Q&A: Why UEFA Is Refusing to Participate in FIFA Events and Whether It Can Halt Infantino's Plans

UEFA announced on Thursday that it will refuse to take part in any FIFA competitions until the proposals put forward by President Gianni Infantino to sell a share of the World Cup are withdrawn. The decision followed an emergency gathering of the 55 national associations that belong to the European confederation and could have far‑reaching consequences for global football and for Infantino’s agenda.

In a statement issued in the early hours of Friday, FIFA responded by insisting that "no one is selling football" and that such a notion "is something FIFA would never consider". Sky Sports, together with chief correspondent Kaveh Solhekol, tackled the most pressing questions about the standoff and examined what might lie ahead for the sport. The emergency virtual meeting of UEFA’s members lasted about two hours.

Every delegate voiced opposition to Infantino’s plan to sell a stake in the World Cup, including FA chair Debbie Hewitt – who also serves as a FIFA vice‑president – and the English FA’s chief executive Mark Bullingham. All 55 associations voted in favour of the boycott, a coalition that includes England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Several national federations have issued their own statements confirming the collective stance.

The English FA said, "We stand shoulder to shoulder with our European colleagues and fully support the collective view. We oppose FIFA's plans. The FIFA World Cup belongs to football and always will." The statement underscored the belief that the tournament is a public‑spirit property of the game, not a commercial asset to be divided.

The boycott would take effect if the World Cup sell‑off proceeds. Infantino has reportedly offered a £30 million incentive to FIFA members to win support for the controversial scheme.

Meanwhile, details about the 2030 World Cup – dates, hosts, stadiums and qualification procedures – have been widely discussed, but the looming dispute threatens to cast a shadow over those plans. In a further blow to Infantino, CONCACAF – the governing body for North, Central America and the Caribbean – also rejected the proposal.

Its 41 member associations convened a meeting and released a statement expressing "deep concerns" about the lack of review or approval by FIFA’s governance structures. Although CONCACAF did not announce a boycott, its opposition marks the first time a confederation has formally opposed a FIFA tournament in this manner. UEFA’s message to Infantino is clear: "Enough is enough. We will not allow this to happen.

If you go ahead with the plan, even if you think you have enough votes, we will not take part in any of your future tournaments." The immediate impact would be felt at the upcoming Women’s World Cup in Brazil, where European nations would withdraw, and at the 2030 World Cup slated to be co‑hosted by Spain, Portugal and Morocco – again without European teams. The unity displayed by UEFA suggests a possible escalation.

Some observers speculate that UEFA could consider creating its own version of a world championship, inviting top clubs from South America, Africa and Asia, thereby rendering any external investment in a FIFA‑run World Cup unattractive. Investors seeking a 20 percent stake in FIFA’s flagship events would likely balk at a competition that excluded Europe’s most marketable teams.

Indeed, the most recent World Cup saw six of the eight quarter‑finalists, three of the four semi‑finalists and the eventual champions all hailing from Europe. Removing those powerhouses would dramatically diminish the commercial appeal of the tournament, effectively sinking Infantino’s proposal. Hours after UEFA’s announcement, FIFA reiterated that "nobody is selling football" but stopped short of abandoning the plan, insisting that the consultation period would continue.

This leaves Infantino facing a barrage of questions from prospective investors, bankers, FIFA council members and the heads of confederations, all demanding explanations for why Europe was excluded from the deal. The first real test of the boycott will arrive in October during the Women’s World Cup qualifying play‑offs. England will face Greece in the international break, with Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland also scheduled for the first round. The two‑legged ties are set for 9 and 13 October, with winners moving on to a second round in November and December.

England Women’s head coach Sarina Wiegman and her staff have continued preparations as usual, according to Sky Sports News. The Women’s U‑20 World Cup also presents a timing clash for European nations.

The tournament begins on 5 September in Poland and concludes on 27 September, featuring Poland, England, France, Italy, Portugal and Spain as the European participants. Globally, there are six football confederations.

So far, UEFA, CONCACAF and the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) have voiced strong opposition to the sell‑off. The AFC’s statement called for an urgent review of FIFA’s governance and hinted that Infantino should consider stepping down.

While Asia had previously been a strong supporter of Infantino, recent revelations – including his perceived alignment with former U.S. President Donald Trump – have soured the relationship, though some nations such as Saudi Arabia remain supportive. Combined, UEFA, CONCACAF and the AFC represent 143 of the 211 national associations worldwide, roughly two‑thirds of global football governance. Even if some federations welcome the prospect of an additional £20 million (about £14.9 million) in revenue, the loss of European participation would cripple the World Cup’s commercial viability.

Sky Sports analyst Kaveh Solhekol described FIFA’s midnight statement as "desperate" and "tone‑deaf", noting that it avoided naming Infantino directly. He suggested that the statement may reflect Infantino’s personal stance rather than a unified FIFA position, and questioned how many within FIFA truly back the sell‑off. Solhekol argued that Infantino is digging himself deeper and must “read the room”, apologise to fans worldwide, and acknowledge the backlash from the 211 member associations. He warned against continuing to blame the media, a tactic Infantino appears to have adopted from Trump’s playbook, which is unlikely to win him any goodwill.

Recent investigative reporting by The Times and the Financial Times has been credited with exposing the details of the proposal, sparking the current uproar. Solhekol believes Infantino must change course, admit his mistakes, and seek forgiveness if he hopes to salvage his reputation. Historically, Infantino has navigated crises, but this appears to be his most serious challenge.

He has framed the consultation as a democratic process, hoping the 211 associations will ultimately endorse the plan. Critics suggest he should instead apologise, lay low, and perhaps run for re‑election unopposed in March. However, the growing opposition makes that scenario uncertain.

The possibility of a challenger emerging has been discussed. Names floated include PSG owner Nasser Al‑Khelaifi (a UEFA executive committee member), AFC president Sheikh Salman bin Ibrahim Al‑Khalifa (who finished second in the 2015 FIFA presidential vote), CONCACAF president Victor Montagliani, and UEFA president Aleksander Čeferin. While none have publicly declared candidacy, the mounting pressure could encourage a challenger.

In summary, the immediate priority for football’s governing bodies is to halt Infantino’s sell‑off plan. The collective opposition from UEFA, CONCACAF and the AFC demonstrates a broad coalition that could reshape the future of the World Cup and, by extension, the power dynamics within world football.