Registered as a charitable foundation (distinct from non-profits) with profits of $40M, and an endowment (distinct from cash reserves) of $100M.
In disputes, WMF has argued that it should not necessarily be liable for content written by 3rd-party contributors, which doesn't appear to be an entirely unreasonable position. It has lobbied for consumer rights in Copyright legislation hearings, and it has lobbied against governmental mass surveillance in which it was joined by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
It has also been criticised for some software projects being late, over budget, and not living up to expectations (so, par for the course for a typical software project?), or being developed with insufficient transparency. Which, OK, isn't great.
But you're comparing that to FIFA, whose officials have been repeatedly charged (with some guilty pleas, some convictions, and other cases ongoing) of multiple counts of political corruption, bribery, match fixing, racketeering and money laundering. Also, they lobby for exemptions to workers rights protections, and for special case tax exemptions beyond those normally afforded by it's non-profit status.
If you were trying to make the point that FIFA "isn't that bad, actually", I don't think comparing them to WMF does them any favors. (Or, it does make WMF look pretty good, in comparison.) Maybe try comparing FIFA to the IOC or the NRA if you want to make them look better next time.