KVGS MUN

Committee: FIFA

Agenda: Addressing Corruption and Ensuring Fair Hosting Rights

for Future FIFA World Cups
KVGS MUN

Contents:

Table of Contents

1. General Rules
2. Debate
3. Moderated Caucus
4. Unmoderated Caucus
5. Consultation of the Whole
6. Suspension/Adjournment
7. Closure of Debate
8. Postponement and Resumption of Debate
9. Reconsideration
10. Appeal
11. Speaker’s List
12. Time Limits on Speeches
13. Yields
14. Right to Reply
15. Points and Motions
16. Working Papers
17. Draft Resolutions
18. Introduction to Draft Resolutions
19. Amendments
20. Procedural Voting
21. Substantive Voting
22. Voting by Unanimous Consent
23. Reordering Draft Resolutions
24. Division of the Questions
25. Roll Call Voting
KVGS MUN

General Rules
1. Scope: The Committee Chair will be the final authority on what procedure to follow if a
situation arises that has not been addressed by the Rules of Procedure. At the discretion
of the Chair or Secretariat, these rules can be modified to better facilitate healthy debate,
and any adjustment of the rules will be declared clearly to the entirety of the committee
and will take precedence over any rules written in this document.
2. Language: English will be the official language used in the ICMUN, in all documents
and debates the English must be used.
3. General Power of the Committee Staff: The Chair has total control of the procedure of
the meeting and any motion, the Chair is responsible to direct the flow of debate, grant
the right to speak, ask questions, announce decisions, rule on points of order, and enforce
adherence to these rules.
4. Quorum: It’s the minimum quantity of delegates that are needed to start the conference.
5. Courtesy and Delegate Conduct: Every Delegate must be respectful and courteous with
Conference members. If someone is being unrespectful, the Chairs must be contacted to
take the appropriate action. ICMUN will have zero tolerance for slandering, disparaging,
or any other respectful act.
6. Absence: If a delegate doesn’t appear during the Conference, it won’t be receiving the
certifications and awards. Just in case he or she sends a note to the chair justifying the
absence.

Debate
Following the setting of the agenda, a motion to open discussion is made. This motion is not
debatable and must be approved by a simple majority. If a motion to open debate is approved, a
new, continuous Speakers List is created, which is used to hold general debate. Except when
superseded by procedural motions, amendments, or the adoption of a draught resolution, this
Speakers List will determine the order of speakers for all discussion on the Topic Area.

Speakers may address any working paper or draught resolution currently on the floor as well as
speak broadly on the Topic Area under consideration. Once adopted, a draught resolution stays
KVGS MUN

on the floor and can be discussed until it fails, the Committee postpones debate on it, or the
Committee moves on to the next Topic Area.

Moderated Caucus
The aim of a moderated caucus is to promote constructive debate at crucial points in the debate.
In a moderated caucus, the Chair may temporarily exclude himself or herself from the Speakers
List and invite members to speak at his or her discretion. Although the Chair is only allowed to
call one speaker at a time by default, he or she can build a list of up to five speakers at any time.
The Chair cannot compile a list of all moderated caucus speakers.

A motion for a moderated caucus is permissible at any time the floor is open, prior to the
conclusion of debate. The delegate who proposes the motion must clarify its intent briefly and set
a time limit for the caucus, not to exceed twenty minutes, as well as a time limit for individual
speeches. The Chair may rule that such a motion is dilatory, and his or her decision is not
appealable. The motion will be voted on immediately after it is raised, with a simple majority of
members necessary for passage. The Chair will rank the motions in descending order of duration
if there are several moderated caucuses. Moderated caucuses of the same duration will be ranked
by the number of speakers in descending order. Moderated caucuses that only vary in subject will
be ranked in the order in which they were proposed. During a moderated caucus, no motions are
permitted between speeches. If a delegate who has been recognised to speak during a moderated
caucus does not discuss the subject of the moderated caucus, the delegate's speech would be
considered out of order. If no delegate wants to speak during a moderated caucus, the caucus will
be adjourned immediately.

A moderated caucus can be extended once, but only after the caucus has ended, and the total
duration of the caucus and its extension cannot exceed 20 minutes. During moderated caucuses,
delegates cannot use their available speaking time.

Unmoderated Caucus
Prior to the close of debate, a delegate can move for an unmoderated caucus at any time while
the floor is open. The delegate who makes the motion must set a time limit for the caucus that
KVGS MUN

does not exceed twenty minutes. The motion will be put to a vote immediately and will pass with
a simple majority. Where there are several unmoderated caucuses, the Chair ranks the motions in
descending order of length, and the Committee members vote accordingly. The Chair has the
authority to rule the motion dilatory, and his or her decision is not appealable. An unmoderated
caucus can only be extended once, and the total duration of the unmoderated caucus and its
extension cannot exceed twenty minutes.

Consultation of the Whole

Delegates may move for a Consultation of the Whole, in which the rules of parliamentary
procedure are suspended and an informal discussion takes place in the committee room, at the
discretion of the Chair. Speaking times and speaker order are decided ad hoc at the informal
discretion of the delegates and, eventually, the moderator. The motion must define a time limit
and a subject of discussion for the consultation of the whole, not to exceed ten minutes. The
motion will be put to a referendum, and it will be approved by a simple majority.

During the implementation of this motion, delegates who do not wish to speak are required to
remain seated and to be respectful of speakers at all times. The Chair has the authority to rule the
motion dilatory or to end the Consultation of the Whole at any time for any reason, and his or her
decision is not appealable. A Consultation of the Whole, like unmoderated caucuses, can only be
extended once, and the total time cannot exceed twenty minutes.

Suspension/Adjournment
The termination of the meeting means that all Committee activities will be postponed until the
next meeting. The meeting's adjournment means that all Committee activities will be postponed
for the remainder of the Conference. Whenever the floor is open, a delegate can move for the
meeting to be suspended or adjourned. The Chair may rule certain motions dilatory; these
decisions are not appealable. When such motions are in order, they will not be debated but will
be voted on immediately, barring any motions that take precedence, which will require a simple
majority to pass.
KVGS MUN

A motion to adjourn is out of order if it is made before three-quarters of the time allocated for the
Committee's last meeting. In the event of a true emergency declared by the Secretary General,
Secretariat representatives, or Committee Staff, debate will be immediately suspended with no
exceptions.

Closure of Debate
When the floor is open, a delegate can move to end debate on the substantive or procedural issue
at hand. Delegates can move to end general debate, debate on the agenda, or debate on an
amendment. When debate on the subject under consideration is completed, this motion has the
effect of the committee voting on draught resolutions. Any motion to close debate can be ruled
dilatory by the Chair, subject to appeal. When a motion to end debate is made, the Chair may
consider up to two speakers who are opposed to the motion. There will be no speakers in support
of the motion.

The vote of two-thirds of those presents and voting is needed to end the debate. If no speakers
object to the closing discussion, the Committee Chair may ask the delegates if they have any
objections to voting by unanimous consent. If no objections are raised, the motion to end debate
will be automatically adopted, and the Committee will proceed to the substantive voting process.

