Raft of European nations urge Aleksander Ceferin to stay as Uefa president amid EU scrutiny

Your support helps us to tell the story

Support Now

Find out moreClose

As your White House correspondent, I ask the tough questions and seek the answers that matter.

Your support enables me to be in the room, pressing for transparency and accountability. Without your contributions, we wouldn't have the resources to challenge those in power.

Your donation makes it possible for us to keep doing this important work, keeping you informed every step of the way to the November election

Andrew Feinberg

White House Correspondent

A number of European national associations have written to Uefa asserting their stance that Aleksander Ceferin stay on as president after 2027, with as many as 35 of 55 known to be willing to support him. Should the Slovenian agree to the requests, it would mean staying in position for a total of 15 years, in a move that would bring scrutiny from the European Commission over responsible football governance and the issue of appropriate term limits.

The Uefa statutes were amended to allow for this in a controversial vote at February's Congress, with dispute over the issue seeing long-expected successor Zvonimar Boban resign. That scrutiny – especially from European politicians – is one of a few reasons that some Uefa figures believe Ceferin himself is said to be undecided on whether to run again.

The 56-year-old has given a series of mixed messages on the issue over the last year. He first said in February that he was “not planning to run in 2027 any more” before then refusing to elaborate later that day, and then stating on the eve of Euro 2024 that he didn’t want to comment on his future. Ceferin was known to be unhappy with the line of questioning in one interview.

The English Football Association has not written a letter, which is consistent with the fact they were the only federation to vote against the amendments. Those changes essentially meant that Ceferin's first term, which was inherited from Michel Platini due to the former French international's resignation, did not count as a full term.

That has all come at the same time that European political institutions increasingly scrutinise football governance, due to the questionable direction of the continent's most popular sport. Huge change may yet come with the December 2023 European Court of Justice judgement on the so-called “Super League case”, which viewed both Uefa and Fifa as monopolies and questioned their running of the game, especially as regards to “solidarity redistribution”. The last decade has seen the greatest redistribution of revenue towards the 12 wealthiest clubs in the game’s history.

Such issues have caused considerable debate within Uefa about Ceferin’s mandate, even though the majority view among the national association hierarchies is one of support. Those most strongly backing the president are Balkan countries and associations from lesser-populated countries, which is where the letters are understood to have come from. Up to 35 are willing to support his re-election.

The primary view among association heads is that Ceferin’s tenure has witnessed the biggest crises Uefa has ever experienced, through the Covid-19 pandemic, the Super League, Fifa’s attempts to stage a biennial World Cup and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The Slovenian’s backers state all of this has all been managed well, with the football industry in robust health. They would also point to how the Europa Conference League and Nations League have been successes.

Detractors outside those federations argue that the Super League was only averted through the protests of English fans, and ultimately resulted in defeat in that December 2023 European Court of Justice case, given Uefa’s current position was questioned. There was another major defeat at the Court of Arbitration for Sport in the June 2020 Manchester City case, where Uefa’s own two-year ban for the club was overturned. Ceferin himself said in January that “we know we were right” in initially imposing a ban.

That case continues to rumble on through the Premier League hearing, and it is known that Uefa figures are monitoring that keenly, for fear of embarrassment for their own organisation. This is all as the Super League clubs have accumulated more power and wealth, with the newly expanded Champions League seen as a potentially pivotal juncture that itself almost represents a de facto Super League. The Europa Conference League was meanwhile the European Club Association's idea, while the Nations League was Platini’s. Others would point to the failure of a joint venture with China, and to Ceferin’s foiled attempts to bring Russian underage teams back into competition.

That latter plan was one of the few times there has been dissent towards a Ceferin idea, which precisely points to what many European politicians and administrators believe represents a crucial flaw in football governance. Both Uefa and Fifa currently operate models where the presidents are essentially executive leaders, with huge power and little opposition. That comes within a political structural model that has been criticised as clientelistic: in essence, the Uefa leadership guarantees funding to federations through the HatTrick programme – while also having the power to award major tournaments and finals – and the federations then return the leadership to power. It has already been internally likened to Sepp Blatter’s GOAL programme at Fifa.

The money spread by Uefa’s HatTrick programme has twice gone up during Ceferin’s time. It was first raised by close to 30 per cent in anticipation of a bumper Euro 2020 only for revenues to be down on Euro 2016. It was then raised by another 22 per cent after the Covid-19 pandemic, although Euro 2024 revenues were not much higher than Euro 2016. That represents more than a 50 per cent increase in payouts to national associations despite no significant increase in revenue.

While some Uefa figures maintain that Ceferin’s record does not exactly represent work that nobody else could possibly replicate so that he must be returned, there are wider questions over the entire executive presidential model and how it imbues the power of football federations into single individuals.

Uefa did not respond to requests for comment.