has actually been banned from the sport for ethical breaches and financial misconduct – Infantino hasn’t. By the same token, one era begets the next, especially without reform – you can’t have this iteration of Fifa without the Blatter iteration, and can’t have the Blatter iteration without Havelange’s. That said, I think the effect of the Infantino Fifa is worse for the game. We’re seeing worse things happen, more of the game handed over to autocratic states, more bad decisions affecting how the game is run. Infantino by top-down decree . Blatter, for all his problems, involved more collective decision-making. Q: How can football associations take greater control over Fifa’s mandate and policies? TheZohan A: You’ve touched on something fundamental. It’s too easily forgotten that Fifa exists to serve its member associations – instead we have that reversed, where everything feels in service to the president, not even Fifa itself. It’s remarkable how this has been allowed to evolve, and it comes from a lack of reform. It’s not an exciting answer, but it comes back to proper structure with checks and balances. That’s how this gets changed. Q: Could this lead to the breakup of Fifa? Would Uefa have the nerve to set up a new organisation? Frank A: Uefa are, I’m told, “outraged”, but there just isn’t sufficient political will yet. Too many of the big countries aren’t interested. Where was the FA’s statement, for example? For the answer to that, you can link it to the ambition to host the 2035 Women’s World Cup. I’ve heard some European nations express disappointment with their bigger partners on this. Q: How difficult would it legally be for Uefa-affiliated associations to disconnect from Fifa? Is there an appetite in Europe to do so? Anonymous A: Every question about a European breakaway brings a new dimension to it. Essentially, they can do what they want here – it wouldn’t be a Super League-style breakaway in the sense of legal pushback. One of the reasons Fifa ultimately holds such power is over the licences and registration that ensure people can play in the World Cup – that’s the huge disincentive, and why federations stay under the umbrella. But if they were to create some kind of World Cup alternative with other major nations, that’s a different question. Q: How damaging is it that fans and even a coach like Hossam Hassan are using words like “fixed” – does perception become its own kind of reality here? Anonymous A: It touches on something very important. I’ve said in an article that I don’t think the accusations are true, but they still create another problem for Fifa. It points to just how poisonous the Trump intervention was. Criticising referees is nothing new – Louis van Gaal had comments about the last World Cup – but this moves into a new sphere, especially the extent of the accusation. A lot of people are now thinking: if the Trump thing happened, what else can? And that’s the key – it erodes credibility and legitimacy in a way that’s very difficult to get back. Q: Do you think the Egypt coach should apologise for suggesting the game was rigged? Anonymous A: While I agree on the point about evidence and about taking credit away from the Argentina players, this is a manifestation of justified anger at decisions that cost his team a major moment. He’s also quite an outspoken character anyway, so I don’t think we’ll get that apology. I don’t agree with him, but I can empathise with his rage – it’s easy to overlook how much this means. We saw something similar with Ireland and the Henry handball. I can’t quite bring myself to say he should apologise, given how aggrieved he’ll feel – while still disagreeing with him. The decisions were bad. I think they were normal, innocent errors, but they were bad. Q: How has the ticket pricing affected the crowds and experience of the games? Anonymous A: I don’t think it has really affected crowd sizes, and that was always to be expected given the US entertainment economy. As regards atmosphere, though, there has been some effect. I think actual fans attending has decreased in the knockouts due to the cost – that’s likely to change for the most important games. When I was at the Argentina game, the atmosphere was brilliant, but there were moments around the stadium where they tried to get some of the big chants going and not enough of the people in Argentina shirts knew them, which is unusual. That points to some being there for the experience rather than actual support. But the key point is this: just because Fifa will do well out of this doesn’t mean they should have. Them feeling vindicated on interest doesn’t change the fact it was morally wrong to make prices so high. These questions and answers were part of an ‘Ask Me Anything’ hosted by Miguel Delaney at 4pm BST on Thursday 9 July. Some of the questions and answers have been edited for this article. If you want more insider news from the world of football, sign up to Miguel’s Inside Football newsletter. New members get their first month FREE. Join here .