Emanuel Macedo de Medeiros is a prominent figure in international sports. A highly experienced individual, he possesses an unparalleled understanding of the global football landscape. He serves as Co-founder and Global CEO of SIGA, as well as President & CEO of SIGA AMERICA, Executive Chairman of SIGA EUROPE, President & CEO of SIGA Latin America, and Executive Chairman of SIGA ASIA. Mr. Medeiros granted an exclusive interview to Manos Staramopoulos, Editor-in-Chief of Discoveryfootball.com, discussing SIGA and its core mission. He addressed the recurring issues facing the international football governing body—including the controversies surrounding the World Cup last summer and the major dispute between UEFA and FIFA over a contentious initiative FIFA attempted to push through—as well as the steps needed for the future of the sport and various other compelling topics.

1. Let’s start with SIGA. For someone who doesn’t know the organization in depth, what exactly is the role of the Sport Integrity Global Alliance, why was it created and what gap did it aspire to fill in global sport?

There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come. SIGA was such an idea. It had been lodged in my brain long before I even had a name for it. Once there, I knew that nothing — nothing — could stand in its way. The challenges confronting sport made it necessary; the scale and speed of its transformation made it inevitable. What was still missing was the catalyst that would turn conviction into action and bring that vision to life. Then came FIFAgate.

The most consequential criminal investigation ever to engulf international sport exposed problems that extended far beyond FIFA. Its ramifications reached other sports organisations, officials, commercial entities and economic actors across different jurisdictions.

The damage was devastating. Sport's credibility had been shattered, its reputation severely damaged and trust — perhaps its most precious asset — profoundly undermined.

It became clear that another commission, another declaration of good intentions or another set of reforms from within would not be enough. A new paradigm was needed.

That was the vision behind SIGA: an independent, neutral, global and multi-stakeholder coalition of like-minded organisations, bringing together sport, governments, international organisations, business, civil society and academia around a common reform agenda.

We developed the SIGA Universal Standards on Sport Integrity, covering Good Governance, Financial Integrity, Sports Betting Integrity and Youth Development and Protection.

But standards alone were never going to be enough. We also needed independent scrutiny — to move sport from self-assessment to independent verification, from declarations to evidence, from promises to measurable performance. That vision became SIRVS.

That is what makes SIGA unique: universal standards, independent scrutiny and collective responsibility for the integrity of sport. Twelve years after FIFAgate, the relevance of that vision is perhaps clearer than ever.

2. You are one of the people who conceived the idea and co-founded SIGA. Looking back on its journey today, what do you consider to be the most important things it has already achieved and where do you believe it has really changed the way we perceive integrity, transparency and accountability in sport?

I would say, first and foremost, that SIGA put integrity where it belongs: on the highest step of the podium.

We helped change both the substance and the language of the international sports debate. We brought a positive, constructive and reform-driven approach, based not on naming and shaming, but on solutions.

Our message has always been that integrity is not a burden. Good governance is not bureaucracy. Transparency is not a threat to autonomy. These are strategic assets because they generate credibility, protect reputation and build the confidence and trust upon which sport ultimately depends.

Look at the current debate in world football. Whatever side people take, what is the language being used? Good governance. Integrity. Transparency. Accountability. Independent scrutiny.

These words carry SIGA's DNA. We have made these concepts doctrine.

The challenge now is implementation. Sport must walk the walk, not merely talk the talk.

That applies to everybody. It applies to FIFA, but equally to those demanding reform from FIFA. Confederations, national associations, leagues, clubs, players' unions — no one is immune and no one is excused.

SIGA is here to help: not to impose, but to convince; not to dictate, but to encourage.

The Standards exist. SIRVS exists. Now it is time to use them — and to lead by example. We need courageous leadership and political will to champion Integrity in Sport.

3. Your new strategy has as its central message “Making Integrity Irreversible”. But how can integrity be truly irreversible in a space where huge financial interests, political influence and organizations with great autonomy coexist? SIGA has set as priorities for the period 2026-2030, among others, the wider implementation of the Universal Standards and the independent assessment and certification through SIRVS.

“Making Integrity Irreversible” encapsulates the next stage of this journey. It does not mean that misconduct can somehow be abolished. It means ensuring that integrity no longer depends on the goodwill, personality or priorities of whoever happens to occupy a position of leadership. People come and go. Institutions must endure.

