Skip to main content

“Infantino debe irse”, dice la leyenda del fútbol Luis Figo, mientras la FIFA celebra una reunión de crisis

By CNN

La leyenda del fútbol Luis Figo ha declarado públicamente que el asediado presidente de la FIFA, Gianni Infantino, “debe irse”, aumentando la presión sobre el máximo dirigente del deporte mientras este celebra una reunión de crisis con altos funcionarios de la FIFA el miércoles, tras desechar un plan sumamente controvertido para vender participaciones privadas en la Copa del Mundo y otros torneos importantes.

En un artículo de opinión obtenido por CNN y publicado originalmente por el Daily Mail, Figo, quien ganó cuatro títulos de La Liga, una Liga de Campeones y el Balón de Oro durante su brillante carrera, calificó la conducta de Infantino como “el comportamiento más bajo, engañoso y cobardemente egoísta que jamás haya presenciado”.

“El hombre que haría eso, el hombre que intentaría imponer cambios tan drásticos solo para enriquecerse a sí mismo y a sus amigos, es una reliquia del pasado del fútbol y no debería tener cabida en su futuro”, escribió el exfutbolista portugués.

“Podría escribir 10.000 palabras sobre los problemas de la FIFA. Pero la solución solo requiere tres: Infantino debe irse”, afirmó.

El mundo del fútbol se ha visto sumido en la incertidumbre la semana pasada tras la propuesta de Infantino y la FIFA de crear una entidad independiente —que incluiría inversores privados— para controlar los derechos comerciales y operativos de la Copa Mundial.

Sin embargo, la indignación de los aficionados, los organismos rectores del fútbol continental y nacional, incluida la UEFA, que afirmó que “el alma y la gobernanza del fútbol no son bienes con los que se pueda comerciar”, obligó a Infantino a dar marcha atrás. Incluso uno de sus principales asesores, Carlos Cordeiro, dimitió en protesta la semana pasada.

No todos se han opuesto al plan. Si bien los organismos rectores de Europa, Asia y América del Norte y Central criticaron la propuesta, la Confederación Africana de Fútbol (CAF) aún no se ha pronunciado. Y cinco de los administradores de fútbol más importantes de África han expresado su apoyo a Infantino, según Reuters. El fútbol africano depende más del dinero que distribuye la FIFA que el de otros continentes.

“Infantino ha degradado el cargo de Presidente de la FIFA, el cual prometió enaltecer. Ha mentido, engañado y tratado de enriquecerse a costa del deporte al que supuestamente debe servir”, escribió Figo.

CNN está solicitando comentarios de la FIFA. Infantino no se ha pronunciado públicamente sobre ninguna acusación de corrupción.

La FIFA había declarado previamente que el dinero generado por el plan se reinvertiría en el deporte.

Sin embargo, el plan “no es una buena idea”, escribió Figo. “No es sólido cuando no se es transparente sobre las ganancias exorbitantes que siempre buscan los fondos de capital privado”.

“No es audaz cuando no se explica que, una vez vendida la participación, esta se pierde para siempre y se priva a los sucesores de la propiedad de la Copa del Mundo”.

Perder un apoyo tan generalizado supone un revés para Infantino, quien, hace apenas unas semanas, supervisaba la Copa del Mundo y, según se informó, había recibido cartas de apoyo para su reelección de cerca de 200 de las 211 federaciones miembro.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.

What college football and horse racing have in common: Greed wrecking a good thing

