UEFA has formally warned FIFA that it may pursue legal remedies in response to Gianni Infantino's controversial plan to sell stakes in the World Cup. In a letter dated July 31, addressed directly to Infantino, the European governing body said it is "actively considering legal action, arbitration, and/or regulatory complaints" concerning the abandoned proposal.
The correspondence also instructed senior members of FIFA's administration to preserve any documents or evidence that could become relevant in any future litigation. The warning comes amid a growing loss of confidence in Infantino's leadership after the botched attempt to commercialise the tournament through the so‑called FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE) initiative. The Football Association (FA) of England has now announced that it will withdraw its previous endorsement of Infantino's re‑election, signalling a coordinated European effort to force the president out of office as swiftly as possible.
The FA's decision follows the Welsh FA, which was the first national association to publicly rescind its support for Infantino's candidacy. Sweden's football federation followed suit on the subsequent Monday, and a cascade of similar letters from other European bodies is expected in the coming days. The aim of these statements is to apply maximum pressure on the FIFA chief and to demonstrate a united front against the sell‑off plan. Despite the mounting opposition, Infantino has so far shown no indication that he intends to step down.
Instead, he has been reaching out to the federations that continue to back him—primarily those in Africa, Asia and South America—in an attempt to shore up his position. Even if he manages to survive the immediate crisis, analysts predict that he will face at least one serious challenger at the FIFA presidential election scheduled to be held in Morocco in March.
A spokesperson for the United States government has refuted a New York Post report claiming that Infantino was set to speak with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Monday in a bid to preserve his job. Rubio did attend the opening match of the World Cup in Los Angeles alongside Infantino in June, but there is no evidence of a follow‑up conversation aimed at influencing the election.
The Post also alleged that Infantino had been repeatedly trying to contact former President Donald Trump by phone since Friday, a claim that remains unverified. Sky News sports correspondent Rob Harris provided analysis, describing the recent UEFA statements as part of a broader strategy to build momentum and force Infantino out. He noted that a previous declaration of a European boycott of the World Cup failed to achieve the desired effect, and that the latest UEFA communiqué similarly fell short of compelling Infantino to resign. Harris recalled attending an IFAB meeting in Wales in February, where Infantino was hosted by the Welsh FA, underscoring the significance of the FA and the FAW, each of which holds two of the eight IFAB votes.
According to Harris, Infantino has not offered the kind of contrition or concrete promises that UEFA expects. He has not pledged to overhaul the decision‑making process or to prevent future clandestine deals that could be imposed on football associations worldwide.
Nonetheless, Infantino still enjoys backing from several regions, notably Africa, the Middle East, Qatar and Morocco, suggesting he is attempting to marshal political support to demonstrate that his leadership remains viable. The situation is particularly noteworthy because, despite numerous questions raised over the past year regarding Infantino's governance of FIFA, the FA had previously maintained its support for his re‑election. The recent withdrawal of that support is being described as the "final straw" that could tip the balance toward his ouster.
Observers are now speculating whether a vote of no confidence will be called, or whether Infantino will voluntarily step aside before the March election—an event that would mark the first forced resignation of a FIFA president since Sepp Blatter left office in disgrace eleven years ago. The original FIFA Forward Enterprise proposal aimed to raise up to $4.2 billion (£3.1 billion) from external investors by selling minority, non‑controlling stakes in a newly created entity valued at roughly $20 billion (£15 billion). FIFA argued that the infusion of capital could generate more than $10 billion in development funding for the sport over the next four years, subject to approval by member associations.
The plan was ultimately scrapped after intense backlash from national federations and governments concerned about the commercialization of the game's most prized tournament. Potential successors to Infantino have been mentioned in the media. Nasser Al‑Khelaifi, the powerful president of Paris Saint‑Germain and a UEFA executive committee member, is rumored to have no interest in the FIFA role.
Former AFC president Sheikh Salman bin Ibrahim Al‑Khalifa, who finished second in the 2015 FIFA presidential race, has publicly opposed the sell‑off scheme. Victor Montagliani, head of CONCACAF, also rejected the proposal, despite CONCACAF's historically close relationship with Infantino following the recent World Cup hosted across three of its member nations. Aleksander Čeferin, UEFA's own president, is frequently cited as a possible alternative due to his markedly different vision for football governance. Čeferin has advocated for a more transparent, less commercialised approach, criticizing practices such as mandatory hydration breaks, the FIFA Peace Prize, and the extravagant perks associated with the current administration.
However, Čeferin has not expressed any formal ambition to run for the FIFA presidency. In summary, Infantino finds himself under unprecedented pressure from a coalition of European football associations, with legal threats, public letters of no‑confidence, and the prospect of a contested election looming. The outcome will shape the future governance of world football and determine whether the sport will continue down the path of commercial expansion or revert to a model prioritising transparency and member‑driven decision‑making.