Aleksander Ceferin is sitting in front of a wall adorned with framed Champions League final programmes. Through the huge glass window at the end of the room, Lake Geneva ripples calmly; the peak of Mont Blanc is visible, more than 50 miles away, now the morning clouds have cleared. Uefa’s headquarters are a vision of heaven on days like this, but the reality has not always been so blessed for its president.
During his seven years in charge Ceferin has had to face up to Covid‑19, geopolitical turmoil and serious failings in Uefa’s handling of major finals. At the same time, European football battles to hold a coherent line when faced by growing threats to the status quo and an influx of multibillion investment that is wrecking the sport’s competitive balance.
Ceferin is interviewed during a week when Uefa has an internal battle to fight: his head of football and close associate, Zvonimir Boban, stood down, unhappy at proposed statute changes that would allow Ceferin to break with convention and run for a fourth term in office.
When you were elected in September 2016, you had been cast as the change candidate for Uefa. How do you feel the organisation has changed in the seven years since then and have you changed personally? I would say Uefa, from some points of view, changed for the better. I hope and believe I didn’t change much as a person. My friends are still my friends and I’m just very, very tired. If somebody had asked me when I was 20: “Do you want to be Uefa president?” I would have said: “How much do I have to pay?” Now I’m well paid for it, but there’s a lot of stress too. You’re scrutinised constantly, often about stupid things, but you have to adapt.
European football is changing all the time. From one perspective football is a sport; from another it is so much more than that. But we have better protection from our community than other sports. Money, or people who think they can buy everything, bought practically every sport except football. That’s because of our fans, our culture, our history. Football is by far Europe’s best product. The economy is going out of Europe but football stays here. We don’t want to be resistant to change, but we want to protect it as well. You can’t just buy a club and do whatever you want and then play in our competitions and pretend everything is fine. We have mechanisms to safeguard the system and we’re trying to do our best.
Euro 2024 will be the first “normal” men’s Euros since 2016. Will it feel like a timely good news story for the continent? I’m really looking forward to it. The venues are close and the Germans are good co-organisers. We had at least four years of continuous crisis. The last Euros was not a proper one: it was in 11 countries, during Covid times, with restricted travel. Uefa hadn’t had as many crises in 60 years as in the last four: maybe 5% of that. So I’ve not been very lucky on that front, but we’ve navigated it quite well and are in good shape.
Boban’s departure has caused shock waves around Uefa. Why do you consider the statute changes, which could keep you in post until 2031 if you run for office again, to be necessary? His departure hasn’t caused any significant disruptions, let alone shock waves, within Uefa or the European football community, even if it was unexpected. We will discuss this matter further when the appropriate time comes, probably after our congress [on 8 February in Paris, when the changes may be approved].
About the changes, there is a legal question and a factual question. The legal question: in 2017 we had a congress and I proposed term limits, which came into the statutes. But the wording was so unclear that de facto we didn’t have term limits, because after every change of the statutes any previously served terms wouldn’t count. I did not know that at the time. So in 2018 our administration changed the wording to link it to the existing statutes every time. But that was done without the approval of congress, which is obligatory, and without approval from any other Uefa organ, which makes the provision invalid. We are doing that to clarify this provision and if we don’t then there would be no limit and I could run for ever. There is this clown from one of the federations who calls other federations and media daily, whining: “This is a conspiracy,” without saying anything to me or to Uefa leadership. We’ve been informed by other federations about his behaviour and they’re laughing at him and his actions.
Nobody asked me about it and I’m glad I can explain. To clarify unequivocally: whether the proposed changes are implemented or not, this will not impact my or any other executive committee member’s eligibility to run for another term.
The factual question is: do I want to run again in 2027? I will inform the media when the time comes. To be honest, I’m so tired after everything we’ve been through in recent years that I’m not sure. But if it’s not changed, we don’t have term limits. This is very simple.
Boban clearly does not agree. In a statement he was scathing about your “personal aspirations” and a perceived shift away from reforms you had implemented. What does that say about these changes? He does not deserve my comment. People who know both him and me will naturally come to their own conclusions.