Postponement and Resumption of Debate

Whenever the floor is open, a delegate can move to postpone debate on a current draught
resolution, amendment, or issue. The motion, also known as "tabling," would require a
two-thirds vote to pass and will be debatable with one speaker in favour and one opposed. There
will be no debate or action on any draught resolution, amendment, or issue on which debate has
been postponed. A motion to reopen debate on an amendment, proposed resolution, or issue that
has been postponed would require a simple majority to pass and will be debatable to the degree
of one speaker in favour and one speaker opposed. The results of the postponement of discussion
can be reversed if the debate is resumed.
KVGS MUN

Reconsideration
When a draught resolution or amendment has been accepted or rejected, a motion to reconsider is
required, and it must be submitted by a member who voted with the majority on the substantive
proposal. The Chair may consider up to two speakers who oppose the motion, in which the
motion will be voted on immediately. Reconsideration requires a two-thirds vote of the members
present. If the motion is approved, the Committee will vote again on the proposed resolution or
amendment being reconsidered without further discussion.

Appeal
Only procedural issues may be appealed, not substantive ones. A delegate can appeal any
procedural decision made by the Chair, unless the rules of procedure specify that it cannot be
appealed. A decision may only be appealed by the delegate immediately after it is released. The
delegate will be given thirty seconds to clarify why the appeal was made. The Chair may make a
brief statement in defence of the ruling. The appeal will then be put to a referendum, and the
Chair's decision will stand unless overruled by two-thirds of those present and voting. It is never
possible to appeal the Chair's decision not to sign a draught resolution or amendment. A “Yes”
vote indicates approval for the Chair's decision, while a “No” vote indicates opposition to that
decision.

Speaker’s List
The Committee shall maintain an open Speakers' List for the Topic Area being addressed at all
times. The Chair may either set a speaking time or consider motions to do so. Separate Speakers'
Lists will be created as required for procedural motions and amendment debate. A member can
add his or her name to the Speakers' List by submitting a written request to the Chair, given that
the member's name is not already on the Speakers' List, and may delete his or her name from the
Speakers' List by submitting a written request to the Chair. The Chair can summon members who
wish to be added to the Speakers' List at any time.
The names of the next few representatives to speak will always be posted for the Committee's
convenience. The Speakers' List for the second Topic Area will not be available until the
Committee has moved on to that subject. The Committee's default activity is the Speakers' List.
KVGS MUN

If there are no resolutions on the floor, the discussion then returns to the Speakers' List. A motion
to close a Speakers' List is never appropriate.

Time Limits on Speeches

The Chair has the authority to restrict the amount of time allocated to each speaker. The time
limit will be set at ten seconds. When a delegate exceeds his or her allotted time, the Chair may
immediately call the speaker to order. The Chair, on the other hand, has the discretion to allow a
delegate to finish his or her thinking before calling the delegate to order. This rule is intended to
account for conference attendees' varying levels of English fluency.

Yields
At the end of his or her speech, a delegate who has been given the right to speak on a substantive
issue can yield in one of three ways: to another delegate, to questions, or to the Chair. At the end
of his or her address, a delegate must announce some yield.

● Yield to another delegate: The delegate will be given his or her remaining time. If the
delegate recognises the yield, the Chair must remember him or her for the remainder of
the period. Turning over the floor to a co-delegate from the same member country is not
considered a yield. The second delegate who speaks will not yield to the first delegate.

● Yield to Questions: The Chair will choose the questioners, who will be limited to one
question each. Follow-up questions will be permitted only at the Chair's discretion. The
Chair has the authority to summon any delegate whose query, in the Chair's opinion, is
rhetorical, leading, and/or not intended to elicit details. Only the speaker's responses to
questions will be counted against the allotted time.

● Yield to the Chair: If the delegate does not want his or her speech to be interrupted, such
a yield should be made. After that, the Chair will pass on to the next speaker.

There is only one yield permitted per speech (no yields on yielded time). If the delegate is
speaking on a procedural issue, no yields are permitted. By the end of his or her address, a
KVGS MUN

delegate must announce some yield. And if a delegate's time is up, he or she must still yield.
Yields are only needed when a speaker is on the Speakers' List.

Right to Reply
A delegate whose personal or national reputation has been called into question by another
delegate can exercise his or her Right of Reply only in writing to the Committee staff. The Chair
will grant the Right of Reply at his or her discretion; this decision is final. A delegate who has
been given the Right of Reply will not address the Committee unless the Chair requests it. A
Right of Reply to a Right of Reply is invalid.

Points and Motions

1. Point of Personal Privilege: When anything happens that hinders the Delegate and
Chair's participation in the Conference, like an unstable internet connection or any other
personal issue, a Point of Personal Privilege should be raised. Should not be raised by
interrupting a delegate unless unavoidable. This point does not need to be seconded or
voted upon for it to pass since it doesn't affect the entire committee.
Example: The Delegation of China raises a Point of Personal Privilege.

2. Point of order: You may raise a Point of Order when someone in the Conference
unfollows the rules and procedures. It is preferable to wait for the chair to point it out, but
in case that doesn't happen, a delegate is allowed to interrupt someone already speaking.
Example: The Delegate of Norway would like to raise a Point of Order concerning (reason)

3. Point of Inquiry: It is used to request a clarification of the status of a meeting and

questions directly to the Chairs about terms used or confusion regarding the rules of
procedure. Do not interrupt the speakers.
Example: The Delegate of KSA would like to raise a Point of Inquiry regarding (question)

4. Point of Information: This point can be used to interrupt a speaker to raise a question or
objection but not during their protected time.
Example: Delegate of Japan raises a Point of Information to Colombia: (question)
KVGS MUN

5. Motion for Right of Reply: It is a formal request to reply to another delegate that has
directly addressed you in a way that is either personally insulting or is a breach of your
country's sovereignty. It is usually requested in writing to the Chairs.
Example: Jordan motions for the Right to Reply to the Delegation of Pakistan.

6. Motion to Moderated Caucus: It is a way to raise or continue a moderated discussion,

where the Delegates give the country's stance about a very specific aspect of the topic at
hand in a determined period. To request a Moderated Caucus it needs to inform a total
time and the purpose, then, if the motion is approved, a speaker list will be formed. For a
Moderated Caucus to pass and discussion to open, a simple majority vote is required.

Example: Italy motions to move into a Moderated Caucus to discuss the impacts of
the COVID-19 pandemic in the European economy with individual speakers time
(60 - 90 - 120 seconds) and total speakers time being (10 - 20 minutes).

7. Motion to Unmoderated Caucus: It is 10-20 minutes, requested for informal

discussions among the delegates. The debate is no longer productive or a topic has been
discussed and blocs need to form for a working or resolution paper. The chair will
request a vote for the motion to pass.
Example: The Delegate of Mexico would like to raise a motion for 20 minutes of
Unmoderated Caucus.

8. Motion to Move into Voting Procedure: When a Delegate feels the topic has already
been well discussed, It is possible to request a Motion to Move into Voting Procedure for
a vote on whatever is being debated.
Example: Algeria motions to move into Voting Procedure.

