A team of behavioural economists has completed a review of the letter sent to FIFA’s 211 member associations and confirmed that the decision it presents meets the technical definition of a choice.
The letter offers two paths. Approve the new commercial structure and receive up to $40 million. Decline and retain the existing arrangement, worth approximately $12.8 million per association, which the letter describes as “a programme we continue to respect and value.”
“Both options are written down,” the lead researcher confirmed. “Both are grammatically available. We tested whether a federation could physically select the second option and found no obstacle. In that narrow sense, it is a choice.”
The study then ran a control. A second version of the letter was sent to a test group with the figures removed. Support fell to 4%.
Researchers also examined the 53-day window. “Fifty-three days is long enough to read the letter and think about it,” the report notes. “It is not long enough to convene a board, obtain independent valuation advice, or consult a lawyer who has heard of Switzerland. We do not believe this is accidental, but we cannot prove it, which is itself consistent with the design.”
One federation president, interviewed for the study, was asked whether he felt free to decline. He said yes. Asked to elaborate, he mentioned the $40 million. He was asked again whether he felt free. He mentioned it a second time.
The report’s conclusion reads: “The letter presents a decision in which one option is worth three times the other, the deadline precludes meaningful scrutiny, and the sender controls all future funding to both parties. It is a choice in the way that a door with one handle is a door.”
FIFA has said member associations will decide for themselves and that nobody will tell them what to do.