All the same, Boban says he is not alone in his view. Is Uefa now fragmented beyond repair and, if so, would you consider your position? It’s a gross misstatement to suggest Uefa is fragmented beyond repair. Congress and not an individual holds the authority to determine the appropriateness of any changes. We trust in our collective, democratic decision-making process to guide us forward effectively.
Regardless of legalities, aren’t the optics of this difficult for you? We live in a world where leaders increasingly attempt to cling on to power and subvert democracy. A lot of people will perceive that here. This is a factual question and I will answer it when the time comes. I don’t think I want to discuss that right now. To be honest, people don’t care much about it. I’ve overheard one of your colleagues from England saying: “We’re publishing this, but our readers don’t care about it.” It’s a big thing for the media and some people who think they are moral authorities until it goes along with their personal interest. This change doesn’t mean anything. But it was presented like “wow”, and I became Kim Jong-un from North Korea. It’s not like that and the decision to run or not is purely on me. Now, before I announce the decision it’s hard to say anything.
Don’t you have an opportunity to do something different here though, perhaps effecting wider reform in Uefa that changes the old-fashioned top-down presidential model? Again, there’s a perception of one man holding too much power. Of course I have power because I’m the president. But trust me, all this organisation’s problems are on my shoulders. Practically, I think every decision has to be approved by the executive committee anyway. Some were writing about the changing of the statutes: “It’s not democratic.” But with the legal committee, governance committee, executive committee and congress involved, what is more democratic?
I’m sure we can improve, but I would dare you to be here for six months as Uefa president and you would see it’s not so easy. I know I wanted it, but it’s tough. And everybody is smart when it comes to politics and football. My office receives five proposals per day for how they would change football. People care about football, people speak about football, and that is what matters.
Let’s talk about the previous hot topic: the European court of justice’s Super League ruling in December. Did anything about it surprise you on the day? The main thing that surprised and disappointed me was the press release, which was completely different from the decision. We complained to the court with not much success. The decision is better for Uefa than for the other side. All A22 [the Super League proponents] are doing is going around, filming themselves, trying to give interviews. In the meantime we are governing football. We are building pitches, we deal with many problems, so lobbying is probably their main work but it’s not ours.
This is a non-project, a thing that will never happen, because nobody wants it. No court, no police and no army can force people to accept something that is such a nonsense. The story of this so-called Super League is the story of our society: the question of whether money can buy everything. I met an old lady on the street, in my country, Slovenia, after their first attempt in 2021. She was 80 or 90, she didn’t follow football for some time. She stopped me and said: “Thank you for stopping these bastards.”
So why is A22 actively sharing its plan if there’s no possibility of it coming off? I don’t have a clue and I don’t care. If they have enough resources to travel around and do this Monty Python show, it’s fine. I don’t care and the football community doesn’t care. Kevin Miles [the Football Supporters’ Association chief executive] said to A22 when they came here: “You have fewer supporters than the UK had prime ministers in the last six months.” That tells you everything.
They claim to have 20 clubs ready to go. If they all announced breakaway plans tomorrow, would that cast Uefa in a negative light after believing you had stopped it? First of all, they don’t have anyone. They had 50, 20, 200, these are jokes we don’t care about. But I’m insisting: we never said they cannot play their own competition. Let them play, but they don’t want to play. They speak about creating something and then they are the first ones to apply to play in our competition. I would ask them not to play in our competition and start working on theirs together with whatever number of clubs they have. I don’t understand what is holding them back.
In 2021 many parties, including Uefa, received credit for stopping the closed-shop Super League. Ultimately, though, if fans had not risen up would it have succeeded? I don’t think we would have it, but I’m sure it would have taken more time and effort to stop it. It’s just anti-football. It’s hard to say [what would have happened] if the fans hadn’t been there because fans are part of football. It’s difficult to say: “If there’d been no fans, if there’d been no Uefa …”. But fans were crucial, also for political support. Politicians care what fans say because fans vote.
- Download the Guardian app from the iOS App Store on iPhone or the Google Play store on Android by searching for 'The Guardian'.