9. Motion for a break-time: This motion can be raised any time after a Moderated Caucus
is done and discussed and the committee feels the need to refresh or plan further. A
specific amount of time needs to be put forward and a simple majority vote passes the
motion.
Example: The Delegate of Sudan would like to raise a Motion for a 20-minute break. [1]

1
To learn other types of motions
KVGS MUN

Working Papers
Delegates may submit working papers for consideration by the Committee. Working papers are
intended to assist the Committee in its deliberations and formulation of draught resolutions, and
they do not have to be written in draught resolution format. Working papers are not official
documents and can be delivered in any format authorised by the Chair, but they must be copied
and circulated with the Chair's signature. Delegates may consider the working paper introduced
and begin to refer to that working paper by its assigned number once it has been circulated.
Working papers do not require signatures or approval votes. Motions are not used to add working
papers.

Draft Resolutions
When a draft resolution receives the Chair's approval and is signed by 20 members of the
General Assembly, 10 members of the Economic and Social Council and Regional Bodies, or 5
members of the Crisis Committees, it can be adopted. Signing a draft resolution does not imply
approval for it, and the signatory has no further rights or responsibilities. Signing a draft
resolution only shows a desire for it to be debated in Committee.

Draft resolutions have no official sponsors. Any draft resolution should include a list of
signatories in alphabetical order. A draft resolution must be approved by a simple majority of the
members present. Each Topic Area can only have one draft resolution passed. Following the
passage of a draft resolution, the voting process will be terminated, and the Committee will
proceed directly to the second Topic Area (in accordance with the rules regulating the setting of
the agenda).

Introduction to Draft Resolutions

A delegate(s) may move to introduce a draft resolution after it has been accepted as stated above,
copied, and circulated. Each motion will call for the introduction of one draft resolution. The
order in which draft resolutions are adopted determines the order in which they are voted on in
the substantive vote. If time allows, the Chair will read the draft resolution's operative clauses.
Following that, a procedural vote is held to decide if the proposal will be introduced. If the
KVGS MUN

motion receives the requisite simple majority, the draft resolution will be considered adopted and
on the floor.

At his or her discretion, the Chair may make a brief presentation of the resolution in a manner
decided by the Chair. Alternatively, the Chair may, at his or her discretion, respond to any
clarifying questions about the draft resolution. During any presentation or clarification period,
any substantive points will be ruled out of order, and the Chair can end any of these periods for
any reason, including time constraints. At any given time, more than one draught resolution can
be on the board.

A draft resolution will stay on the floor until discussion on that particular draft resolution is
adjourned or a Resolution on that Topic Area is passed. Delegates may then refer to the draft
resolution by its assigned number during debate on draft resolutions, which follows the general
Speakers' List for that Topic Region. A draft resolution may not be referred to by a delegate until
it is officially adopted.

Amendments
Delegates may amend any introduced draft resolution by adding to, inserting into, deleting from,
or revising parts of it. At any given time, only one amendment can be added. An amendment
requires the Chair's approval as well as the signatures of 12 members of the General Assembly, 5
members of the Economic and Social Council and Regional Bodies, and 3 members of the Crisis
Committees. Amendments to amendments are not permitted; however, an amended portion of a
draft resolution can be amended further. Amendments have no designated sponsors. There can be
no friendly changes since there are no official sponsors of draft resolutions.

If an amendment submitted includes a typographical mistake, the revised version should be

submitted to the Chair only and should not be distributed to the whole committee. The Chair
will, at his or her discretion, announce the changes made in the revised edition. Preliminary
phrases/ Preambulatory Clauses can not be modified. The final vote on the amendment is
substantive; NGOs and Observer Nations will be barred from voting on amendments.
KVGS MUN

● While the floor is open, a motion to add an agreed amendment will be made. Following
this motion, the Chair will, if time permits, read the amendment aloud. The motion will
be approved by a simple majority. The general debate will be halted, and a Speakers' List
for and against the amendment will be created.

● A motion to close debate will be in order after the Committee has heard from two
speakers in support of the amendment and two speakers in opposition, or from both
speakers on both sides if either or both sides only have one speaker wishing to talk.

● The Chair will consider up to two speakers opposing the motion to close debate, and
closure requires a two-thirds vote. If no one speaks in opposition to the motion to close
debate, the motion passes by unanimous consent, and no vote on the motion to close
debate is needed.

● When discussion on the amendment is completed, the Committee will vote immediately.
Amendments must be approved by a simple majority. Amendment votes are substantive
votes.

● Following the vote, the debate will continue in accordance with the general Speakers'
List.

Procedural Voting
It is considered ceremonial to vote on anything other than draught resolutions and amendments.
All procedural motions must be voted on by any member of the committee, including
representatives of Accredited Observers and NGOs in the chamber, and no abstentions will be
permitted. A simple majority is reached when there are more "Yes" votes than "No" votes. A
two-thirds majority would necessitate at least twice the number of "Yes" votes as "No" votes.

Substantive Voting
Voting on draught resolutions and amendments is considered substantive voting. After
concluding discussion on the general Topic Area, the committee will move on to practical voting
KVGS MUN

procedures on resolutions. The chambers are already locked, and no interruptions will be
permitted. Motion to Divide the Question, Motion to Reorder Draft Resolutions, and Motion for
a Roll Call Vote are the only motions that will be allowed.

If no such motions are presented, the Committee will vote on all draft resolutions in the order in
which they were submitted. Each member will have one vote in substantive voting. Each vote
may be a 'Yes,' a 'No,' or a 'Abstain.' Abstaining members are not deemed to be voting and are
deducted from the quorum when determining a simple majority. Until a motion for a roll call
vote is approved, all issues will be decided by a display of placards.

A simple majority necessitates a greater number of "Yes" votes than "No" votes. The voting
process is closed after every Resolution has been passed, as only one Resolution can be passed
per Topic Region. NGOs, Observer Nations, and Third Party Actors would be unable to vote on
draught resolutions or amendments. The five permanent members of the Security Council have
the authority to veto any meaningful vote. A “No” vote by one of the Security Council's five
permanent members is considered a veto, and the proposed resolution can not pass if it receives a
veto.

Voting by Unanimous Consent

The Committee Chair has the right to ask his or her representatives whether there are any
objections to a vote by unanimous consent before starting the vote on a specific motion, draft
resolution, or amendment. If no committee member objects, the resolution will be automatically
adopted without a vote by the committee. If there is an objection to voting by unanimous
consent, the committee will vote as normal.

Reordering Draft Resolutions

A Motion to Reorder Draft Resolutions will be in order only after the voting process has begun
and before voting on any draft resolutions has begun. If the motion receives the requisite simple
majority, the Chair will take all motions to reorder draft resolutions and vote on them in the order
in which they were presented. Voting will proceed until either a motion succeeds with a simple
majority or all motions fail, at which point the Committee will enter voting procedure, voting on
KVGS MUN

the draft resolutions in the order in which they are presented. For each round of voting, only one
motion to reorder draught resolutions will be approved.

Division of the Questions

Following the conclusion of debate on any subject, a delegate may move that the operative
sections of a draft resolution be voted on separately. Preambulatory and sub-operative clauses
can not be changed by query division.

● To begin, a motion to divide the question in general (divide the question at all) is
appropriate. After that, a vote would be taken to determine whether or not to split the
issue at all. The motion should be discussed to the point of having two speakers for and
two speakers against it, followed by an immediate procedural vote on that motion.

● If the motion receives the requisite simple majority, the Chair may take motions on how
to divide the issue and prioritise them from most extreme to least severe. If the motion
fails, voting will resume, and no further motions to split the issue are permitted.

