Op-ed by Therese Baptiste, BaptElis.
The FIFA World Cup is often described as the world’s game. Yet it is also one of the world’s largest governance exercises.
Every decision – from officiating and tournament regulations to player welfare, sustainability, security and commercial partnerships – is observed by billions of people representing different cultures, expectations and values.
The football captures our attention. The governance deserves it too.
For those of us interested in leadership and institutional trust, the World Cup provides an opportunity to examine an increasingly important concept: Social Legitimacy.
Beyond compliance
Many organisations measure success through compliance.
- Did we follow the rules?
- Did we meet our legal obligations?
- Did we achieve our commercial objectives?
These are important questions.
Social Legitimacy asks a different one. Did stakeholders perceive our decisions as transparent, consistent, fair and aligned with the purpose we claim to serve?
An organisation can comply with every regulation and still lose public confidence if stakeholders perceive a disconnect between its actions and its stated values. That distinction matters more than ever.
When perception shapes trust
Several discussions emerging during this World Cup illustrate why perception matters. Hydration breaks, for example, are officially intended to protect player welfare under appropriate conditions.
Yet some supporters have questioned whether these breaks also create additional opportunities for broadcasters and commercial partners.
The point is not whether this perception is correct. The governance question is why such perceptions emerge in the first place.
Whenever stakeholders do not fully understand the rationale behind a decision, speculation naturally fills the information gap. Transparency therefore becomes an essential component of legitimacy.
The sustainability conversation
Another discussion has centred on stadium policies restricting spectators from bringing reusable water bottles while sponsor-branded bottled beverages remain available for purchase inside.
Security considerations may well justify these policies.
However, many supporters perceive an apparent inconsistency between sustainability messaging and operational practice.
Again, Social Legitimacy is not concerned solely with whether a policy is justified. It also considers whether stakeholders perceive consistency between what an organisation says and what it does.
Trust is strengthened when values and visible actions reinforce one another.
Listening to stakeholder concerns
Throughout the tournament, concerns have also been raised by supporters from several African nations regarding officiating decisions, disciplinary actions and media narratives.
These concerns should not automatically be interpreted as evidence of systemic bias. Equally, they should not be dismissed simply because definitive proof may be absent.
From a Social Legitimacy perspective, recurring stakeholder concerns deserve thoughtful engagement.
Institutions build trust not by avoiding difficult conversations, but by responding with openness, transparency and a willingness to examine whether improvements are possible.
Competition as a source of Social Legitimacy
Ironically, one of the strongest demonstrations of Social Legitimacy has come from the football itself.
Traditional powers have exited earlier than expected. Emerging nations have challenged long-established hierarchies. Remarkable comebacks have reminded us why billions of people love this tournament.
Such unpredictability reinforces confidence that success must be earned on the field rather than assumed through reputation.
Competitive integrity remains one of football’s greatest sources of legitimacy.
The Social Legitimacy lens
Every significant decision – whether in sport, business or government – can be examined through four simple questions:
- Transparency: Was the reasoning clearly communicated?
- Consistency: Was the decision applied fairly and consistently?
- Fairness: Will those affected perceive the outcome as equitable?
- Purpose: Does the decision primarily advance the interests of the institution and the communities it serves?
These questions do not seek to assign blame. They seek to strengthen trust.
Lessons beyond football
The World Cup reminds us that governance is no longer judged solely by outcomes. It is judged by the confidence those outcomes inspire.
The same principle applies to governments introducing new policies, corporations implementing sustainability strategies, universities managing institutional change, and international organisations responding to global challenges.
Social Legitimacy is therefore not a concept confined to sport. It is a framework for understanding how institutions earn – and maintain – the confidence of the people they serve.
Questions for leaders
As leaders, perhaps the most valuable questions are not “Did we make the right decision?”, but rather:
- Did we explain it clearly?
- Did stakeholders understand our reasoning?
- Did our actions reflect our stated values?
- What might others legitimately see that we have overlooked?
These questions encourage dialogue rather than defensiveness. They expand perspectives rather than reinforce positions.
Final reflection
The greatest tournaments are remembered not only for extraordinary goals or dramatic victories. They are remembered because people believe the competition was worthy of their trust.
The same is true of every organisation. Rules establish authority. Performance earns success. But Social Legitimacy earns confidence.
And in today’s world, confidence may be the most valuable asset any institution can possess.
Note for readers: This article is not intended to determine whether any particular decision made during the FIFA World Cup was right or wrong. Rather, it explores how one of the world’s largest sporting events provides a valuable case study for understanding Social Legitimacy – the relationship between governance decisions, stakeholder perceptions and institutional trust. Whether discussing sport, business, government or international organisations, the same question remains: How do leaders build and maintain trust when every decision is subject to public scrutiny?
