Fifa reform needs a remedy rule before it needs a new president

Key takeaways

• The Norwegian Football Federation wants Fifa and other governing bodies to talk again about remedy, meaning how harm linked to football's events is repaired.
• According to the Guardian, the federation's president does not plan to run for the Fifa presidency but believes the governing body can be reformed.
• In human rights policy, remedy means repairing harm after it happens, which is different from preventing harm or reporting on it.
• A change of president alone would not create remedy obligations, because those obligations depend on rules, contracts and procedures, not on who holds office.
• The main test for Norway's push is whether other member associations take it up, because one federation's vote rarely shifts Fifa policy.

What is Norway's federation actually proposing?

The Guardian reports that Lise Klaveness, president of the Norwegian Football Federation, wants to re-engage Fifa and other governing bodies on remedy. She admits Norway probably cannot achieve much on its own. But she argues that a member association has a voice and the right to make proposals, and that Norway can at least try to lead. In the same interview she says there are certainly people capable of challenging Gianni Infantino, while making clear that she is not putting herself forward for the Fifa presidency.

Read together, these two points set out a position worth defending. The more useful reform agenda is about the rules, not about who wins the presidency. The source excerpt does not say what specific mechanism Norway will propose. It is not known whether that means a formal motion, a fund, a standing procedure or a set of contractual requirements. That gap matters, and this article does not try to fill it. What can be judged is the direction: towards repairing harm and away from a contest of personalities.

Why is this back in the news now?

The immediate trigger is the interview itself, conducted in Oslo's government quarter and published by the Guardian. The source describes remedy as a fairly obscure part of human rights policy in ordinary times, and says its importance became very clear after a particular episode. The excerpt is cut off before it names that episode, so its exact framing is not known here.

The wider context is familiar to anyone who has followed football governance. Fifa has faced years of argument over its responsibility for the conditions of workers involved in building tournament infrastructure, and over whether it should help pay compensation. Those debates have kept one question open: when harm is linked to a football event, who owes what to whom, and through what process? Norway raising remedy again suggests that, in its federation's view, the question is still unresolved.

What does 'remedy' mean, and why is it so easy to overlook?

In business and human rights frameworks, especially the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, responsibility usually has three parts. Organisations should avoid causing or contributing to harm. They should carry out due diligence to find and reduce risks. And where harm has happened, they should provide or cooperate in remedy. Fifa has adopted a human rights policy that draws on this framework.

Remedy is the part most easily neglected, for structural reasons. Prevention and due diligence can be shown on paper through assessments, policies and audits. Remedy costs money and takes time. It needs someone to identify the people harmed, check their claims, decide what they are owed and deliver it. It often concerns harm that happened years earlier, after the tournament that caused it has ended and attention has moved on.

There is also a gap in incentives. A host bid is judged on promises about the future. Remedy deals with failures in the past. Once a tournament is over, the commercial and political pressure that existed during bidding is gone. Unless a remedy obligation is written into contracts and procedures beforehand, there is little to bring the parties back to the table.

Who is affected, and how?

The most obvious group is workers and others harmed in connection with tournaments: people in construction, hospitality, security and services. A credible remedy procedure would give them a way to claim that does not rely on media attention or on campaigns that come and go.

Host nations and bidding countries are affected too. If remedy obligations were standard, bids would have to account for them from the start. That would change the cost of hosting and the commitments host governments and organising committees accept.

Member associations, Norway's among them, are affected as voters and as stakeholders in the sport's reputation. Each association has a say in Fifa's Congress. Associations that want to raise human rights standards have to choose between using that voice and keeping a working relationship with the leadership.

Fifa itself is affected as an institution. Remedy obligations would bring financial exposure, administrative work and the risk of claims. They could also give Fifa a clearer, defensible answer when criticism arrives, instead of having to improvise one each time.

Where do informed observers disagree?

The first disagreement is about the route to change: leadership or rules. One view holds that Fifa's direction depends heavily on its president, so reform without a credible challenger is wishful thinking. The opposing view, which this article takes, is that a new president working inside the same rules would face the same incentives. Obligations written into statutes and contracts last beyond any one term of office. Political goodwill does not.

The second disagreement is about responsibility. Some argue that conditions in a host country belong to that state and its employers, not to a sports body that awards a tournament. Others reply that the UN framework expects organisations to take responsibility for harm they contribute to or are directly linked with through their business relationships. On that reading, awarding and running a tournament creates exactly such a link.