● The motions would then be voted on by the Committee in the order set by the Chair. If no
division is created, the resolution remains unaltered. Once a division with a simple
majority has been passed, the draught resolution will be split, and a separate procedural
vote will be held on each divided portion to decide whether or not it is to be included in
the final draft resolution.

● If all of the substantive proposal's operative sections are refused, the proposed resolution
is deemed rejected as a whole.

● Parts of the draft resolution that are later approved will be reassembled into a final text.
The final text, along with the other draft resolutions, will be put to a meaningful vote in
the appropriate order.
KVGS MUN

Roll Call Voting

A delegate can request a roll call vote after the debate on a draft resolution has concluded, or for
some other substantive vote. Only for meaningful votes is a roll call vote needed. A motion for a
roll call vote from the floor can be made and passed without a vote if seconded by 20 members
of the General Assembly, 10 members of the Economic and Social Council and Regional Bodies,
and 5 members of the Crisis and Historical Committees.

● The Chair will call members in alphabetical order, beginning with a randomly chosen
member, during a roll call vote.

● Delegates can vote "Yes," "Yes with Rights," "No," "No with Rights," "Abstain," or
"Pass" in the first series. Delegates who vote "Yes with Rights" or "No with Rights"
reserve the right to justify their vote only when voting against their country's policy. A
delegate can only justify an affirmative or negative vote, not an abstention from voting.

● A delegate who voted “Pass” in the first sequence of the roll call must vote (i.e. cannot
abstain or pass) in the second sequence. The same delegate could not request the right to
justify his or her vote more than once.

● The Chair will then call for votes to be changed; no delegate will request an explanation
if he or she did not request one in the previous two sequences. All delegates who
demanded the opportunity to justify their votes will be given time to do so. The Chair
will set the speaking time, which will not exceed thirty seconds.
KVGS MUN

FIFA EXECUTIVES

Portfolio Profiles:
1. Gianni Infantino — President of FIFA
Role & Relevance:
 Elected President of FIFA in February 2016. Oceania Football Confederation+3Inside
FIFA+3Almajalla+3

As President, he is central to decisions around hosting rights, bidding processes, governance

reforms, and transparency initiatives.

 His leadership is highly relevant to the agenda because he sets the tone for how FIFA
addresses corruption and how fair host selection is managed.

Key Facts & Issues:

 His presidency followed the major FIFA corruption scandal of 2015, so reform
expectations are high. Almajalla+1

 One critical issue: balancing commercial expansion (more tournaments, more revenue)
with governance, transparency, and fairness in host selection.

 Some criticism:

o Questions around governance concentration. Le [Link]+1

KVGS MUN

o Concerns about FIFA’s relations with major host nations and the influence of
politics in bidding. Wikipedia+1

 Under his leadership, FIFA has attempted to strengthen cooperation with organisations
like the Council of Europe, emphasising good governance, child safeguarding and
human rights. Inside FIFA

Delegate Approach / Stance:

 Delegates representing national associations may approach Infantino with demands for
transparent bidding criteria, independent oversight, and host evaluation
mechanisms.

 He can defend FIFA’s reforms, emphasise inclusivity of member associations, highlight

development programs for more associations.

 Opponents may question his ties with certain host bids or alleged lack of full
transparency.

 Useful to ask: What mechanisms has FIFA instituted under his presidency to prevent
corruption in host selections? How does FIFA ensure equal opportunities for
associations when selecting hosts?

2. Fatma Samoura — Former Secretary-General of FIFA

Role & Relevance:

 Served as FIFA’s Secretary-General from June 2016 until December 2023.
Wikipedia+1
KVGS MUN

 As SG, she oversaw the operational and administrative side of FIFA, including
development programmes, compliance structures, and the Secretariat — all of which tie
into integrity and fair administration of hosting rights.

Key Facts & Issues:

 She was the first female and first non-European to hold the role at FIFA. Inside FIFA+1

 Her tenure emphasised diversity, inclusion, and transforming FIFA’s administrative

culture. Forbes+1

 While her role was less about bidding and more about administration, her reforms
contribute to the governance backbone that can reduce corruption risks.

 Her departure at the end of 2023 may be used by delegates to ask: Has the momentum
for reform slowed? What legacy remains?

Delegate Approach / Stance:

 Delegates can view Samoura as a symbol of governance change — asking about how
administrative reforms support fair host selection, and whether those reforms are
sufficient.

 She could also be pressed on how FIFA’s Secretariat ensures accountability (internal
audits, compliance, oversight) when evaluating bids or awarding hosting rights.

 Useful question: What internal administrative safeguards were introduced during her
KVGS MUN

term to prevent corruption in host awarding?

3. Arsène Wenger — Chief of Global Football Development, FIFA

Role & Relevance:

 Appointed in November 2019 as FIFA’s Chief of Global Football Development. Inside
FIFA+1

 Although primarily focused on technical development, his role intersects with fair
hosting because development programmes often accompany host bids, and ensuring
football growth globally may reduce centralisation of hosting among rich nations.

Key Facts & Issues:

 Wenger oversees coach education, football development globally in both men’s and
women’s game. Inside FIFA+1

 He chairs the FIFA Technical Study Group, which reviews competitions and submits
feedback — this oversight links to integrity of tournaments and their organisation. The
Guardian

 Relevance to corruption/hosting: Development programmes can be used as part of host

bids (e.g., infrastructure pledges), so delegates can ask: How does FIFA ensure these
commitments are genuine and cannot be used as leverage in bidding?

Delegate Approach / Stance:

 Delegates may request transparency: How are development funds tied to host bids? Are
there audits of such funds post-hosting?
KVGS MUN

 Wenger can argue that equitable global development supports fairness in hosting —
reducing the advantage of established hosts.

 Opposing stances may point out that rich nations still dominate bidding despite
development programmes — asking for stronger governance.

4. Debbie Hewitt — Chair, FIFA Governance Committee (via her roles)

Role & Relevance:

 While not directly an executive of FIFA in the traditional sense, her role as Chair of the
English FA and her election to the FIFA Council/vice-president make her influential in
governance discussions. [Link]+1

 As governance champion, she is relevant for the agenda because host selection and
corruption prevention require strong governance frameworks — and she can represent
push for reform in FIFA’s internal structure.

Key Facts & Issues:

 Appointed first female chair of The Football Association in 2021 and elected as FIFA
Council Vice President in 2023. [Link]

 She emphasises transparency, collaboration and oversight. [Link]+1

 Delegates can ask: What governance reforms are needed within FIFA to ensure fair
hosting rights? How will independent oversight be enforced?
KVGS MUN

Delegate Approach / Stance:

 As a reform-oriented executive, she can be an ally for delegates pushing transparency
and fairness.

 She may face resistance from delegates linked to traditional structures or those
benefiting from status-quo host advantages.

 Useful to pose: How can FIFA’s governance committee ensure host bid processes are
independently audited and free of political interference?

5. Cornel Borbély — Former FIFA Ethics Committee Investigator

Role & Relevance:

 As a former investigator within FIFA’s Ethics Committee, Borbély is highly relevant to
the corruption aspect of the agenda.

 His role implies understanding how internal investigations work, what challenges
transparency faces, and how host-selection corruption might be pre-empted or
addressed.

