POLITICO
The lonely crusader against Gianni Infantino
The lonely crusader against Gianni Infantino Years before Europe soured on him, Norway’s Lise Klaveness was already fighting FIFA’s president. Now she’s laying out how to rebuild FIFA without him. By ALI WALKERin Monaco Illustration by Arnau Busquets Guàrdia/POLITICO Lise Klaveness was calling out Gianni Infantino before it was cool. The president of Norway’s soccer federation has been a longtime thorn in the side of FIFA’s president, pushing vociferously for more transparent governance at the summit of global soccer. Her concerns, which date back to the World Cup in Qatar in 2022 and its questions about migrant labor and human rights, found a much wider audience this summer after Infantino’s secret plot to sell off parts of the tournament exposed the risks of FIFA’s highly centralized leadership. The 45-year-old former international soccer player, attorney and judge recently told POLITICO that not only must Infantino depart FIFA but the system he constructed be totally rebuilt. Sipping black coffee recently in Le Café Lacoste at Monaco’s tony Méridien Beach Plaza hotel, the flame-haired Klaveness outlined five areas where that should start, including committee reform and reducing the president’s executive power. A wave of European nations have now followed Norway in calling for Infantino to go, after his aborted commercial sell-off to private investors including Joshua Kushner’s firm Thrive Capital. Political heavyweights, including British Prime Minister Andy Burnham and Canadian premier Mark Carney, have also called for the president’s exit. But Klaveness said she’s not resentful about how slow reinforcements were to arrive. “I think it’s very bad to be passionate about something and then when it happens you are sort of bitter that it didn’t happen before,” she said. Our expansive conversation with Klaveness about the intersection of global soccer governance and politics took place during UEFA’s season-opening competition draw in Monaco. Just hours after the death of Norway’s King Harald, Klaveness saw her Monaco itinerary upturned as she faced a whirlwind round of meetings with domestic soccer officials about postponing the weekend’s fixtures. Lise Klaveness, at the women’s Champions League final on May 23, 2026 in Oslo. | Maja Hitij/Getty Images But she still found time to discuss, beyond Infantino, Russia and Israel’s place in world soccer, why she feels sorry for FIFA’s staff — and which two men she credits with saving the World Cup from Infantino and Kushner. This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity. POLITICO: Do you believe FIFA’s problems can be solved by removing Gianni Infantino, or has the organization become incapable of governing football well? Klaveness: So is it an individual problem or is it a structural problem? Right now it’s both. We are very clear that, first of all, we have over time been very worried about how Gianni Infantino has conducted his leadership, distancing himself more and more from his own reforms. And it started even before power would corrupt. So it seemed like that was his modus [operandi], to be elected on one agenda and then rule on another agenda. We desperately need a leader who puts compromises above himself, that puts the sport above himself, that gathers everyone. And we can all see that’s not happening. It’s polarizing. But even if he leaves, we still think it’s also a structural problem, which needs to be fixed. I would not say FIFA is ungovernable. I think good governance is fully possible. But it needs to be a passion, and we all thought it would be after 2015 with the crisis, and that’s why he was elected. So of course it’s a bit depressing that it didn’t happen, and it’s easy to think that that will just reproduce. The next leader coming in needs to understand that leadership is not just one person — it’s all of us — and we all need to be accountable for these systems. With all good governance, the process is also part of the aim. The process in itself makes people accountable. So that it’s not a bureaucracy, but it’s necessary to do it and to have a FIFA Congress next year that — regardless of Infantino or anyone else taking over — needs to decide changes to the structures. Infantino, standing next to the World Cup trophy on January 29, 2026 in Washington. | Alex Wong/Getty Images POLITICO: Imagine it’s 2031 and FIFA has successfully rebuilt trust. What are three things that are different from today? Klaveness: We have many committees doing checks and balances today, and those people should be selected more independently. They are officially selected by the Congress, but they are mainly appointed by the president. And the people there should have a proven record for governance — not critical journalists, on one hand, or loyal soldiers to the president on the other. Normal people that have competence with governance. Because if you put those people in such chairs, my experience is that they will not be corrupted. I guess it’s not popular to say, but we need to reduce the number in the Council to a third, or at least half. When you have a Council of 37 people it is inefficient and then one person will take over. If you have a fully functioning FIFA in five years that has changed. And, thirdly, you need a good, implemented and checked regulation between the administration and the president. The president should be more nonexecutive and the general secretary should run the administration and that should be regulated and tested by these committees. FIFA also very strongly needs to move away from the strategy of growing, growing, growing