The senator Patricia Bullrich denounced Claudio “Chiqui” Tapia and Pablo Toviggino before the Ethics Committee of the South American Football Confederation (CONMEBOL) for alleged violations of the code of ethics and the sports organization’s anti-corruption policy. “In particular, with regard to the principles of integrity, fiduciary duty, conflict of interest, transparency in contracting, appropriate use of resources and prevention of money laundering,” the former Minister of Security detailed in the letter.
On social networks, the legislator from La Libertad Avanza was more pointed against the directors of the Argentine Football Association. “They must thoroughly investigate this mafia that runs the AFA and dirtyes Argentine soccer. To the mansions, Ferraris and all that money that we have been seeing in the news, he asked me: Where is the money that comes in from advertising and the National Team? Why are the prizes for the champions lower than Tapia’s flights around the world? Sur Finances managing club debts in exchange for favors and votes?” Bullrich questioned.
As a result of this situation, the journalist Diego Brancatelli responded to the libertarian leader’s tweet by posting the following: “Argentina can stay out of the World Cup. Can you imagine 2026 without Messi’s last World Cup? Yes. It is possible and thanks to the irresponsible and ineffective Patricia Bullrich. Boca, Estudiantes (and the rest) without Copa Libertadores. Racing, River, without Copa Sudamericana. I don’t know. I, as you, think which side of the fuse you are on.” In addition to being a rhetorical message against the national senator, on the part of the communicator, the statement was a stark warning about the consequences of increasing political pressure on the AFA.
The possibility of FIFA sanctioning a national federation for political interference or serious institutional conflicts is not a theoretical hypothesis, but rather a mechanism expressly provided for in its statutes and applied on repeated occasions. Article 14 and, above all, article 19 of the Statute of the sporting body establish that member associations must manage their affairs independently and without the influence of third parties, including governments, and warn that non-compliance can lead to suspensions that directly affect the participation of teams and clubs in international competitions.
In this framework, a judicial complaint against AFA directors or a direct intervention of political power—for example, through administrative intervention, the forced removal of authorities or the imposition of observers with decision-making power—could be interpreted by the entity led by Gianni Infantino as a violation of the autonomy of the association. The governing body of world football has been consistent in pointing out that internal conflicts must be resolved within the statutory and judicial frameworks of football, without external pressure that conditions elections or sanctions.
International precedents reinforce this warning. In recent years, federations such as those in Nigeria, Ghana, Pakistan and, more recently, Indonesia and Kenya, were temporarily suspended due to state interference or judicial disputes that led to the paralysis of their governing bodies. In all of these cases, the sanction involved the immediate exclusion of national teams and clubs from FIFA and confederation tournaments until full institutional autonomy was restored.
In this regard, the mechanism is clear: in the event of a situation considered serious, the FIFA Council can order the suspension of the member association. This measure does not distinguish between categories or genders and covers both the senior team and youth teams, women’s soccer and futsal. In practical terms, a sanction of this type would automatically leave the Argentine National Team out of competition from qualifying matches, official friendlies and, if the punishment coincided with the calendar, even the World Cup, with no room for sporting appeal.
However, in Zurich they usually clarify that they do not oppose judicial investigations for alleged common crimes – such as money laundering or fraudulent administration – as long as these do not involve direct intervention in the governance of football. But, when a criminal case results in decisions that alter the power structure of a federation or condition its electoral process, the organization interprets that there is interference that is incompatible with its rules.
In the Argentine case, any political or judicial advance on the entity headed by Claudio “Chiqui” Tapia would be analyzed, especially due to the sporting and symbolic weight of the world champion team. Sources linked to FIFA point out that the organization prioritizes institutional stability and that, in the event of a conflict, it usually requires formal guarantees of independence, clear electoral schedules and the restitution of full control to the recognized authorities before lifting a possible sanction.
Therefore, beyond the local debate, the warning that Brancatelli announced is concrete. According to the highest body in world football, an escalation of political interference or judicialization that results in direct intervention of the AFA could activate some sporting punishment. International experience shows that FIFA does not hesitate to apply exemplary sanctions when it considers that the autonomy of football is violated, even when the cost is leaving millions of fans without seeing their team in a World Cup.
Image gallery