Integrity therefore has to be embedded in the institutional DNA of sport: in statutes, governance structures, decision-making processes, checks and balances, financial controls, conflicts-of-interest rules, transparency and accountability. Crucially, those mechanisms must be independently scrutinised.

I have defended the autonomy of sport throughout my professional life. I continue to do so. But autonomy is neither unlimited nor unconditional. Indeed, the most effective way of protecting legitimate sporting autonomy is through accountability.

That is the transformation we now need: from voluntary commitments to demonstrable implementation; from self-assessment to independent scrutiny; from good intentions to institutional culture.

When integrity becomes part of the way an organisation governs itself every day — irrespective of who is in power — it becomes much harder to reverse – and mitigates against the risk of leading organisations with self-interest at the top of the agenda.

4. In addition to SIGA, you have extensive experience in sports law and are involved in the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne. How much has the role of sports law changed in recent years? And do you believe that the CAS now has all the necessary tools to deal with the increasingly complex cases of global sports?

Sports law has changed profoundly because sport itself has changed profoundly. When I started more than three decades ago, we were already dealing with complex legal questions, but the scale, sophistication and economic significance of sport today are incomparable.

Sport now sits at the intersection of competition law, labour law, human rights, financial regulation, anti-money laundering, investment, taxation, data, technology, media and, increasingly, geopolitics. Sport is not an island. Sports law cannot be an island either.

CAS has made an enormous contribution to the development of a coherent international system of sports dispute resolution. Its importance is undeniable. But institutional excellence is never a finished product.

Every institution — CAS included — must continuously examine whether its governance, independence, transparency, procedural safeguards, diversity and expertise remain adequate to the complexity of the disputes it is asked to resolve.

That should not be regarded as criticism. The strongest institutions are those capable of scrutinising and improving themselves before circumstances force them to do so.

5. You have also participated in the Integrity & Compliance Working Group of B20 Brazil, which focuses on anti-corruption, compliance and corporate governance issues. What can sport learn from the business world in these areas and, conversely, what can sport contribute to the international debate on integrity?

Sport has much to learn from the corporate world — and the corporate world has something to learn from sport.

Over decades, companies, financial institutions, regulators and international organisations have developed sophisticated mechanisms for compliance, audit, risk management, anti-corruption, anti-money laundering, beneficial ownership transparency, conflicts of interest and whistleblower protection.

Today, Sport has at its disposal its own the SIGA Universal Standards on Sport Integrity and SIRVS. And that changes everything!

There is a huge difference between Sport and the corporate world. Sport is more than an economic activity. It carries an extraordinary social, cultural and educational dimension. It reaches billions of people and generates levels of passion, identification and loyalty that few industries can replicate. That creates an additional responsibility. And there is no contradiction between integrity and commercial success. They reinforce one another.

Good governance protects value. Transparency attracts credible investment. Integrity protects reputation. Trust strengthens institutions. Integrity is therefore not simply a moral obligation. It is an economic asset.

6. I would like to move on to FIFA and the FIFA Forward Enterprise plan. How did you assess the attempt to create a new commercial structure with the participation of private investors? Was it a problematic idea from the start or was the main problem in the way it was designed, valued and presented?

I will resist the temptation to become a commentator. SIGA is not a commentator. Neither am I. There are different and strongly held positions regarding FIFA Forward Enterprise. It is not SIGA's role to align itself with FIFA, UEFA or any other stakeholder, nor to adjudicate a controversy without access to all the relevant facts.

Our position is one of complete independence, neutrality and impartiality. What interests me is the institutional lesson.

Had FIFA adopted and fully implemented the SIGA Universal Standards on Good Governance and Financial Integrity and Transparency, I am convinced that we would not be witnessing the controversy, tension and climate of institutional confrontation that exists today.

Why? Because the Universal Standards address precisely the issues that become critical when major strategic decisions are taken: transparency; consultation; clear allocation of responsibilities; checks and balances; management of conflicts of interest; accountability; and independent scrutiny.

My concern is not to decide who is right and who is wrong in today's dispute. It is to help ensure that tomorrow's dispute can be prevented. The solution already exists.

