UEFA relaxes the deadlines, but the president says he will not test them
European football leaders on Thursday fully backed their powerful president, Aleksander Ceferin, by approving a change in term rules that would allow him to remain in office until 2031, years after the organization's 12-year term ends .
The vote may have been meaningless, however: About an hour after winning the right to seek a new four-year term as president of European football's governing body, UEFA, Mr Ceferin said he was wouldn't look for one.
“I have decided that I do not intend to run in 2027,” Mr. Ceferin said, stony-faced as he read a prepared statement. He said he made the decision “six months ago” after growing tired of problems ranging from leading efforts to suppress a breakaway super league to managing European football through wars in Ukraine and Gaza and a global pandemic.
He said he had not announced his decision earlier because he first wanted to understand the loyalty of UEFA members. In recent months, several members of the governing body's leadership had publicly and privately objected to any weakening of the deadlines.
That had raised the prospect that Thursday's vote could herald an uprising. Instead, it brought an almost total capitulation: only one of UEFA's 55 member federations, England, voted no to the deadline change.
Asked why he had not made his plans clear before the vote, Ceferin said he had remained “deliberately silent for two reasons.”
“At first,” he said, “I wanted to see the real faces of some people, and I saw that. I saw good and bad at the same time. And of course I didn't want to influence Congress. I wanted them to decide without knowing what I'm telling you here today.
Mr Ceferin has been president of UEFA since winning elections in 2016 in the wake of a corruption scandal that saw his predecessor ousted. Shortly after taking office, he ushered in term limits and other reforms as part of a series of changes aimed at preventing similar scandals from happening again.
His recent attempt to weaken those boundaries had drawn criticism – and at least one resignation – within UEFA, and raised the possibility of a rare public backlash at a meeting of the organization's member federations in Paris this week.
But when it came time for the vote, only the English Football Federation held up a red card of disapproval among a sea of green cards approving the changes.
The bylaw amendment was a minor change in language, but would have had a powerful effect for Mr. Ceferin by exempting his shortened first term — about three years — from the term limit calculation. That would have allowed him to run for another term in 2027, ultimately serving as many as 15 years.
Ceferin's attempts to potentially expand his presidency had alarmed his critics, who noted that they contradicted his own statements, made shortly after his election. In 2017, just months after taking UEFA's top job, Ceferin vowed to set an example of reform by adhering to the spirit of the new rules, even if it meant serving the 12 years allowed would step aside.
More recently, however, he had become less clear about his plans to give up his position, and his control over a multibillion-dollar organization that organizes some of the richest and most popular sporting events in the world.
The job comes with an annual salary of $3 million, luxury travel and the opportunity to interact with celebrities, political leaders and sports stars. At the same time, Mr. Ceferin has used staff appointments, hosting privileges and millions of dollars in development handouts to tighten his grip on the presidency.
Given that reality, even some of his fiercest critics – a small group within the 55 member federations that make up UEFA – backed away from issuing a public rebuke on Thursday. For example, the Norwegian Football Federation, which failed to separate the deadline amendment from a series of other changes, voted in favor of the new rules. So did others, including several officials who only a night earlier had complained privately about the risks of concentrating power in the hands of one man.
“What good is it if you say no?” muttered the director of a federation who opposed the change but did not want to be named for fear of angering Mr Ceferin.
In the end, only England voted in opposition. There was little choice after the words of David Gill, UEFA's English vice-president, from a meeting in December became public. At that meeting, Mr Gill, the former chief executive of Manchester United, clashed with Mr Ceferin over the change, accusing Mr Ceferin of going against the spirit of reform he once championed.
“We supported the changes to the statutes proposed by UEFA, with the exception of one,” the English federation said in a statement after the vote – a reference to those on deadlines. “We have recently implemented management changes ourselves and believe it is important that we are consistent in our approach.”