- If you already have the Guardian app, make sure you’re on the most recent version.
- In the Guardian app, tap the Menu button at the bottom right, then go to Settings (the gear icon), then Notifications.
- Turn on sport notifications.
Has power shifted further towards the clubs as a result of the ECJ’s judgment? Will they hold greater sway in future cycles when Champions League formats are discussed? I don’t think so. We will not change our format any more. The new format starts next season and now it’s enough.
It feels fans are yet to understand how the new “Swiss system” works. That’s certainly the case when you make a straw poll in the pub. Have you explained it properly? I agree with you, I think we’ve failed with communication. We were discussing it this week. Now we will send a team of people to every league: to speak to the clubs, then to the media. But we are already a bit late, we should have started before. The communication should have been better. I speak with my friends, they say: “What is this with 36 teams, what are the groups?” They don’t know. But we are now focusing on that and I think we start next week with some leagues.
How else can you improve things for those outside the wealthiest few? Financial fair play [FFP] is working well, I think. We limited the clubs to spending 70% of their revenues on wages, transfers and agents. But you have to know one thing: our main newspaper [in Slovenia] has 1% your number of readers. How do you implement financial fair play in the media market? Markets are markets and it’s impossible to do something where a Slovenian club will be at the same or similar financial level as the English clubs. It’s hard to shrink the gap between the big and the small, but we can stop it growing or at least try to control it. We try with FFP and of course with the fact 36 clubs now qualify for the group stages in our three men’s competitions. The advantage of football is that David can beat Goliath.
You have spoken for years about implementing a Europe-wide salary cap. It seems a case of finding a solution that makes everyone equally unhappy. Is there hope of proceeding? It’s a difficult matter. One point of view is the legal part, where the EU is quite complicated about it. The second one is that, with money now coming out of Europe, if you limit European clubs significantly it’s a question of competitiveness in the future. So we are not close with the salary cap. The small clubs don’t care about it, some of the big clubs want it and some don’t, and the medium-sized ones want it. It’s quite an uncoordinated situation.
You’re suggesting that imposing a cap in Europe sends players running to Saudi Arabia … That’s what I’m saying. After [the Saudi Pro League’s spending], it’s even harder to limit things here because, whatever the players say, they go for the higher contract in principle.
Do you still consider that the Saudi Pro League poses no threat to the European game? I’m not worried about it. Again, I don’t think you can buy football. I’ve seen a survey that showed fans follow competitions and teams rather than players. In Spain, 98% of the public didn’t know who [Karim] Benzema joined, but 100% knew he played for Real Madrid before. So I don’t think it’s a good approach and we see some players are already coming back.
In England, I think the Saudi-owned club is a good example of how you should work. Because Newcastle didn’t buy superstars, yet they qualified for the Champions League. I was surprised: I expected them to buy many players for the new season, but it wasn’t the case and they played very well. So I don’t want only to be critical but for [the Pro League] to do it like that, it will not last long. It’s a waste of money.
This brings us to state-run clubs. Some would say we have sleepwalked into this issue: that European football wasn’t ready for their influence and stranglehold. Does it worry you that this has escalated during your tenure? I’m not worried about state-owned clubs as long as they respect the rules. I’m more worried about hedge fund-owned clubs. With hedge funds, you never know exactly who is behind them. It’s very hard to know because they are, many times, managing money for investors. Where I see a big difference, and maybe this is a bit simplistic, is that state-owned clubs want to win. Whether it’s also for name-washing or not, I don’t enter into this. But they want to win. With purely financial funds it’s important to get money and winning is not the main goal. For state-owned clubs, the goal is not to take money out, so I think those clubs should be more sustainable. With the others, it’s very hard to know who is behind it. It can also be a hedge fund where a state is behind it. But I prefer that it’s clear ownership. And the rules are clear: if they don’t respect them, they get punished.
