That's the problem. You can create a new thing with the initial leadership that is well intended, but say 250 years later some one less well intended gets voted in charge. So something smaller like FIFA and IOC would be much more susceptible as the voting base is much smaller and easier to corrupt.
> thing with the initial leadership that is well intended, but say 250 years later some one less well intended gets voted in charge
The fundamental problem with FIFA is the revenue body is also the sport’s standards and adjudication body. Split those functions, with one selling tickets and divvying up spoils, while a separate committee polices the sport, and you put aside a lot of the corruption issues unique to FIFA.
A lot of people would be behind this, but it would likely just cause a massive schism. The question to be answered is if the world is large enough for multiple global football organizations, because it's likely many of the regional ones will stay with FIFA for the near to medium-term.
What would be better is if they can work together to root out the corruption, but as long as profitability is worshiped as openly as it is, it will tough to fight since money is so concentrated and it's now a kind of self-sustaining entity.
You only need UEFA and CONMEBOL (South America) to agree with each other. Those two confederations include every FIFA World Cup winner so far. If they make their own organization and their own world cup, that's it for FIFA
Other confederations are important for FIFA-internal politics (especially the African votes, Infantino's biggest group of supporters), but for fans and players the quality of the clubs matters far more. And that is geographically clustered
