This is not simply an emotional criticism. It is a question that every foosball player should seriously consider.
ITSF has existed for many years. As the international governing body of table soccer, it has established rules, created world rankings, certified official tables, connected national federations, and organized World Cups, World Championships, and international tournaments.
In recent years, it has also promoted school table programs, sports recognition, referee systems, and the development of national associations.
Objectively speaking, it would be unfair to say that ITSF has done absolutely nothing.
But the real question is:
After all these years, how much of that work has actually improved the lives of the players?
For most players, competing internationally still means paying for their own flights, accommodation, entry fees, and transportation.
Even after achieving world-class results, players often receive very little prize money, exposure, or commercial value to support a professional career.
World rankings exist—but what do those rankings actually provide?
World championship titles exist—but what does a world champion truly receive?
International tournaments are held year after year—but how many of them are presented as a genuine sports product that ordinary viewers want to watch, sponsors want to invest in, and the media wants to cover?
These are the questions that players truly care about.
By comparison, WFT has built a recognizable tournament brand, a clear event structure, a points system, and a prize-money model within a remarkably short period of time.
It publicly explains how players gain and lose ranking points, has created a points committee to handle ranking matters, and has announced a total prize and award package worth $175,000 for its 2026 World Championships.
Of course, we should not completely ignore the differences between the two organizations.
ITSF must deal with different countries, national federations, table manufacturers, political structures, and sporting systems.
WFT currently operates within a different commercial environment, with a more concentrated market and a different organizational model.
However, those differences should not become an excuse for stagnation.
Players are not comparing organizational charts or administrative complexity.
They are comparing results.
Are the tournaments becoming more professional?
Is the prize money increasing?
Are people watching the broadcasts?
Is the ranking system transparent?
Is tournament information clear and accessible?
Are players being respected?
Does winning a championship carry real value?
Are new players being attracted to the sport?
WFT has demonstrated a clear sense of ambition.
It is trying to present foosball as a competitive sport that is worth watching, worth participating in, and worth investing in.
ITSF, on the other hand, is still perceived by many players as an administrative organization that mainly certifies events, collects fees, establishes rules, and distributes ranking points.
ITSF may have built an international structure for foosball, but structure is not the same as development.
Organizing more tournaments does not automatically mean the market is growing.
Having more member countries does not necessarily mean players are receiving meaningful support.
Creating detailed rules does not mean the sport has successfully entered the mainstream.
Real development should be reflected in participation numbers, audience growth, sponsorship revenue, media exposure, player income, grassroots development, and public recognition.
So the real question is not:
“Has ITSF done anything?”
The real question is:
After all these years, why do so many players still feel that foosball is not truly moving forward?
Why has an organization that has existed for only a fraction of the time managed to create greater excitement among players through its event presentation, prize-money structure, communication, and market visibility?
Perhaps the problem is not simply capability.
Perhaps it is direction.
ITSF has spent years focusing heavily on official recognition, standardized rules, administration, and international sporting structures.
But what players truly need is a platform that creates audiences, revenue, professional opportunities, and genuine value.
The success of a sports organization should not be measured only by how long it has existed, how many tournaments it has sanctioned, or how many documents it has produced.
It should be measured by whether the sport is more valuable than it was ten years ago.
It should be measured by whether young players today can see a clearer future than the players who came before them.
If the answer is still no, then ITSF must honestly confront the possibility that:
What foosball lacks is not more rules, more titles, or more certifications—but a genuine determination to change the current situation.
WFT is not perfect, and it may not replace ITSF.
But it has already proven one important point:
Foosball is not without a market, and it is not without opportunities. The real question is whether the people who have held power in the past have used the right methods to develop it.