But Newcastle had to show the Premier League they were separate from the Saudi state, even though there are many suggestions to the contrary. Are you saying the rules should allow these clubs to be candid about their ownership? To be honest I didn’t know that [about Newcastle]. But we also have discussions about multi-club ownership. No concrete solutions yet, but do you want there to be de facto multi-club ownership and we pretend it’s not the case? Or do you want us to say: “You can do it under these and these conditions but not with full control over the clubs”? For me, state-owned clubs can be more transparent, if they respect the rules, than hedge fund clubs.
You’ve been clear recently about your view of Manchester City’s guilt in breaching FFP rules, which they deny. Was there any route for you to attempt fresh proceedings against them in 2021 after the court of arbitration for sport (Cas) overturned the two‑year Champions League ban you had imposed? No, I don’t think so. Our club financial control body decided. City succeeded with Cas, then, for me, the story was over.
Does a 32-team Club World Cup feel like a Fifa and Saudi alternative to the Champions League? And how is it sustainable? It will never be the Champions League because the Champions League is unique. But even every four years, for one month in the summer, it’s probably tiring and players might have problems. Many times governing bodies are held responsible and in the end we are partly to be blamed. But clubs come to us and say: “We need more international matches, we want to play more.” Then we come to a kind of solution and they say: “Uefa decided.” And then their coaches and players say: “What is Uefa doing?” even though their own clubs asked for it. If clubs want it I cannot, and don’t want to, stop it. I don’t think it will be a very interesting competition personally, the Europeans will win everything. But this is up to Fifa and the clubs from around the world.
Uefa has expanded tournaments and we will see the effects of the revamped Champions League. Players and unions are warning vociferously that they approach breaking point. Do you risk a situation where they go on strike and governing bodies simply have not listened? Everything is possible because we are reaching the top [limit], I agree with you. We cannot afford anything [more]. I hope it doesn’t happen. I think the Champions League will be even more competitive and interesting than before. The fan groups agreed with this change in the end; we stepped a bit back. The Club World Cup will be tiring. I can’t imagine how you play the final of the Champions League and then, a couple of days later, you travel to some other continent and play a one‑month tournament.
Euro 2024 is close. Does Uefa have to win back people’s confidence in organising major events? The review into the 2022 Champions League final debacle in Paris made damning conclusions; there were major issues for supporters in Istanbul in 2023, too. You have acknowledged both, but it’s hard to say you have public trust. Do you agree? I would say it’s fair. We speak with fan groups more and we try to include them in organising the finals. We did it last year, we will do it this year as well. I agree, we have to win trust. We will not get complete trust because no governing body or government will ever have the full trust of everyone. We live in times like that. But we are working on it, we’re communicating more. We speak with the supporters and, depending on who will qualify for which finals, we will contact their fan groups and include them in the organisation of the match.
What actions are you taking, operationally and structurally, to do better? Some people left, some changed their positions, but in principle I trust my colleagues and we are well prepared. We learned from issues in the past and, in 2022, the Paris authorities were also a big problem. But we can solve our side and I am confident that it will be much better in the future.
The Paris 2022 review said, in a claim that has been challenged, that Uefa’s safety and security unit was sidelined in organising the final. Your friend Zeljko Pavlica was head of that unit at the time. Have you made staffing changes since then? The head of safety and security wanted to be moved to another position, mainly because of the articles in your [sister] newspaper. He was blamed every day for things he didn’t do [the Guardian contests this claim and stands by its reporting]. He and his family could not stand that any more, so he was asking to change. Now we have a new guy, I don’t know him because the president doesn’t choose everybody. He’s from Wales so maybe the Guardian will like it more because it’s the UK.
So, to be clear, Mr Pavlica still works at Uefa? Yes, also with safety and security but in a different role. Not about organising matches.
Your recruitment processes and staffing have come under scrutiny more widely. Do you feel Uefa is run as a modern, transparent organisation?
