Gianni Infantino has survived plenty of political battles during a decade at the top of FIFA, but the dispute now surrounding the organisation is no longer simply another argument between football administrators. National associations have withdrawn their support, UEFA says trust in the leadership of the global game has been broken, and some of Europe’s most powerful domestic leagues are preparing to demand urgent changes to the way FIFA is governed.
The immediate trigger was an extraordinary proposal to bring private investors into FIFA’s commercial business, potentially giving them a 20 per cent stake in rights connected to competitions including the World Cup. That project was abandoned in July after fierce resistance, but withdrawing it did not end the dispute. Instead, attention shifted from the proposal itself to a much bigger question: how could an idea of such significance progress so far without many of the organisations responsible for world football believing they had been properly consulted?
Infantino has now proposed an independent review of FIFA’s governance and says he remains committed to leading the organisation. His critics argue that the problem goes deeper than one failed investment plan. The argument has expanded into a battle over presidential power, transparency, the international calendar and who should actually have a meaningful voice when FIFA makes decisions affecting the rest of the game.
The proposal that turned a disagreement into a crisis
At the centre of the controversy was FIFA Forward Enterprise, a plan that explored bringing outside investment into a FIFA-controlled commercial company. The proposal involved the possibility of selling a minority stake of around 20 per cent in commercial rights connected with FIFA competitions, with the governing body arguing that additional capital could ultimately generate more money for football development around the world.
For Infantino, there was a clear argument in favour of exploring the idea. FIFA’s revenues have grown enormously during his presidency, and the organisation distributes significant sums to its 211 member associations through development programmes. Bringing in private capital could, in theory, increase the resources available for those programmes without surrendering FIFA’s control over sporting decisions.
The reaction from other parts of football was very different. UEFA, the Asian Football Confederation and CONCACAF were among those that strongly opposed the proposal, while critics questioned both the principle of allowing private investors into the commercial structure surrounding competitions such as the World Cup and the process through which the plan had been developed.
That second issue became particularly damaging. The controversy was not simply about whether selling a minority commercial stake was a good idea; it was about who had been consulted before FIFA explored a change potentially worth billions. Opponents argued that a project capable of reshaping the economics of world football should never have advanced without much broader institutional involvement.
Faced with mounting resistance and the possibility of a much wider confrontation, FIFA withdrew the proposal in July. Infantino has since stressed that it had always been an idea requiring approval rather than a completed transaction and acknowledged that its emergence into the public domain before FIFA’s internal process had been completed created the impression that decisions had already been made.
That explanation has not been enough to restore confidence.
Why UEFA and national federations are still angry
The collapse of the investment proposal could theoretically have ended the dispute. Instead, it exposed disagreements over how FIFA itself operates.
UEFA president Aleksander Čeferin made that clear this week when he said that the project may have disappeared but the trust damaged by it had not returned. His criticism focused on three ideas — unity, transparency and governance — and reflected a broader concern among FIFA’s opponents that the organisation has become too dependent on decisions concentrated around its president.
Several national associations have reached similar conclusions. Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and Wales have all questioned whether the reforms proposed by Infantino go far enough. German FA president Bernd Neuendorf has been particularly critical, arguing that Infantino no longer possesses the credibility required to lead the reform process himself. The Dutch federation has welcomed parts of the proposed governance review while maintaining that a change of leadership should take place in 2027.
Infantino’s response has been to offer a potentially significant examination of FIFA’s structure. In a letter sent this week to the presidents of all 211 member associations and members of the FIFA Council, he proposed asking the Council to commission an independent external review of the organisation’s governance framework for major strategic initiatives.
The review could examine the respective roles of the FIFA president, Bureau, Council and Congress, while a separate consultation would consider ways to increase transparency, participation and accountability. Infantino has also acknowledged that major ideas must be developed and communicated through institutions that command confidence.
There is an obvious complication, however. The man proposing the review is also the man at the centre of the dispute. Some FIFA Council members are already pushing for the abandoned private investment project itself to be explicitly included within the review, along with other controversial episodes, rather than allowing the exercise to remain a broader examination of future governance.
The scope of that review could therefore become the next major battleground when the FIFA Council meets in Zurich on October 15.
Now Europe’s biggest leagues are entering the fight
Until now, much of the crisis has appeared to be a political confrontation between FIFA, continental confederations and national football associations. That is changing.
