By Chufeng Wang, University of Edinburgh
Discussions of international football governance almost invariably rely on the image of a pyramid. At its apex sits FIFA, the omnipotent sovereign, handing down laws to confederations, national associations, and clubs. Consequently, scandals such as the 2015 corruption indictments or the 2021 European Super League breakaway attempt are typically framed as cracks in this single, monolithic structure. However, recent studies on the interactional dynamics of governance bodies suggests this pyramidal picture is fundamentally insufficient, necessitating a shift toward a network perspective.
Building on applications of Social Network Analysis (SNA) in sport, this research maps the relations between international football bodies to reveal that the global game is not governed by a single web of authority. Instead, it is a Multiplex Network, a complex system where the same organisational actors interact simultaneously across distinct, overlapping planes of institutional logic, each characterised by domain-specific relationships and each defined by its own unique relational dynamics.
To better understand how power operates in football, we must move beyond both individualist approaches (viewing outcomes as the result of isolated organisational behaviours) and structuralist approaches (viewing outcomes as the result of broad historical and/or social structures). Instead, we must delve into the multi-dimensional dyadic relations between the governing bodies and conceptualise the system as Institutionalised Multiplexity. In this view, governance outcomes are the result of friction and alignment between three competing layers: the Market, the Legal, and the Ideational.
Methodology: Mapping the Ties That Bind
To reveal this structure, the research employed a mixed-methods design centred on SNA. Rather than treating relationships as generic ‘links’, the study developed specific metrics to map ties within each institutional logic:
- The Market Layer was mapped using directed resource dependency. By analysing financial reports and commercial agreements, relationships were coded based on the flow of funds, identifying who distributes capital (e.g., development grants, prize money) and who relies on it for survival.
- The Legal Layer was constructed by analysing court dockets and arbitration rulings (from the Court of Arbitration for Sport to the European Court of Justice). These were coded to identify formal alliances (co-defendants/plaintiffs) and antagonisms (opposing parties), revealing a network of conflict and cooperation.
- The Ideational Layer utilised Natural Language Processing (NLP). Using a machine learning model known as SBERT (Sentence Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers), thousands of official documents were analysed to calculate the discursive proximity between organisations, measuring how closely they align in their values and governance language.
Findings
- The Market Layer: The Hierarchy of Resources
The first and most visible layer of this multiplex system is the Market Logic. This logic is defined by resource dependency: who controls the flow of money?
Figure 1 This visualisation maps the Market Layer as a directed, weighted network. Blue nodes represent international football organisations, while grey edges denote resource dependency, with thickness corresponding to the magnitude of financial influence.
When mapped as a directed network of financial influence, the structure of international football appears remarkably stable and hierarchical. In this domain, FIFA remains the undisputed hegemony. Through the control of the World Cup’s massive revenue streams and development grants (such as the FIFA Forward Programme), the global body exerts a radial, top-down influence.
Analysis of market ties reveals a ‘core-periphery’ structure with negative assortativity. This means that influential nodes (FIFA, UEFA) do not cluster with each other; instead, they distribute resources directly to dependent, peripheral actors. If one looks only at the Market Layer, the traditional pyramidal view of football seems accurate: FIFA commands, and others rely.
- The Legal Layer: The Arena of Contestation
However, this stability vanishes when analytical lens is shifted to the Legal Layer. Here, relationships are defined not by dependency, but by antagonism and strategic alliance.
Figure 2 This graph depicts the Legal Layer as a signed, directed network capturing formal disputes and coalitions between 2015 and 2024. Red edges indicate antagonistic legal actions (litigation), while green edges represent strategic alliances (co-defence/plaintiffs).
Mapping the legal ties between 2015 and 2024 reveals a sparse but highly volatile network. Unlike the market layer, where relationships are often continuous, the legal layer is episodic and conflict-driven. In this domain, FIFA is not a benevolent distributor but the primary target of litigation.
The structure here is defined by resistance. Actors like FIFPro (the global players’ union) emerge as central challengers, utilising European courts to contest transfer systems and match calendars. Simultaneously, we see strategic alliances form that contradict market rivalries; for instance, FIFA and UEFA – often competitors for commercial rights – form tight legal coalitions to defend the ‘European Sport Model’ against external threats like the Super League.
This creates a governance paradox: an organisation can be a dominant hegemon in the Market Layer while simultaneously being a besieged defendant in the Legal Layer.
- The Missing Link: Ideational Legitimacy
The paradox is reconciled, harmonised, and sustained through the third dimension mapped by the NLP analysis: the Ideational Layer. This layer functions as the legitimising force of the multiplex system. In international politics, where there is no single world government to enforce compliance, authority and power must be justified through shared values and concepts.
Figure 3 This figure presents the Ideational Layer snapshot for 2015 & 2016 as an undirected, weighted network derived from SBERT analysis of official documents. Edge thickness represents the degree of discursive proximity or semantic alignment between organisations. The visualisation empirically confirms FIFA’s structural isolation during this period, positioned peripherally relative to the dense cluster of European stakeholders who shared a cohesive governance vocabulary.
The SBERT analysis reveals a critical misalignment. While FIFA dominates the Market Layer, the data shows it was ideationally peripheral for much of the last decade. Its discourse was semantically distant from the core consensus formed by European bodies and stakeholders. Ideally, market power and ideational legitimacy should align; in global football, they are decoupled.
- The Multiplexity
A contribution of this SNA study is to render visible the ‘relations of relations’ – the complex interactions that occur between these logic layers. By formalising the network structure, we can move beyond simple narratives of ‘corruption’ , ‘reform’, or ‘good governance’ to a more sophisticated understanding of power dynamics defined by Power-to versus Power-over.
FIFA’s dominance in the Market Layer grants it immense Power-to (the capacity to fund development and stage events). However, its isolation in the Ideational Layer denies it Power-over (the authority to command voluntary compliance through shared norms). This structural imbalance drives the system’s behaviour. It explains the phenomenon of inter-logic capture, where market-dominant actors attempt to ‘borrow’ legitimacy from normative leaders. The network mapping reveals why FIFA has increasingly sought partnerships with FIFPro (a central ideational actor) on player welfare initiatives: it is a strategic attempt to use Market resources to bridge an Ideational void.
However, this dynamic of borrowed legitimacy is but one aspect of the broader structural reality revealed by the model. The framework uncovers a wide array of latent risks and cross-layer frictions that a single-dimensional analysis would miss. Furthermore, the concept of Institutionalised Multiplexity is not intended as a fixed or rigid template. It is an adaptable model of thinking. Future researchers can and should modify the logic layers – incorporating more dimensions and various types of sport bodies – to map the specific complexities of their own inquiries.
Concluding remarks：
Ultimately, viewing global football as an Institutionalised Multiplexity reframes the field from a static hierarchy to a dynamic, polycentric system. Power is not a fixed asset sitting at the top of a pyramid; it is an emergent property of the multiplex network, constantly negotiated across the friction of money, law, and language.