commercial revenues. So you’re governing the laws of the game, you’re governing the laws of transfers, you are governing the international periods, you’re governing the World Cup, but you’re not first and foremost a business entity. POLITICO: Thank you for four ideas, not just three. Klaveness and UEFA President Aleksander Čeferin in Bodoe, Norway on May 8, 2025. | Stian Lysberg Solum/NTB via Getty Images Klaveness: Yeah, it should actually be more. I would say the fifth thing is that we actually make a review of the reforms Infantino was elected on and implement them. We have to do the analysis, which is now a bit outdated, but I think we went through it in 2015. Then I was following as a nerd, but I liked them and I thought they were good changes. POLITICO: Do you think football should look outside the football industry for a future leader? Klaveness: It’s difficult for me to answer that, to be honest. To me, it’s not a yes or no question. I think when we work in football, we all have experienced people from outside football that really lift your organization, really have a very valuable add to your organization. We have all experienced the opposite also, that you come in — for example, business people — and underestimate certain parts of football, that it’s not only a product. But I think we football people have a tendency to say that it should be football people, and people in the organization — who have come a bit more from outside football — have a tendency to say it should be people coming from outside football. So we all see it from where we are. And I’m from football, so it would be easy for me to say that is an advantage. I played, but I do not rule out that you can have good leaders [from outside], of course you can. But you need football people in the close team at least. I do think sometimes it’s an advantage to educate players after they’re done and to really make them come back to the game because it is a super power to know how the locker room works. POLITICO: In light of the Trump-Infantino-Balogun issue that marred the World Cup, what is the red line beyond which political influence becomes unacceptable interference in football? Donald Trump and Gianni Infantino at the World Cup final trophy ceremony on July 19, 2026 in New Jersey. | Carl Recine/Getty Images Klaveness: We have been worried about two particular points with the current leadership for almost five years. We have protocol worries about the lack of implementation of very reasonable reforms and very necessary safeguards toward corruption and conflicts of interest. Secondly, the lack of arm’s-length distance to state leaders. And we have repeated this worry for almost five years — before Trump, with different state leaders. Many people have told us that it’s pragmatism. We all know that if you organize something, you need to cooperate very well with the state leader, which we should all respect. You cannot expect to have a good World Cup and antagonize any state leader. You need access to airports, you need access to city people. Police should keep the streets open. So it’s a state matter. But for us, at least, it’s been clear over these four years that this arm’s-length distance is not kept, and then you come into very difficult situations, because politicians and state leaders, if they are not kept at arm’s length, they will ask you for political favors — directly or indirectly — which are not yours to give. It’s been, in our assessment, political interference with FIFA at an unacceptable level, at least for the four years I’ve been following this. Over time, this political influence, too many wanted to see it as pragmatism but I think in all honesty, we all knew that it went too far. POLITICO: You have been maybe the clearest voice in football talking about these issues for the last five years. Do you feel any sort of vindication … or exasperation? Klaveness talks to journalists after the 47th UEFA congress in Lisbon on April 5, 2023. | Patricia de Melo Moreira/AFP via Getty Images Klaveness: First and foremost, I feel very relieved that the UEFA president [Aleksander Čeferin] takes such strong leadership in this, which is not easy; without him the FFE project [to sell of parts of the World Cup] would probably live on. If UEFA didn’t go so hard against it and [FIFA’s then-Chief Operating Officer, who was fired from the organization] Kevin Lamour didn’t call it out, I think it would have been very difficult to stop it. So I think we have to thank these two, because you had an administrative guy telling the truth and you had a confederation president going very clearly in one direction. That was a huge relief. I think it’s very bad to be passionate about something and then when it happens you are sort of bitter that it didn’t happen before. No, it is what it is and I also have to respect that we are a smaller country, I have a membership and a board that expects this from me. We have been equally disturbed by this for four years, and not just me, my whole board. And my congress has asked me for this several times. So, transparency drives behavior also. POLITICO: In terms of the current structure of FIFA, do you think the structure is strong enough to resist potential political interference or do you think the structures need to be toughened in 2027? Klaveness: I think both. I honestly think that it’s easy to say that power corrupts and that goes for everyone — but I’ve met so many people in power that are not corrupted by power. They are decent, concentrated, checked and balanced every day because they also have people around them every day. They hire people that are strong CEOs or