Key Facts & Issues:

 The FIFA Ethics Committee investigates violations of the FIFA Code of Ethics.
Wikipedia

 Investigators like Borbély operate within complex governance structures, facing legal,
KVGS MUN

political and institutional obstacles.

 Delegates can use his profile to ask: How effective are FIFA’s ethics investigations in
host bidding? What safeguards exist to protect whistle-blowers or external audits?

Delegate Approach / Stance:

 Delegates may appeal to his expertise to challenge weak governance in host selection,
citing past failures.

 He can highlight gaps in FIFA’s mechanisms (e.g., insufficient independence, delays in

investigations).

 Use case: What reforms to the Ethics Committee are needed to ensure impartiality in
evaluating bids and awarding hosting rights?

6. Pierluigi Collina — Chair, FIFA Referees Committee

Role & Relevance:

 As Chair of FIFA’s Referees Committee, Collina deals with the integrity of the game
on the field. While his role is less about hosting rights, it ties into fairness,
transparency, and governance culture — which underpin the broader agenda.

 Ensuring that football competitions are fair and credible is part of maintaining
organisational integrity.

Key Facts & Issues:

KVGS MUN

 Collina is a celebrated referee-administrator, emphasising fair play, integrity, and

professionalism.

 On hosting rights: a host tournament must also deliver fair sport, strong officiating and
competition credibility — so his role is indirectly relevant to the committee’s agenda.

 Delegates might ask: How can FIFA assure that a host nation will deliver not just
infrastructure but also fair competition, refereeing standards, and integrity?

Delegate Approach / Stance:

 Use Collina’s presence to stress that host rights carry responsibilities — beyond
stadiums: refereeing, match officials, audience fairness.

 Collina can argue for strict standards and accountability in all hosts.

 Opposition may point out that while infrastructure is checked, officiating and
competition integrity sometimes get less scrutiny in host selection.

📌 Key Takeaways for the FIFA Executives Section

 These executives collectively shape how FIFA handles hosting rights, reform,
development, and integrity.

 For your agenda:

o Focus on how each executive’s role impacts host selection transparency,

KVGS MUN

anticorruption frameworks, governance reforms, and fair access for all

associations.

o Use their profiles to ask: What changes have been made? What gaps remain?
Who holds accountability?

o Encourage delegates to target both structural reforms (internal governance,

ethics, bidding processes) and practical measures (audit, oversight,
transparent voting, evaluation criteria).

What Delegates Should Prepare

 Role Understanding: Know the profile, powers, and responsibilities of each executive
you represent (e.g., Gianni Infantino, Fatma Samoura, etc.).

 Relevance to the Agenda: Understand how your portfolio influences or is impacted by

corruption issues and hosting rights (bidding processes, transparency, governance,
ethics).

 Position & Interests: Develop your stance — what your executive wants (e.g., reform,
stability, expansion) and what you might be motivated by (e.g., reputation, legacy,
regional influence).

 Key Issues to Address:

o Mechanisms to prevent corruption in host-selection (votes, bids, oversight)

o Transparency in bidding and host evaluation criteria

KVGS MUN

o Ensuring equal access for all member associations, avoiding bias or undue
influence

o The role of governance and ethics frameworks inside FIFA and how they
impact future hosts

 Potential Allies & Opponents: Who you might align with (other executives favouring
reform, member associations demanding fairness) and who you might conflict with
(those benefiting from status quo, national associations seeking hosting rights).

 Proposed Solutions / Clauses: Be ready with suggestions or support for reforms:

independent bidding oversight, public voting records, human rights and labour
standards in host criteria, audit and investigation powers.

🔍 Useful Research Links & References

Below are key documents and articles you should read — they provide background, evidence,
and ideas to support your arguments:
 “Final Report on the FIFA Governance Reform Project” — gives context of
governance issues and reforms in FIFA. Basel Institute on Governance+3Asser
Institute+3Basel Institute on Governance+3

 “Has FIFA reduced its corruption risks?” — analysis of structural corruption risks in
FIFA’s organisation. ERCAS+1

 “How Does FIFA Choose the World Cup Host?” — breaks down the bidding process,
KVGS MUN

evaluation criteria, and risk points in host selection. The World Cup Guide

 Transparency International statement: “FIFA: time to change” — highlights public

demands and anti-corruption reform lines. [Link]+1

 “Corruption in the Bidding, Construction, and Organization of Mega-Sporting Events”

— explores how corruption links to hosting mega sports events and construction.
[Link]

 Legal & Compliance section on FIFA website — overview of FIFA’s Global Integrity
Programme. Inside FIFA

NATIONAL ASSOCIATIONS

🇦🇺 Football Australia (FA)

Official Name: Football Australia
Region: Asian Football Confederation (AFC)
President: James Johnson (CEO)
Headquarters: Sydney, Australia
Background:
Football Australia is the governing body for soccer in Australia, responsible for overseeing
domestic leagues (such as the A-League Men and Women), national teams (the Socceroos and
the Matildas), and grassroots football. Since moving from the Oceania Football Confederation
(OFC) to the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) in 2006, Australia has positioned itself as
a key player in Asian football politics and World Cup hosting discussions.

Historical Context:
 Transition from OFC to AFC (2006): The move to Asia allowed Australia to compete
at higher levels, access more competitive football, and influence larger governance
structures.
KVGS MUN

 2018 World Cup Bid Scandal: Australia bid for the 2018 World Cup (ultimately
hosted by Russia) and reportedly spent $45 million AUD in its campaign, which was
later criticized for lack of transparency and poor documentation of expenses.

 Hosting Ambitions: Australia successfully co-hosted the 2023 FIFA Women’s World
Cup with New Zealand — a landmark event that demonstrated transparent governance
and gender equity in sports management.

Key Issues Related to the Agenda:

1. Transparency and Ethical Hosting:
Football Australia’s 2018 bid experience is a case study in reform — transitioning
from questionable practices to a more transparent hosting process during the 2023
Women’s World Cup.

2. Role in AFC Politics:

Australia often acts as a reformist voice within the AFC, advocating for integrity,
merit-based tournament allocation, and women’s football development.

3. Women’s Football Leadership:

Hosting the 2023 Women’s World Cup and the Matildas’ global success elevated
Australia as a leader in gender equality in football administration.

4. Anti-Corruption Stance:
FA promotes governance aligned with Sport Integrity Australia and FIFA
compliance standards, encouraging national federations to adopt anti-bribery and
whistleblower frameworks.
KVGS MUN

🇬🇧 England – The Football Association (FA)

 Background: One of FIFA’s founding members and a strong voice in UEFA.
Previously bid for the 2018 World Cup (lost to Russia).

 Past Controversies: Criticized FIFA’s lack of transparency in 2018/2022 bidding.

 Likely Stance: Advocates for open, audited bidding and stricter governance. Likely to
side with UEFA-backed reform proposals.

 Interests: Fairer bidding processes, potential future bid for 2034+, strong anti-
corruption position.

🇩🇪 Germany – Deutscher Fußball-Bund (DFB)

 Background: Hosted 2006 World Cup. Later accused of using slush funds in the
bidding process.

 Past Controversies: The “2006 bid scandal” damaged its image; DFB leadership has
since pushed for governance reform.