By CNN
(CNN) — On their face, they would seem as far apart on the sporting spectrum as tiddlywinks and shot put.On the one end sits college football, the billion-dollar industry that commands attention from August until January. On the other is horse racing, the niche sport that owns a five-week blip of the calendar.And yet, besieged by the same afflictions of greed, self-interest and a comical inability to work together, horse racing is doing its damndest to similarly mess up its very good thing.Wes Moore, the governor of Maryland, announced Wednesday that the Preakness would be moving from its traditional-third-Saturday-in-May date to the fourth Sunday of the month.Taken alone, it seems like a good idea. For years, horsemen and horsewomen have argued that the traditional running of the Triple Crown’s second leg, a mere two weeks after the Kentucky Derby, no longer suited today’s equine athletes. Three of the last five Derby winners have bypassed the Baltimore-based race, putting the Triple Crown quest to rest before it even got started.Except, much like college sports, no single decision happens in a vacuum. The Preakness switch comes two days after Churchill Downs, Incorporated and the New York Racing Association announced a partnership to form a six-race thoroughbred racing series, which includes the Triple Crown’s third leg, the Belmont Stakes.The Belmont, per the announcement, is holding firm on its traditional run date on the first Saturday in June. Which means that rather than running within two weeks after the Derby to have a shot at the Triple Crown, horses now will need to run 13 days after the Preakness. Worse, in a sport that constantly preaches how it puts the safety of its animals first, horses will be asked to run the longest race (the Belmont at one-and-a-half miles) after the shortest period of recovery.It is not a switch; it’s a bait-and-switch that still leaves the Triple Crown in peril.“If you want to win the Triple Crown, we’ll see you in Baltimore,’’ Moore said in a Maryland-thumping news conference, conveniently bypassing the fact that if you want to win the Triple Crown, you also have to go to Louisville and Long Island.Moving the Preakness isn’t a bad idea. Creating a series isn’t a bad idea. Doing both without the two sides working together? It is preposterous.The Triple Crown is synonymous with horse racing, as familiar to casual fans as a mint julep or a big hat. Other than the Derby, Preakness and Belmont only one other race – the Breeders’ Cup – pulls in more than $100 million in bets each year.Dating back to 1919, when Sir Barton won all three races, and through 2018, when Justify became its last winner, it is revered for its difficulty and rarity as much as its history.In the course of my career, I have often been asked what the best event is I have covered. It’s tricky. I saw Christian Laettner hit the buzzer-beater against Kentucky and watched the US Olympic hockey team win gold in Milan. But I will say that never have I heard a roar like the one that followed American Pharoah from the final turn to well beyond the finish line in 2015 to break the 37-year Triple Crown hex. It was as cathartic as it was euphoric, a din that lasted well beyond the end of the race.Yet somehow it became a line item in all of this transacting, the greater good lost in the infighting between the three groups (Churchill tried to buy the Preakness’ intellectual property in April, a clear part of Moore’s very loud rebuke that “we cannot control our own future if we don’t own it”) as they jockeyed for position and precious broadcast deals.It is all straight from the college sports playbook, where backdoor meetings are all about self-preservation. Similarly operating without a commissioner to keep things on track and keep the greater good at the forefront, horse racing entities also solved only for themselves. Had they worked together NYRA, Churchill and the Maryland Jockey Club could have met the call to adjust the calendar in a way that kept their races intact and the Triple Crown viable.Instead, Churchill (the SEC) keeps its tradition and lines its pockets with additional revenue through the Derby and the series; NYRA (the Big Ten) gets four series races on its tracks and a share of the revenue pot; and Maryland (the ACC) gets to cling to its own small corner of the market.Lost in all of the self-interest is the only thing that horse racing has going for it.A Triple Crown can still happen, of course. Some have even argued that this new calendar will work out just fine.“I think it’s a great idea,’’ Bob Baffert told CNN Sports.The trainer, and winner of the last two Triple Crowns, believes that the new order keeps the difficulty of winning the Triple Crown alive but, with the space between races, incentivizes the Derby winner to run in the Preakness more.As for the ask of the Belmont, he contends that the “superhorses,’’ will try it and that winning two legs makes it harder to bypass the third, as opposed to a Derby winner who can easily skip out on the Preakness.Maybe he’s right, though recent history would indicate otherwise. And really, it all could have been fixed with just a little teamwork.Instead, horse racing officials decided to follow the college football route and think only of themselves.The-CNN-Wire™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.
Read Next Story

Related Stories

Latest News
High-stakes win, hurricane escape, coffee crisis: Catch up on the day’s stories
17 minutes ago

High-stakes win, hurricane escape, coffee crisis: Catch up on the day’s stories

Crece la ansiedad entre los republicanos por la acumulación de escándalos en distritos clave

Avoiding 3 things during middle age may delay dementia risk by 13 years

As FDA approves marketing for nicotine pouches, some doctors sound alarms

'Gilmore Girls' documentary in production for HBO Max