general secretaries or advisers. So it is an individual crisis, we have to be honest that he was not what he promised to be, he was a legal officer, he was portraying himself as a governance guy. But when in position — listen to his speeches … Should we, for example, have external members in the FIFA Council? I would say definitely, but it needs to be thoroughly assessed because it cannot be like whistleblowers. It needs a trusted environment where we all work together. Maybe supervisory board, and maybe external members; definitely a Council culture, where you ask questions every Council meeting. And, not to be rude, but where you also allow — it sounds banal — but where we decide now that in every Council meeting it should be fully OK that we ask questions. Spain’s captain Rodri is presented with the World Cup winner’s trophy by Infantino and Trump. | Dan Mullan/Getty Images POLITICO: Infantino built a system where that sort of scrutiny is not welcome? Klaveness: No, and I think that is a general football thing, when you want a leader gone, then you speak; but when you support a leader, then you don’t speak, because then it’s seen as taking a position. Of course I come from a country where it’s not like that, so it’s easy for me. At all my meetings, people will discuss everything. And also at Congress people go to the stage and maybe a hundred people could come — I’m not exaggerating, it goes for two days — and some of them are really angry at some cases, but I still have their trust, it’s not a personal thing. What we need to remember is that FIFA does a lot of great stuff — you’ve got to remember this. They have the World Cup now. We work with FIFA, with our team. I was the head of delegation with my team. I was there from June 1 till we went out. And all interaction we have with FIFA on an operational level was excellent, beyond excellent. POLITICO: But this makes it even worse for all those hundreds of staff who work for FIFA, right? Klaveness: I feel so bad for them, after the World Cup, honestly. I really want people to know that when we meet them it’s not like arrogant people. They’re really de-escalating, really knowledgeable, really patient and I think really sad for this happening. Klaveness and Secretary-General of Norway’s football association Karl-Petter Loken on October 10, 2025. | Fredrik Varfjell/NTB via Getty Images They don’t say it necessarily and I don’t put them on the spot, but it’s between the lines that they don’t like it and Kevin Lamour was one of the guys really building bridges. Always interpreting discussions not as opposition but as constructive. He would say, ‘yeah, this is a reasonable thing, I will bring it up, maybe they will not be happy, but then we can have a meeting.’ So those have been good things the last four years, but lack of implementation of reforms and lack of arms-length distance from state leaders, without fail, we will have a crisis. POLITICO: Where does Norway stand on any move to bring Russian teams back into international competition, and should there be sanctions against Israeli teams? Klaveness: Such difficult, sensitive cases. I think boycotting countries should be the last resort. It’s not something we should think is a victory, especially from kids. To punish kids for the state leader’s choices, to take them away from football, I really don’t like it. That being said, it’s impossible now to bring back the Russian teams. Because of the way they are used, the national teams, it’s so hard to separate from the propaganda. But that is a failure, I’m not happy to say that it’s impossible; it’s sadly so, even though we are in 100 percent solidarity with Ukraine. It’s never good to make kids never play with each other. That is the aim, that they could play with each other and not be affected by the war. But that’s not possible now, football would stop and Ukraine would not play. So then we are there, and that’s a sad situation, but happening because of war. When it comes to the Israel situation, we have always said, and we will always say, when you have a breach of FIFA statutes, it needs to be treated. It was delayed, delayed, delayed for many years, that they play with teams from [settlements in] Palestinian territories, which is not allowed by FIFA statutes. And then it’s politically very difficult, but legally not so difficult. So then you need sanctions, and then what the sanctions should be. You’ve got to look at precedents. Do you have any similar cases where you play in other people’s territories? What about Crimea? What about former Yugoslavia? Maybe you have some precedent. What’s the sanction? If it’s not changed, you increase the sanctions, because you need a rules-based system. And you need territory lines. Klaveness at a press conference in Oslo on August 7, 2026. | Terje Bendiksby/NTB via Getty Images When we played Israel, we gave the money to the victims of Gaza, not because we did not want to give to the victims of October 7th, but because there were ongoing attacks on the kids in Gaza, and they were poor, they needed the money. In the end, it’s all about having bridges that are actually working when this is over, when people come to terms, you need to be effective bridges that speak to both sides. For us, we have had projects in Palestine for very many years, decades, educating girls and women there to be coaches; also in Jordan, in this area. So it’s an area [where] we know how difficult it is, how many good people live there on both sides. You know, in Israel, Jordan, everywhere. So we feel very connected to the region because of these projects. Daria Zakharova contributed to this report.