 Likely Stance: Supports transparency but seeks to defend reputation and emphasize
internal reforms.

 Interests: Promoting fair play, sustainability, and independent ethics oversight.

KVGS MUN

🇫🇷 France – Fédération Française de Football (FFF)

 Background: Hosted 1998 WC successfully. Close ties to FIFA leadership historically.

 Past Controversies: Allegations of vote trading for 2022 Qatar bid (Platini–Sarkozy–
Qatar meeting).

 Likely Stance: Diplomatic — supports reform but may defend Qatar’s right to host.

 Interests: Maintaining European influence and balance between reform and diplomacy.

🇪🇸 Spain – Royal Spanish Football Federation (RFEF)

 Background: Bidded jointly with Portugal for 2018 and possibly for future editions.

 Past Controversies: Domestic scandals (Rubiales case) highlighting governance

issues.

 Likely Stance: Supports new ethical standards and women’s football representation in
governance.

 Interests: Push for Iberian hosting bid legitimacy and gender-inclusive leadership
reforms.
KVGS MUN

🇮🇹 Italy – Federazione Italiana Giuoco Calcio (FIGC)

 Background: Historic football power, hasn’t hosted since 1990.

 Past Controversies: Domestic match-fixing scandals; FIGC has since revamped

integrity programs.

 Likely Stance: Supports strict anti-corruption frameworks but wary of excessive

bureaucracy.

 Interests: Fair consideration for hosting rights; global rotation system.

🇵🇹 Portugal – Federação Portuguesa de Futebol

 Background: Partnered with Spain in 2030 joint bid.

 Likely Stance: Pro-reform, supports transparency in bidding and collaborative hosting.

 Interests: Co-hosting recognition, equitable financial distribution.

🇧🇷 Brazil – Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (CBF)

 Background: Hosted 2014 WC; major legacy concerns and corruption in construction
projects.
KVGS MUN

 Past Controversies: Linked to CONMEBOL corruption investigations (e.g., Ricardo

Teixeira).

 Likely Stance: Cautiously supportive of reforms but may resist external oversight.

 Interests: Protecting South American autonomy; fair funding mechanisms for hosts.

🇦🇷 Argentina – Asociación del Fútbol Argentino (AFA)

 Background: Football-rich history, pushing for greater South American representation
in FIFA.

 Past Controversies: Involvement of ex-AFA presidents in FIFA-Gate.

 Likely Stance: Calls for balanced global representation and anti-corruption education.

 Interests: More equitable FIFA funding for developing football infrastructure.

🇺🇸 United States – U.S. Soccer Federation

 Background: Co-hosting 2026 WC with Canada and Mexico; home of the U.S. DOJ’s
FIFA-Gate investigation.

 Past Controversies: None major domestically; played key role in exposing global
corruption.
KVGS MUN

 Likely Stance: Advocates for strong compliance frameworks and international

auditing.

 Interests: Preserving credibility of 2026, promoting transparency and women’s

football.

🇶🇦 Qatar – Qatar Football Association

 Background: Host of 2022 WC; accused of bribery and human rights violations in the
bidding process.

 Likely Stance: Defends legitimacy of its hosting, highlights success of delivery despite
criticism.

 Interests: Protecting regional image, promoting Middle Eastern football credibility.

🇸🇦 Saudi Arabia – Saudi Arabian Football Federation

 Background: Eyeing 2034 bid; heavy investment in global football.

 Likely Stance: Supports hosting expansion; may oppose excessive scrutiny on bidding.

 Interests: Securing 2034 bid; promoting Vision 2030 via football diplomacy.
KVGS MUN

🇯🇵 Japan – Japan Football Association

 Background: Co-hosted 2002 WC with South Korea; advocates fair play and
transparency.

 Likely Stance: Pro-reform and transparency; supports balanced host rotation.

 Interests: Asian representation and sustainable host selection.

🇮🇳 India – All India Football Federation (AIFF)

 Background: Emerging football nation; hosted U-17 tournaments.

 Likely Stance: Supports reform and transparency; wants inclusion of developing

nations in hosting discussions.

 Interests: Infrastructure funding, equal opportunity for emerging football markets.

🇲🇦 Morocco – Fédération Royale Marocaine de Football

 Background: Unsuccessful bids for 1994, 1998, 2006, 2010, and 2026 WCs.

 Likely Stance: Strong advocate for transparency and fair bidding.

 Interests: Equitable evaluation system and increased African representation.

KVGS MUN

🇿🇦 South Africa – South African Football Association

 Background: Hosted 2010 WC; first in Africa.

 Past Controversies: Accusations of bribing CONCACAF officials in 2010 bid.

 Likely Stance: Supports reform and African unity but defensive about 2010 bid
integrity.

 Interests: Reinforce African football’s legacy and transparency initiatives.

🔍 Useful Research Links & References

Below are key documents and articles you should read — they provide background, evidence,
and ideas to support your arguments:
 “Global Report on Corruption in Sport” — Chapter on bidding & member
associations
([Link]) UNODC

 “Reforming football governance” — European Parliament briefing on FIFA’s

structures and member associations
([Link]) European Parliament

 “FIFA’s failed governance and power consolidation problem” — analysis

addressing national associations’ roles
([Link]) FIFA Ethics and Regulations Watch
KVGS MUN

 “Nintendo of the Beautiful Game: The Role of Marketing in the FIFA Corruption
Scandal” — context of national associations and corruption
([Link]) The Indian Express

 “FIFA Broke Own Human Rights Rules for World Cup Hosts” — linking national
associations, host bids, human rights & fairness
([Link]) Human Rights Watch

🌍 Continental Confederation
These portfolios represent the six continental football confederations, which collectively
influence World Cup qualification, hosting decisions, and governance reforms. They play a
central role in ensuring fair representation, ethical governance, and transparent bidding
for future tournaments.

1. Victor Montagliani – Vice President, FIFA / President, CONCACAF

Region: North, Central America & the Caribbean
Nationality: Canadian
Profile:
Victor Montagliani has been a key figure in restoring CONCACAF’s image after its deep
corruption scandals during the Blatter era. Under his leadership, CONCACAF implemented
structural reforms in governance, compliance, and financial transparency. Montagliani also co-
led the successful United 2026 World Cup bid (USA, Canada, Mexico) and advocates for
expanding access to football development programs across smaller nations.
Relevance to the Agenda:
 Spearheaded anti-corruption and reform initiatives post-2015 FIFA scandals.

 Promotes transparency in tournament bidding.

KVGS MUN

 Example of successful multi-nation hosting model (United 2026).

Key Focus Points for Delegates:

 How CONCACAF reforms can serve as a model for other confederations.

 Balancing commercial interests vs. fairness in hosting rights.

 Legacy of the United 2026 bid.

References:
 CONCACAF Governance Reforms Overview (Official)

 BBC Profile on Montagliani

 FIFA United 2026 Report Summary ([Link])

2. Shaikh Salman bin Ebrahim Al Khalifa – President, AFC

Region: Asia
Nationality: Bahraini
Profile:
Shaikh Salman has been AFC President since 2013, succeeding Mohamed bin Hammam after
his corruption scandal. He has focused on expanding AFC’s commercial partnerships,
increasing women’s football participation, and defending Qatar’s 2022 World Cup hosting
amid controversy. Critics have accused him of limited transparency in AFC governance,
making his role crucial in discussions on reform.
KVGS MUN

Relevance to the Agenda:

 Oversaw AFC during Qatar 2022 scrutiny and regional political tensions.

