The word governance has a public-relations problem. Say it in a room of people who actually deliver things and you watch them brace for committees, sign-off matrices, and meetings whose only output is the scheduling of the next meeting. They are not wrong to brace. Most of what passes for governance is exactly that, and it deserves the eye-roll it gets.
But there is a version of governance that does the opposite of what people fear, and the World Cup runs on it. Not because the organisers are unusually fond of structure, but because at this scale there is no alternative. A tournament across three countries cannot be held together by goodwill and a shared chat thread. Something has to decide who decides. That something is governance, and when it is built well it is the most liberating thing on a project rather than the most constraining.
I want to make the case for the good version, because the bad version has poisoned the word.
Governance is the answer to one question
Strip away the frameworks and governance answers a single question: when something needs deciding, who decides, and how fast?
That is it. Everything else — the boards, the terms of reference, the escalation paths — is just machinery for answering that question consistently under pressure. Get the answer clear and the machinery can be light. Leave it vague and no amount of machinery saves you.
The 2026 tournament makes the stakes obvious. Sixteen host cities, three national governments, a workforce in the tens of thousands across organisations that do not share a boss. Decisions are being made every hour, in every city. If each one had to travel up to a central authority and back, the tournament would stop moving. The whole apparatus would jam inside a day. So the real governance question for an event this size is not “how do we control all these decisions” but “how do we let most of them be made locally, fast, without the thing flying apart.”
The paradox: more structure, more freedom
Here is what people who fear governance never quite believe until they have lived it. Clear governance creates freedom. The two are not in tension; one produces the other.
Picture a venue manager in one of the host cities. If the boundaries of their authority are sharp — these decisions are yours, make them and don’t ask; these few are not, escalate them — they move fast and with confidence. They are not waiting on anyone. They own their patch.
Now take the same manager and blur those lines. Make it unclear what they can decide alone. What happens is not chaos; it is paralysis. They check. They email upward to be safe. They wait for a reply before acting, because the cost of overstepping is unknown and therefore feared. Ambiguous authority does not make people cautious in a useful way. It makes them slow, and it pushes every trivial choice up to people who should never have to see it.
Good governance is mostly the drawing of clean lines. Here is your box. Inside it, you are trusted; act. That clarity is a gift to the people doing the work, not a constraint on them.
Escalation is a feature, not a failure
There is a cultural problem on a lot of projects: escalating a decision is treated as weakness, as if the grown-up thing is to handle everything yourself. That instinct quietly destroys delivery.
At World Cup scale, escalation has to be normal, fast, and free of shame. Some decisions genuinely should not be made by the person who first encounters them — they cross venues, or carry political weight, or commit money beyond a threshold. The system needs those to travel upward quickly and land with someone who can actually resolve them, then return just as quickly. An escalation path that works is one people use without flinching.
The failure mode is the opposite: a culture where escalating feels like admitting you couldn’t cope, so people sit on decisions that are above their pay grade, make them badly, and the consequences surface a week later when they are far more expensive to fix. Governance that punishes escalation teaches people to hide problems. Governance that welcomes it teaches people to surface them early, which is the entire game.
What good governance is not
It is worth naming the bad version precisely, because it wears the same clothes as the good one.
Bad governance is decisions travelling upward that didn’t need to. It is a board that reviews rather than decides — that meets, discusses, notes, and adjourns, while the actual choices get made by exhausted people in the gaps between meetings. It is a sign-off step added after an incident, never removed, accreting until the approval chain is longer than the work. It is structure that exists to distribute blame rather than to enable action.
The tell is simple. Ask of any governance step: does this help a decision get made well and quickly, or does it just create a record that a decision was witnessed? If it is the second, it is ceremony, and ceremony is what gives governance its bad name. A tournament cannot afford ceremony. Every layer that does not earn its place is a layer the calendar will eventually punish.
The quiet discipline
None of this is visible from the stands. Nobody watching a match thinks about the decision-rights framework that let a venue manager in another city solve a problem at 6am without waking anyone. That invisibility is, again, the proof it worked.
The lesson travels to any organisation, at any size. You do not need a World Cup to benefit from asking the governance question honestly: for the decisions that matter on whatever you are leading, who decides, and how fast? Draw those lines clearly. Push authority down to the people closest to the work. Make escalation cheap and shameless for the few things that genuinely need it. Then strip out every step that only witnesses rather than enables.
Do that and governance stops being the thing people brace against. It becomes the thing that lets them move.
This piece pairs with two others in the series: Why the FIFA World Cup Is Really a Program, Not a Project and What the FIFA World Cup Teaches Us About Project Management.
Ben Webb is a Sydney-based project leader and former Australian Project Manager of the Year, sharing practical lessons from major projects, events and complex stakeholder environments.
Leave a Reply