Absolutely. First of all, the process is transparent and clear. Secondly, if you see the legal division here, led by an Englishman, there is a majority of English. You have a competitions and football division, led by Giorgio Marchetti, an Italian, with 60% of Italians. [Michel] Platini had 70% French around him. Imagine I come here and need a head of my office who knows everything about me and I say: “Tender process, because otherwise English journalists will attack me.” So I bring someone I don’t know, I’ve never met, and then I give up all my secrets, all my meetings. A22 could know everything. I don’t think that’s good governance. I have to protect the organisation. And even with knowing people, I make mistakes: some mistakes that I had to react to later because they were the wrong decision.
So I don’t think it’s not transparent, it’s not a fair statement. For everyone who is here we said: “This person is good, let’s see.” And then it goes through a recruitment process. But you have to know people for important things.
You have been resolute in banning Russian sides from your competitions for as long as the invasion of Ukraine continues. How much pressure are you coming under to ease that ban? The only pressure comes from the other side: not to admit them. I’ve never had any pressure from the Russian side. This ban will stay while the war stays. I’m not happy for that because I feel sorry for the athletes but everybody, including Uefa, has to do as much as we can to stop this madness. Speaking about Russian athletes not going against the government: you can in the UK, I can in my country, but in Russia you end up in prison if you do that, or worse. So it’s not easy for them to [oppose], and they are victims. It’s always bad for the athletes, it’s always bad for the relations between people, but unfortunately we are living in such crazy times. I’m very worried. The things I see in geopolitics are scary.
Is there a contradiction in allowing Russia to play a friendly against Serbia, for their first match against European opposition since being suspended, in March? It’s not under our jurisdiction. Serbia can also play against you, me and the others in this room. Legally we cannot do anything. In a way, why is that such a problem? Why is it a problem that young people go and play football? And nobody cares about that match: if you English would not speak about it, nobody would know. We in Slovenia don’t even know that they play, because people don’t care about things that English politics, and also mainstream media many times, point out. We are bombarded with this sometimes, and then I speak with friends around Europe who say: “What are you talking about?” They know that Russia are banned and that’s it. Now they play one friendly: so what?
There have been calls for Israel to be banned from international competitions. They were briefly barred by the International Ice Hockey Federation recently. How do you separate their situation from that of Russia? I don’t want to be too concrete here. We’re monitoring every situation, including this one, and it’s hard for me to comment. The world is going so crazy, every day we have a war. I don’t want to say anything more.
Moving on to women’s football: how has it developed during your time as president, and what remains to be done? Women’s football is growing, which is a fantastic thing, but we have to invest. We still lose money with every single competition, but we see it as an investment and it’s getting better and better. We have full stadiums; now we have a second European competition as well, which is very important for competitive balance. But I’m trying to explain that, while everybody speaks about gender equality, in the end broadcasters and sponsors – especially broadcasters – offer very small amounts. They should do something about that as well. Many things changed in recent years: not because of me, but we did a lot. We try to do more but we don’t have unlimited funds, especially because we were hurt with Covid. So we invest as much as we can and I think European women’s football is by far the strongest in the world.
Do you worry that, while the top women’s clubs continue to grow, the disparity between haves and have-nots is even more glaring than in the men’s game? You’re right, I think the gap is even bigger. In Slovenia I don’t think more than two clubs in the first division have women’s teams. So this is a problem. If it is a problem to finance something that is in principle profitable, imagine how hard it is to finance something that needs years to be profitable. But you have to think about it with the federations and leagues: should it be optional or should we say that every club has to have a women’s team as well? I think that’s one of the matters for discussion in the coming years.
What gives you hope for European football, and Europe, in 2024? For football, what gives me hope is that we are united as never before. We all refused this idiotic [Super League] project and would refuse any other project that would kill football. Football is in good shape and it’s one of the rare positive things that people have.
For society, I’m not very optimistic about Europe. Populists are rising, the extreme right are rising, but it’s also because of the fact freedom of speech, doesn’t exist any more. In dictatorships they put you in prison; in so-called democracies they kill you in the media. So because of that people are fed up, they can’t speak freely. In a position like mine, I can’t say anything. I say one wrong word, you’ll write on it for seven years. It goes in the wrong direction and it will go all around Europe.
What still brings optimism is that I believe, in principle, people are good and that we go in cycles and that we will turn back upwards very soon.