The third disagreement is practical. Even people who accept the principle differ on how remedy should be delivered: a central fund, case-by-case compensation, contractual duties placed on hosts, or independent claims bodies. Each choice spreads cost and accountability differently. None of them is free of difficulties.

There is also an honest doubt about whether one smaller federation can move anything. Klaveness concedes this herself in the interview. Being a spearhead only works if others follow.

What would change in practice if remedy were taken seriously?

The first change would be in bidding and hosting agreements. A remedy obligation decided before the tournament, with named responsibilities and funding, is very different from a promise to look at problems later. It would give future claimants something specific to point to.

The second change would be procedural. A remedy mechanism needs eligibility rules, a way to verify claims, an independent decision-maker and a time frame. Without those parts, remedy stays a principle that is expressed in policy and then left unused.

The third change would be political. If remedy became a standing agenda item with set procedures, member associations would not need to fight over every new case. The argument would move from whether Fifa should act to whether the agreed process was followed, which is an easier question to answer and harder to avoid.

None of these changes requires a new president. All of them require votes, drafting and persistence. That is why Norway's choice to concentrate on remedy, rather than on the presidency, is the more realistic of the two paths.

What should readers watch next?

The first thing to watch is whether Norway turns its intention into a concrete proposal and what form that proposal takes. Until it is published, its scope is not known.

The second is whether other member associations publicly support the push. Coalitions decide what happens in Fifa's Congress. A remedy initiative supported by one federation is a statement. One supported by many is a negotiation.

The third is how Fifa responds: whether it treats remedy as a technical question for its human rights framework or as a political challenge to its leadership. That response will show whether the governing body sees reform as something it can absorb or something it needs to resist.

The fourth is whether candidates appear in the next presidential election. Klaveness says challengers exist, but she does not name anyone, and nobody is named here. If candidates do come forward, the useful question to ask them is not whether they oppose the incumbent but what they would put in writing on remedy.

Frequently asked questions

What is remedy in football human rights policy?

Remedy means repairing harm after it has happened. Under frameworks such as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, organisations are expected to prevent harm, assess risks through due diligence, and provide or cooperate in remedy when harm occurs. In football, it usually concerns people harmed in connection with tournaments, such as workers on infrastructure or services. In practice it might mean compensation, formal acknowledgement, or other ways of putting things right.

Is Lise Klaveness running for Fifa president?

According to the Guardian's interview, the Norwegian Football Federation president distances herself from the Fifa presidency. She says there are certainly people who could challenge Gianni Infantino but does not present herself as a candidate. Her stated focus is on reforming how Fifa and other governing bodies deal with remedy, using Norway's right as a member association to speak and make proposals.

Can one national federation change Fifa policy?

On its own, rarely. Each member association has a voice in Fifa's Congress, but policy changes usually need broad support across many associations. A single federation can bring an issue forward, draft proposals and argue publicly, which is the spearhead role Norway describes. Whether a proposal actually becomes policy depends on other associations joining in and on how Fifa's leadership responds.

Why does remedy matter more than who leads Fifa?

A president works inside rules, contracts and incentives that stay the same when leaders change. If remedy obligations are not written into hosting agreements and procedures, a new leader faces the same pressure to move on once a tournament ends. Binding remedy rules last beyond any individual term. That makes them a more lasting form of accountability than relying on one person's goodwill.

Does Fifa have a human rights policy?

Yes. Fifa has adopted a human rights policy that draws on the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. The framework covers avoiding harm, carrying out due diligence and providing access to remedy. Critics and supporters disagree about how fully the remedy part has been put into practice, particularly where harm is connected to tournament preparation in host countries.

What would a Fifa remedy mechanism look like?

There is no agreed model. Options discussed in human rights policy include a central compensation fund, remedy duties placed on host countries through contracts, case-by-case compensation, and independent bodies to decide claims. Any credible mechanism would need eligibility rules, a way to verify claims, independent decision-making and a clear timetable. The details of any Norwegian proposal are not yet known.

Sources and further reading

• The Guardian: interview with the Norwegian Football Federation president on Fifa reform and remedy.
• United Nations: the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, which set out the prevention, due diligence and remedy framework.
• Fifa: its published human rights policy and governance statutes, including how the Congress and presidential elections work.
• Human rights organisations and academic work on major sporting events, covering compensation and remedy for workers.