POLITICO
Why Macron’s space summit risks blowing up on the launchpad
PARIS — French President Emmanuel Macron’s international space summit is not going according to plan. On Friday, the French leader’s office downplayed the last-minute decision by American space giants, including Elon Musk’s SpaceX and Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin, to skip the event, made under pressure from the White House. The U.S. snub is only one of several challenges facing the gathering on Wednesday and Thursday in the French capital. About 120 international delegations have been invited, with Chinese officials expected to attend. Six participants with first-hand knowledge of the summit’s organization described it to POLITICO as a poorly coordinated event with an unclear outcome. They were granted anonymity to discuss sensitive matters. “It’s falling behind schedule, it hasn’t really been coordinated with the major players in the European space sector, and it’s not entirely clear what its purpose is,” said a senior space expert involved in the summit’s preparation. “And now that the White House has effectively decided to use it against Emmanuel Macron, it’s becoming even more awkward — it shows that, from a diplomatic standpoint, they didn’t do what they should have done,” they added. Next week’s event aims to gather the international community — including leaders, large corporations, startups and researchers — to discuss issues including the regulation of space activities, competitiveness, security and defense, and space exploration. Macron is keen to ensure that France and Europe remain credible space powers, with an independent launch capability and their own global satellite communications system, in an effort to reduce dependence on U.S. technology. The French president’s office insisted Friday that the absence of SpaceX and Blue Origin — two of the world’s leading space companies — will have little impact on the summit. “If certain countries or actors don’t want to participate, in a way, that’s their loss,” an Elysée official told reporters on Friday. “There are American companies participating, and there will be announcements. We are not seeing a trend where the U.S. is turning its back on Europe at this space summit,” said another Elysée official. Amazon’s satellite business Amazon Leo, for example, will be represented by one of its vice presidents, a spokesperson for the company confirmed to POLITICO. ‘Badly managed’ The summit’s outcome is expected include declarations on sharing of scientific space data, allocation of radio satellite frequencies — a controversial matter — and space debris management. However, it’s still unclear at this stage who will sign them. Participants who spoke to POLITICO said there is little clarity about which countries will attend, at what level, the schedule and what to expect. “The structure of this summit — as is often the case with international summits — is rather unconventional, and I’m not sure the Elysée has any real goals other than to showcase France,” said a senior official working on the frequency declaration, who previously participated in the organization of last year’s Paris AI summit. “It will allow France to show that it is a player in the space sector, even though the resources and strategy aren’t keeping pace. And it will allow for some low-level geopolitics, without addressing the real issues surrounding European funding and capabilities,” the official added. The logistics are also chaotic and “last-minute,” the official said. Invitations were only sent over the summer — and some were still being sent as late as Friday — while negotiations on final declarations have already started, two participants said. The guest list also surprised many space officials, as they argued it left out key players. Adding to the confusion, Macron’s adviser in charge of the summit, Claire Vernet-Garnier, left her job one month before the event. In late August, the Elysée organized a briefing to try and prepare for the summit, but left many questions unanswered, several space officials told POLITICO. “It has been badly managed, it’s the worst Macron-organized summit I’ve seen,” one of them said. ‘A lot at stake’ Although the summit’s organization is raising questions, European officials and space industry representatives still hope the event will help boost Europe’s space sector profile. “There’s a lot at stake in the days ahead, because the clouds hanging over European space policy are still quite dark and quite numerous,” French Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu said on Friday as he laid the cornerstone for a new factory for reusable launcher startup MaiaSpace. The cancellations pushed by the Trump administration highlight strained EU-U.S. relations over space policy. Washington has lobbied against the European Commission’s EU Space Act, a proposed rulebook for space activities the U.S. sees as targeting American companies by imposing EU rules on them. A Franco-German push to allocate more satellite radio frequencies to European companies, including the EU’s IRIS² satellite network, is also seen as detrimental to Starlink. One of the Elysée officials conceded in the call with reporters that international discussions around space regulation were difficult. “The two key issues at stake are indeed access to two limited resources — orbit and spectrum — in a context where SpaceX has a policy of complete dominance over both,” said the CEO of a satellite company, who spoke on condition of being granted anonymity. “It’s therefore not surprising that Europe wants to focus on this, and it’s not surprising that the U.S. administration is responding with a boycott,” they added. Mathieu Pollet reported from Brussels. Gerardo Fortuna contributed to this report from Brussels.
Europe | The Guardian
Russia strikes Ukraine intelligence HQ in ‘major escalation’
Volodymyr Zelenskyy says he has told SBU to deliver ‘appropriate, tangible response’ to Kyiv strikeThe head office of Ukraine’s SBU intelligence agency has been hit in a Russian drone attack, sending plumes of black smoke rising into the air in the heart of Kyiv.Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, said he had instructed the SBU to deliver an “appropriate, tangible response” to the strike, while the foreign minister, Andrii Sybiha, described it as a “major escalation”. Continue reading...
.jpg)
