A new international footballers’ union has launched with 30,000 players, but an immediate rebuke from FIFPRO highlights a growing divide over global player representation.
A new global footballers’ union has been launched in Madrid, immediately drawing criticism from the established players’ body FIFPRO and exposing a widening divide over who represents professional players worldwide.
The International Association of Footballers (AIF) was formally presented at the headquarters of the Spanish Footballers’ Association (AFE) today (23 April), positioning itself as an independent organisation aiming to “defend the rights of footballers globally” and improve both professional and personal conditions.
Led by AFE president David Aganzo, AIF launches with backing from four founding unions across Spain, Mexico, Brazil and Switzerland, and claims to already represent more than 30,000 players. Aganzo will serve as president, alongside Álvaro Ortiz as general secretary, with Rinaldo José Zaffani Martorelli and Lucien W. Valloni as vice presidents.
Framing the initiative as a response to declining protections, Aganzo said the organisation was necessary because “footballers are losing rights and guarantees”, adding that AIF would prioritise transparency, independence and direct dialogue with governing bodies, leagues and clubs.
Among its stated priorities are the expansion of collective bargaining agreements, tackling unpaid wages, improving mental and physical health protections and addressing inequalities in women’s football, including contracts and maternity rights. The organisation also intends to support players transitioning out of the game and has signalled plans to engage with governing bodies, including attending the upcoming FIFA Congress.
“There is room for another union in a democratic world,” said Rinaldo José Zaffani Martorelli, from the Sao Paulo players’ union, at the press conference following the launch. This is especially true when there are such important issues to fight for “like those related to health, unpaid wages, and the future, because when football ends, life doesn’t end. AIF will work for all of this, for everyone.”
“The schedules are linked to commercial agreements, so we have to find a balance,” he added.
Immediate industry pushback
However, the launch was met with an immediate and strongly worded response from FIFPRO, which questioned both the legitimacy and motivations behind the new entity.
In a statement, FIFPRO said the initiative appeared to be a “speculative attempt” lacking the “fundamental legitimacy to represent professional footballers globally”, arguing that player representation must be built on democratic mandates, governance standards and accountability.
The organisation emphasised its own position as the recognised global union, representing 70 national associations and more than 60,000 players, with formal recognition from institutions including the European Union and the International Labour Organization.
FIFPRO also pointed to recent governance tensions, noting that Aganzo previously held a leadership role within the organisation before losing his position as part of internal reforms. It added that the subsequent withdrawal of the Spanish union from FIFPRO had “weakened global support and benefits for players in Spain”.
The statement further criticised engagement with groups that “fail to meet basic standards of player representation”, including those without democratic mandates or those previously expelled from FIFPRO.
The emergence of AIF comes at a time of increasing pressure on player representation structures, as issues such as fixture congestion, unpaid wages in certain markets, and disparities in women’s football continue to gain prominence.
While AIF positions itself as a necessary alternative voice, FIFPRO’s response underlines concerns that the formation of parallel bodies could fragment player representation at a global level, particularly in negotiations with governing bodies such as FIFA.
With AIF indicating that additional unions are considering joining, the extent of its support base is likely to determine whether it develops into a credible counterpart or remains a breakaway initiative within an already established system.
A growing tension
The dispute also emerges against the backdrop of escalating tensions between FIFPRO and FIFA, with player welfare and representation already a point of contention at the highest level of the game.
In recent months, FIFPRO has repeatedly criticised FIFA’s approach to player treatment, citing concerns over congested match calendars, insufficient recovery time and a lack of meaningful consultation with players and their representatives. The union has argued that commercial expansion across competitions risks undermining basic labour protections, pointing to ongoing issues such as unpaid wages and contract breaches in parts of the global game.
FIFA has rejected those claims, stating that new measures are being introduced to safeguard player welfare, including minimum rest periods between matches and mandatory off-season breaks. The governing body has also pointed to increased player representation within its committees and reforms to transfer regulations as evidence of what it describes as “concrete” action.
However, tensions have extended beyond policy disagreements into questions of representation. FIFPRO has previously accused FIFA of sidelining independent unions after being excluded from a player welfare summit, arguing that engagement with alternative groups risks creating parallel structures that do not reflect the global player base.
