Content Analysis of FIFA Disciplinary Regulations

Abstract

This study aims to examine the role of FIFA's disciplinary regulations in shaping behaviors associated with global football and to analyze their structural impacts on various stakeholders. The primary objective is to explore the interaction between legal language, institutional centralization, and procedural justice within the regulatory text. The research method is based on qualitative content analysis of 76 articles from FIFA’s 2023 regulations, with a focus on linguistic patterns, discursive structures, and enforcement mechanisms. Data were extracted through thematic coding, analysis of key vocabulary, and alignment with analytical frameworks from legal studies and critical discourse analysis. On one hand, FIFA regulations enable the uniform application of rules by clearly defining offenses and penalties. On the other hand, structural ambiguities in key concepts and the concentration of decision-making authority create the potential for subjective interpretation and undermine the rights of less influential countries. A clear contradiction is evident between the proclaimed commitment to justice and the reality of centralization. Although the regulations effectively address a broad range of infractions, they demonstrate shortcomings in protecting vulnerable groups, such as whistleblowers. A noticeable gap also exists between theoretical principles and practical challenges in areas such as financial transparency and institutional accountability. Despite its technical achievements, FIFA’s disciplinary framework requires a fundamental revision to reduce structural inequalities. Key recommendations include redefining ambiguous terms, expanding regulatory coverage to address emerging issues such as athletes’ psychological safety, decentralizing decision-making by involving independent bodies, and enhancing financial transparency through public reporting. Stakeholder education and the reinforcement of protective mechanisms will also help mitigate unintentional violations and strengthen procedural justice.