We all know that FIFA is world football’s governing body. But Sepp Blatter and co. don’t preside over all of international football. There’s a whole world of non-FIFA football out there, meaning football involving non-FIFA affiliated international teams.
There are various reasons why certain “national” football teams and organizations are not FIFA affiliated. Without getting into too much detail, the Wikipedia entry on non-FIFA football defines it roughly as six categories: Regional associations (eg Jersey), Autonomous (or autonomy-seeking) regions (eg Catalonia), Stateless people (eg the Sami people of Lapland), States (eg Vatican City), Minorities (ethnic minorities within a larger state), and Micronations (usually crazy people who make up their own country like Sealand).
These people still want to play football though, so many of them do. Until recently, these teams had been organized mostly by the NF-Board, headquartered in Liege, Belgium, and responsible for setting up the excellently titled VIVA World Cup (won this year (and in 2008) by Padania).
But a new organization called the International Football Union announced itself in August 2009, so now non-FIFA football seems to have two governing bodies. So is that good or bad for non-FIFA football?
The IFU’s mission statement explains:
We are the International Football Union (IFU). The IFU is a football/soccer organisation that wants to federate Football Associations that are not part of the FIFA. The IFU wants to organise international matches between IFU nations.
Which is pretty similar to what the NF-Board does. So what’s the difference? When asked this question via email, IFU Media Coordinator Viivi Parma was careful to both pay tribute to the NF-Board and to point out the key difference:
The most important point that differs the IFU from the NF-Board is the admission criteria, the NF-Board allows almost everybody to play - whatever the entity is that their FAs want to represent - while we want to build an organization based on more strict admission criteria.
The goal of the IFU is to create a structure where all the credible Football Associations feel comfortable in. Our aim is not to create any kind of discrimination, but to join all the FAs around the world that do not have the privilege to be a part of the FIFA family.
In our family we want to have all the Football Associations that represent an independent nation or region that has some kind of political or sporting autonomy towards the nation they belong to, while the NF-Board allows everybody to create a FA and start playing like a true nation.
An example the IFU cites is Padania, which if you clicked the Wikipedia link above, seems to be an outgrowth of the Lega Nord Italian political party rather than an autonomous nation or state. As such, they would not be eligible for IFU membership.
We are creating an alternative structure that will organize an alternative competition for all the non-FIFA teams that do not want to get involved in those type of questions, teams that only want to play against teams like themselves, that truly represent a nation or a region.
I also asked the NF-Board how they felt about the existence of a rival organization, and Secretary General Jean-Luc Kit seemed to be happy enough.
I think that it’s always a good thing when the non-FIFA scene advances, because the Football Associations will have more occasions to play football.
So let’s hope that’s exactly how it works out. If the IFU and the N-F Board can co-exist, with the IFU providing opportunities for non-FIFA nation states to play competitive football (and maybe eventually gain FIFA membership) while the NF-Board continues to allow non-nation teams - but still teams - like Padonia to compete, then that has to be good for non-FIFA football.
Posts