 Represents Asian interests in future bidding (e.g., Saudi 2034 bid).

 Mixed record on transparency and governance ethics.

Key Focus Points for Delegates:

 AFC’s internal anti-corruption mechanisms.

 Regional implications of the Saudi 2034 bid.

 Lessons from Qatar 2022 hosting process.

References:
 AFC Official Site

 Reuters Profile on Shaikh Salman

 Transparency International report on AFC governance

3. Patrice Motsepe – President, CAF

KVGS MUN

Region: Africa
Nationality: South African
Profile:
Patrice Motsepe, a billionaire businessman and philanthropist, became CAF President in 2021
as part of FIFA’s push for reform in African football governance. His election followed years
of CAF instability and corruption allegations under Ahmad Ahmad. Motsepe’s agenda
emphasizes corporate-style transparency, better financial management, and infrastructure
development across African nations.
Relevance to the Agenda:
 Represents FIFA-supported reformist leadership.

 Advocates for ethical commercial deals and broadcasting rights.

 Promotes equitable access to tournament hosting for African nations.

Key Focus Points for Delegates:

 CAF’s relationship with FIFA in governance reforms.

 Challenges in implementing anti-corruption at national levels.

 Prospects of Africa hosting a future World Cup again.

References:
 CAF Official Website

 BBC Interview: Motsepe’s Vision for African Football

KVGS MUN

 FIFA Press Release on CAF Reforms

4. Alejandro Domínguez – President, CONMEBOL

Region: South America
Nationality: Paraguayan
Profile:
Domínguez took over CONMEBOL after a series of U.S. DOJ corruption investigations
exposed bribery in Copa América and World Cup broadcasting deals. He has since worked to
modernize CONMEBOL’s operations, making financial statements public and cooperating
with U.S. authorities. Advocates for South America’s joint World Cup hosting bid (2030:
Uruguay, Argentina, Paraguay).
Relevance to the Agenda:
 Key witness to post-corruption structural overhaul.

 Represents historically powerful football bloc (Brazil, Argentina).

 Example of legal cooperation and internal reform success.

Key Focus Points for Delegates:

 CONMEBOL’s journey from scandal to reform.

 Legal frameworks for financial transparency.

 South America’s unified World Cup hosting approach.

KVGS MUN

References:
 CONMEBOL Transparency Portal

 Reuters: “How Domínguez Cleaned Up CONMEBOL”

 U.S. DOJ FIFA Case Summary

5. Aleksander Čeferin – President, UEFA

Region: Europe
Nationality: Slovenian
Profile:
Čeferin has been UEFA President since 2016, succeeding Michel Platini. Known for his firm
stance against the European Super League, he champions financial fair play and ethical
leadership. He has often clashed with FIFA over World Cup frequency proposals, emphasizing
autonomy and governance accountability within UEFA.
Relevance to the Agenda:
 Vocal on ethics and governance reforms.

 Balances FIFA cooperation with European independence.

 Influential in pushing fair processes in hosting bids and tournament financing.

Key Focus Points for Delegates:

 UEFA’s financial fair play model as a governance tool.
KVGS MUN

 Relationship dynamics between UEFA and FIFA.

 Ethical standards for European hosting bids.

References:
 UEFA Governance Framework

 BBC Profile on Čeferin

 ESPN: “Čeferin’s War on Corruption”

6. Lambert Maltock – President, OFC

Region: Oceania
Nationality: Vanuatuan
Profile:
Lambert Maltock has led the OFC since 2018, focusing on strengthening football development
in smaller Pacific nations and improving transparency in FIFA funding usage. The OFC has
had previous corruption concerns under Reynald Temarii; Maltock emphasizes a "clean
football" image.
Relevance to the Agenda:
 Represents smaller federations often marginalized in global hosting debates.

 Strong advocate for ethical funding and equitable representation.

 Plays a balancing role between FIFA’s big confederations.

KVGS MUN

Key Focus Points for Delegates:

 Representation and voice of smaller nations in FIFA decisions.

 OFC’s accountability mechanisms.

 Funding transparency in development projects.

🌐 Useful Research Links for Continental Federations

These are reliable and up-to-date sources for delegates to research governance, ethics, and
corruption frameworks in each football confederation.
AFC – Asian Football Confederation
 AFC Official Governance Page

 Transparency International – Asia Football Report

 Reuters: “AFC Faces Scrutiny Over World Cup Bids”

UEFA – Union of European Football Associations

 UEFA Governance and Compliance Framework

 Council of Europe: Report on UEFA Ethics

KVGS MUN

 BBC Sport: UEFA’s Anti-Corruption Initiatives

CONMEBOL – South America

 CONMEBOL Transparency Portal

 U.S. Department of Justice: FIFA Case Summary

 The Guardian: “How South America Rebuilt Post-FIFA Scandal”

CONCACAF – North, Central America & Caribbean

 CONCACAF Governance Hub

 New York Times: “Inside CONCACAF’s Corruption Cleanup”

 FIFA Development in CONCACAF Region

CAF – Confederation of African Football

 CAF Governance & Reform Page

 FIFA’s CAF Reform Roadmap (2021)

 BBC Africa: “Motsepe’s Battle for CAF Transparency”

OFC – Oceania Football Confederation

KVGS MUN

 OFC Integrity Program

 FIFA Oceania Development Programs

 The Guardian: “OFC’s Reforms after Temarii Scandal”

⚖️ FIFA Council Members & IOC Liaison

Evelina Christillin – FIFA Council Member (Italy)

 Background: Italian academic, historian, and member of the FIFA Council since 2016;
also part of the IOC’s Olympic Program Commission.

 Focus: Governance, cultural heritage, gender inclusion.

 Likely Stance: Advocates for institutional transparency, women’s inclusion, and fair
evaluation standards for bids.

 Research Links:

o FIFA Council Members

o Profile on [Link]
KVGS MUN

Maria Sol Muñoz – FIFA Council Member (Ecuador)

 Background: Lawyer and the first female FIFA Council representative from South
America.

 Focus: Governance in Latin American football, women’s empowerment, ethical

reforms.

 Likely Stance: Pushes for accountability in federations and fairer representation of

smaller nations in bidding.

 Research Links:

o FIFA Governance News

o CONMEBOL Transparency Portal

Thomas Bach – IOC Liaison to FIFA

 Background: President of the International Olympic Committee; plays a key role in
promoting cross-sport governance ethics.

 Focus: Sustainability, anti-corruption models, integrity systems based on Olympic

bidding reforms.

 Likely Stance: Promotes adoption of IOC-style independent ethics committees and

public evaluation reports for bids.
KVGS MUN

 Research Links:

o IOC Ethics & Compliance

o FIFA–IOC Cooperation

Sarai Bareman – Chief Women’s Football Officer, FIFA

 Background: From Samoa/New Zealand; leads global strategy for women’s football.

 Focus: Gender equity, grassroots development, transparency in women’s tournaments.

 Likely Stance: Advocates gender-balanced decision-making in hosting bids and

investment equality.