The Premier League, Bundesliga, La Liga and Serie A are preparing a joint statement demanding urgent reform of FIFA governance. According to reports on Thursday, the four leagues want stronger independent oversight and a meaningful role for stakeholders in decisions that directly affect them.
Their intervention matters because their dispute with FIFA predates the failed investment proposal. Europe’s domestic leagues have spent years becoming increasingly frustrated by the expansion of the international football calendar and what they describe as “calendar creep”. More international fixtures, larger tournaments and an expanded Club World Cup all place additional demands on players employed by domestic clubs while reducing the space available for national competitions.
The European Leagues organisation has already challenged FIFA over the way the international match calendar is determined. Its board reiterated this month that the private investment controversy had raised serious questions about FIFA’s decision-making and called for greater stakeholder involvement and transparency.
The investment row has therefore brought together several grievances that previously existed separately. National associations are concerned about the balance of power inside FIFA. UEFA is challenging the organisation over governance and trust. Domestic leagues want a greater say over a calendar that directly affects their competitions, while player representatives have repeatedly warned about workload and the consequences of an expanding global schedule.
For Infantino, this is more difficult than resolving a dispute over one abandoned commercial project. Even if FIFA never revisits private investment, the organisations now demanding reform still have other reasons to challenge the way decisions are made.
Does this mean Infantino could lose his job?
The scale of the criticism can create the impression that Infantino’s presidency is close to collapse, but FIFA politics are more complicated than the European debate surrounding him.
Infantino intends to stand again in the presidential election scheduled for March 2027 and continues to have substantial support outside Europe. FIFA is made up of 211 national associations, each with a vote regardless of the commercial size or footballing strength of the country it represents. Support from Africa, Asia, South America and other regions can therefore outweigh opposition from some of Europe’s richest and most influential football nations.
That structure has always been fundamental to Infantino’s political strength. His administration has significantly increased the money distributed through FIFA development programmes, something welcomed by many smaller and developing football associations. Critics in Europe may see governance and consultation as the central issues, while associations elsewhere can reasonably place greater weight on investment in facilities, competitions and grassroots football.
The result is an unusual political divide. Many of the organisations generating or employing a huge proportion of football’s commercial value are increasingly hostile to FIFA’s leadership, yet that does not automatically translate into enough votes to remove its president.
Reuters reported on Thursday that attempts to force Infantino out may already be losing momentum because his opponents have not united behind a credible alternative candidate. That is shifting the argument towards a different objective: if removing the president is difficult, his critics may instead concentrate on changing the structures that determine how much authority the presidency can exercise.
In that sense, the battle over FIFA governance could matter even if Infantino wins another term. Rules requiring wider consultation, stronger independent oversight or greater Council involvement in major commercial and strategic decisions would change the balance of power inside the organisation regardless of who occupies the presidency.
The FIFA crisis is now about much more than one failed deal
It is tempting to describe the current situation simply as a revolt against Gianni Infantino, but that misses the larger issue. The failed private investment proposal provided the catalyst; the argument now concerns how world football should be governed at a time when its competitions, revenues and calendar are becoming larger than ever.
FIFA maintains that the controversial proposal never amounted to a completed sale and that its democratic processes, independence and sporting authority were never on the market. Infantino has also opened the door to an external review and formal consultation on governance, which could result in genuine structural changes if FIFA’s Council and Congress ultimately support them.
His opponents remain unconvinced. UEFA says trust has not been restored, several national federations want deeper reform or new leadership, and Europe’s largest domestic leagues are now preparing to add their collective weight to demands for change. The disagreement has therefore moved beyond the question of whether FIFA should have explored private investment in the first place.
The next important date is October 15, when the FIFA Council meets in Zurich and the proposed review is expected to be discussed. Before then, the argument will centre on what that review should investigate, who should conduct it and whether FIFA’s critics believe an organisation led by Infantino can credibly reform the structures around his own presidency.
For the moment, Infantino remains in office and retains enough global support to make predictions about his departure premature. What has changed is the question facing FIFA. In July it was whether a controversial commercial proposal could survive opposition from the rest of football. By September, the proposal was gone, but the argument it created had become considerably bigger: who should hold the power to make the next decision?
Published by Patrick Jane
24.09.2026