7. FIFA argued that the plan could dramatically increase funding for the 211 member associations and that it was a “golden opportunity” for the development of football. On the other hand, the reactions focused on transparency, governance and the risk of private interests gaining influence over FIFA’s most important commercial assets. Where do you draw the line?

The principle is straightforward: there is nothing inherently incompatible between commercial ambition and good governance.

Sport needs investment. It needs innovation. It needs sophisticated commercial expertise. It should not be afraid of any of those things. But the greater the strategic importance of a decision, the greater the governance safeguards must be.

How was the decision taken? Who was consulted? What information was available? How was value established? How were potential conflicts of interest identified and managed? What are the long-term consequences? Where does accountability lie?

These are legitimate governance questions for any organisation handling assets of significant value. The principle is universal.

The dividing line is not between commercialisation and integrity, nor between private and public capital. It is between a decision-making process capable of commanding trust and one that generates doubt.

And when doubt exists, the answer cannot simply be better communication. The answer is transparency and independent scrutiny.

8. The project failed, but the case does not seem to be over. UEFA is seeking evidence in the United States for possible legal proceedings in Switzerland. Do you think this crisis could develop into a broader issue of institutional legitimacy for FIFA’s leadership?

I will not speculate on prospective litigation, nor will SIGA become an extension of anybody's legal or political strategy. But we should not underestimate what is at stake.

When disagreement between major institutions reaches a point where governance, confidence, legitimacy and legal action become part of the discussion, the problem inevitably transcends the original commercial proposal. It becomes a question of institutional trust. And trust is one of leadership's most precious currencies.

What concerns me is not who prevails in a particular institutional confrontation. What concerns me is the credibility, cohesion and stability of world football.

The language of “civil war” should concern everyone. Football needs leadership capable of building bridges, listening, reconciling legitimate differences and bringing the football family together.

When trust has broken down, independent scrutiny provides something politics cannot: an objective means of establishing facts and assessing governance against transparent standards.

That is why SIGA advocates independent scrutiny. Not against FIFA. Not on behalf of those opposing FIFA. In the interests of football, and indeed the entire sports ecosystem.

9. After what has happened, do you think there is still room in the future for private capital in the commercial activities of FIFA or other major sports organizations? And if so, what safeguards should be in place to protect the independence of sport?

Absolutely. Private capital is already an integral part of the global sports economy and will continue to be. The real question is not whether capital should participate in sport. It is on what terms.

We need transparency regarding the source of funds and ultimate beneficial ownership. We need proper valuation. We need clear governance rights, robust conflicts-of-interest provisions, safeguards for sporting independence and clarity about who exercises influence and who carries risk. Above all, we must preserve a fundamental hierarchy: Capital should serve sport; sport should not become subordinate to capital.

There is nothing wrong with investors seeking a return. But sporting organisations are custodians of something that cannot be measured exclusively on a balance sheet. They carry institutional, cultural and social responsibilities.

The governance framework must therefore ensure that legitimate commercial interests never capture the sporting mission or compromise the independence of decision-making.

10. How concerned are you in general about the increasingly close relationship between football, political power and big investment funds? Can a global sports organization remain truly independent when it manages billions and at the same time talks with governments, sovereign wealth funds and multinationals?

I am concerned about the risks, but I do not subscribe to alarmism. Sport cannot isolate itself from governments, investors, sovereign wealth funds, multinational companies or the global financial system. Nor should it. The issue is not interaction. The issue is dependency and undue influence.

As financial and geopolitical interests surrounding sport become more powerful, governance must become correspondingly stronger. Financial integrity must also move much higher up the agenda.

We need to ask some very simple questions much more systematically: where is the money coming from? Where is the money going to? Who are the ultimate beneficial owners?

These questions apply to investment in clubs, ownership structures, commercial transactions, transfers and the wider flow of capital throughout the sports economy. The integrity of capital is inseparable from the integrity of sport.

A global sports organisation can remain genuinely independent while dealing with governments and powerful investors. But independence must be protected every day.

Sometimes the ultimate test of independence is the ability to say no, however powerful the government, investor or commercial partner sitting on the other side of the table.

11. Have we reached a point where “good governance” is no longer enough as a slogan? Do FIFA, UEFA, the IOC and the other major organizations really need independent external control mechanisms, with the power to intervene and not just an advisory role?