 Research Links:

o FIFA Women’s Football Division

o Interview: Bareman on Governance & Reform

KVGS MUN

⚽ Women’s Football Representatives & Advocates

Jill Ellis – Former U.S. Women’s National Team Coach / FIFA Technical Advisor
 Background: Two-time World Cup–winning coach; leads FIFA’s Technical Advisory
Group for the Women’s World Cup.

 Focus: Tournament organization, player welfare, technical fairness.

 Likely Stance: Advocates data-driven evaluation and fair funding for hosts of both
men’s and women’s events.

 Research Links:

o FIFA Technical Advisory Group Report (Ellis)

o ESPN: Jill Ellis on FIFA Reforms

Ada Hegerberg – Professional Player & Gender Equality Advocate

 Background: Norwegian player, first-ever Ballon d’Or Féminin winner; vocal critic of
FIFA’s treatment of women’s football.

 Focus: Gender pay equity, governance reform, ethical standards.

 Likely Stance: Pushes for transparency and fair resource distribution across genders
and regions.
KVGS MUN

 Research Links:

o BBC: Ada Hegerberg Interview on FIFA

o The Guardian Profile

Alex Morgan – U.S. Women’s National Team Representative

 Background: Star player and activist for equal pay; part of U.S. lawsuit against U.S.
Soccer and FIFA.

 Focus: Gender equality, player representation, and host country human rights.

 Likely Stance: Supports ethical review of bids, inclusion of player unions in FIFA
governance.

 Research Links:

o Time Magazine: Alex Morgan & Equal Pay

o FIFA Women’s Player Committee

KVGS MUN

Sam Kerr – Australia Women’s Football Captain

 Background: Matildas captain and global icon; major advocate for fair opportunities in
host selection.

 Focus: Player welfare, representation, regional equity.

 Likely Stance: Supports transparency, environmental sustainability, and player

consultation in hosting decisions.

 Research Links:

o FIFA Women’s World Cup 2023 Reports

o Guardian Australia: Sam Kerr Leadership

Wendie Renard – France Women’s Football Representative

 Background: Captain of Lyon & France; one of the most decorated players globally.

 Focus: Governance and equality in European football.

 Likely Stance: Calls for FIFA funding transparency and independent review for host
rights.

 Research Links:
KVGS MUN

o UEFA Women’s Football

o L’Équipe Profile

Christine Sinclair – Canada Women’s National Team Representative

 Background: Most goals in international football; advocate for improved governance
and pay parity.

 Focus: Gender equality and accountability.

 Likely Stance: Supports reforms similar to those implemented in the IOC and UEFA.

 Research Links:

o CBC Sports: Christine Sinclair on FIFA Reform

o FIFA Gender Equality Strategy

Sarina Wiegman – Coach, England Women’s National Team

 Background: Highly respected coach, known for professionalism and fair play ethics.
KVGS MUN

 Focus: Transparency in women’s football funding and host selection.

 Likely Stance: Supports independent panels to assess bids and hosting readiness.

 Research Links:

o FA Women’s Football

o BBC Sport: Wiegman Interview

Moya Dodd – Former FIFA Council Member & Women’s Football Advocate
 Background: Former Australia player and leading reform voice in FIFA post-2015
scandal.

 Focus: Governance, gender inclusion, ethics in sport administration.

 Likely Stance: Pushes for structural reforms and whistleblower protection systems in
FIFA.

 Research Links:

o Moya Dodd’s FIFA Reform Proposals

KVGS MUN

o TED Talk: “Fighting for Women’s Place in Football”

💰 Corporate Sponsors & Global Partners

Adidas – Global Sponsor

 Background: Longest-running FIFA partner since 1970.

 Focus: Brand integrity and fair competition image.

 Likely Stance: Supports transparency; reputational risk if corruption persists.

 Research Links:

o Adidas & FIFA Partnership

o Reuters: Adidas Statement on FIFA Scandal

Nike – Global Sponsor

 Background: Major sponsor of national teams; involved in past controversies with
CONMEBOL bribery (FBI investigations).

 Likely Stance: Supports reform to rebuild trust and brand reputation.

KVGS MUN

 Research Links:

o U.S. DOJ Nike Case (FIFA-Gate)

o Nike Corporate Responsibility Report

Coca-Cola – Global Partner

 Background: One of FIFA’s oldest sponsors, publicly called for reforms during 2015
scandal.

 Likely Stance: Pushes for corporate oversight and ethics accountability.

 Research Links:

o Coca-Cola’s Statement on FIFA Ethics

o Reuters: Coca-Cola Pressures FIFA

Visa – Global Partner

 Background: Official payment partner; threatened to withdraw during corruption
scandals.

 Likely Stance: Advocates for compliance-driven hosting systems.

KVGS MUN

 Research Links:

o Visa Corporate Ethics Statement

o The Guardian: Visa’s Stance on FIFA

Qatar Airways – Official Sponsor

 Background: Qatar’s national airline and major FIFA partner.

 Likely Stance: Defends Qatar’s role and promotes expansion to new regions.

 Research Links:

o Qatar Airways & FIFA Partnership

o Al Jazeera: Qatar & 2022 Legacy

📰 4. Journalists & Investigators

Fabrizio Romano – Football Journalist

 Background: Popular transfer journalist with global credibility.
KVGS MUN

 Focus: Transparency in football dealings, neutrality in reporting.

 Likely Stance: Neutral observer pushing for data access and transparency from FIFA.

 Research Links:

o Fabrizio Romano Official

o Guardian Sports Media Influence

Andrew Jennings – Investigative Journalist (Exposed FIFA Scandals)

 Background: Late BBC journalist whose work exposed corruption leading to FIFA-
Gate.

 Focus: Accountability, ethics, whistleblower protection.

 Likely Stance: Symbolic of press freedom and external checks on FIFA.

 Research Links:

o BBC Panorama – FIFA Corruption

KVGS MUN

o [Book: “The Dirty Game” by Andrew Jennings]

David Conn – The Guardian Journalist

 Background: Veteran reporter specializing in football finance and governance.

 Likely Stance: Advocates transparent audits and independent investigation.

 Research Links:

o The Guardian Author Page

Heidi Blake – Co-author of “The Ugly Game”

 Background: Investigative journalist who detailed Qatar 2022 corruption.

 Likely Stance: Pro-reform, supports media access and transparency in bidding.

 Research Links:

o The Ugly Game (Book)

Ken Bensinger – Author of “Red Card”

 Background: BuzzFeed journalist who uncovered U.S. DOJ’s FIFA-Gate
KVGS MUN

investigations.

 Likely Stance: Supports stricter oversight and legal reform.

 Research Links:

o Red Card Book Site

o BuzzFeed FIFA Files

🏟️ 5. Club Presidents & Influencers

Florentino Pérez – President, Real Madrid CF

 Focus: Club independence, European dominance, and opposition to over-centralized
FIFA control.

 Likely Stance: Opposes certain reforms limiting club autonomy; may favor Super
League-type structures.

 Research Links:

o Real Madrid Official

o ESPN: Pérez on FIFA

KVGS MUN

Joan Laporta – President, FC Barcelona

 Focus: Governance reform in European football; transparent revenue systems.

 Likely Stance: Supports clean governance but wary of FIFA’s interference.

 Research Links:

o FC Barcelona Official
o El País: Laporta on Reform