Good governance cannot be a slogan. And independent scrutiny should not be confused with external control. I am not advocating that an outside institution should govern FIFA, UEFA, the IOC or any other sports organisation. Sports organisations must retain responsibility for governing themselves. But there is an important distinction between governing yourself and judging yourself.

No institution exercising significant power should be the sole judge of its own governance and integrity.

We accept this principle throughout modern society and the economy. Companies are independently audited. Financial institutions are supervised. States participate in peer-review mechanisms. Airlines undergo independent safety assessments. Why should Sport be the exception?

That is precisely why SIGA created SIRVS, and the confidential gap analysis assessment tool, as a precursor for SIRVS, to support sport’s organisations take a first external look in the mirror, and work progressively with them, showing them what excellence looks like.

The system is gradual, user friendly and supportive, and can be used to strengthen internal governance systems in a progressive manner, demonstrating compliance to external stakeholders, as part of ongoing continual improvement. 

But — let me tell you something else very important — coherence and consistency are essential. If you demand accountability from FIFA, you must be prepared to demonstrate your own accountability. The same principle must therefore apply to FIFA, UEFA, the confederations, national associations, leagues, clubs and players' organisations.

One standard. Independent scrutiny. No exceptions. That is how credibility is built.

12. FIFA is headed towards the 2027 presidential elections in a climate of intense confrontation. Without asking you to take a stand for or against any one person, what characteristics do you think the next FIFA president should possess in order to restore or strengthen trust in its institutions?

FIFA is one thing. Its President is another. The distinction is fundamental. FIFA is an institution representing 211 member associations and entrusted with the stewardship of the world's game. Its President is elected to lead and serve that institution — not to personify it.

That requires vision and experience, but also independence of judgement, diplomatic intelligence, political acumen, courage and an instinct for consensus. Above all, it requires the capacity to unite.

Football does not need permanent confrontation. It needs leadership capable of listening, reconciling legitimate interests and rebuilding trust where trust has been damaged.

Strong leadership should never be confused with concentration of power. The strongest leaders surround themselves with competent and independent people. They respect institutional checks and balances. They welcome challenge. They understand that accountability strengthens rather than diminishes authority.

Ultimately, leadership is not measured by how much power one accumulates while in office. It is measured by the strength, credibility and unity of the institution one leaves behind.

13. After more than three decades of working in sports law and international sports governance, are you more optimistic or more worried about the future? Is global sport cleaner and more transparent today, or have the ways in which power is exercised simply become more complex?

I remain fundamentally optimistic. If I were not, I would not have spent more than three decades fighting for reform.

Sport is unquestionably better equipped today than it was when I started. Governance is taken more seriously. Compliance structures have developed. Transparency has improved. Public expectations are higher. Integrity has moved from the margins to the centre of the agenda.

But power has also become more sophisticated. The financial stakes are enormous. Ownership structures are more complex. Money moves rapidly across jurisdictions. Private equity, sovereign investment, technology, betting markets, data and geopolitical interests have transformed the political economy of sport.

So, the relevant question is not simply: is sport cleaner than it was? It is: are our governance systems evolving as quickly as the risks? Not yet. But we no longer lack knowledge of what needs to be done. The standards exist. The mechanisms exist. The expertise exists. What is required now is leadership and political will.

I have often said that “Integrity is a team sport”. This is precisely such a moment.

14. And finally, if you could change one single rule in the way world football is governed tomorrow, which would it be and why?

I would establish one principle and make it universal: no organisation exercising significant power in world football should be the sole judge of its own governance and integrity. That would fundamentally change the system. Independent scrutiny is not a punishment. It is a mechanism for trust.

For too long, sport has moved from crisis to crisis: scandal, outrage, reform, complacency — and then another crisis. We have to break that cycle.

FIFA must open itself to independent scrutiny. So must UEFA. So must every confederation, national association, league, club and other organisation exercising significant power.

Nobody should demand from others what they are unwilling to accept themselves. That is why the SIGA Universal Standards and SIRVS matter. They offer sport the opportunity to replace assertion with evidence and self-assessment with independent verification.

The objective is not to weaken sporting autonomy. Quite the contrary. Protect autonomy through accountability. Lead by example. Make independent scrutiny the norm. Make integrity irreversible.