The recent turmoil surrounding FIFA president Gianni Infantino has drawn a sharp line between those still backing him and a growing coalition of critics demanding his resignation. Mexico’s and Argentina’s football federations have publicly reaffirmed their support for Infantino, even as the FIFA board was forced to abandon a controversial plan to sell a stake in the World Cup to private investors. The plan, which many saw as an unprecedented commercialisation of the sport’s premier tournament, sparked a wave of backlash from clubs, players, and governing bodies alike.
On Wednesday night the FIFA Management Board issued a statement proclaiming its "full support" for Infantino, despite the fact that the proposed stake‑sale had already been scrapped. African football’s governing body, the Confederation of African Football (CAF), went a step further. In a unanimous vote, CAF’s executive committee thanked Infantino for his contributions to African football and reiterated its confidence in his leadership, echoing the language of the FIFA board’s endorsement. The Argentine Football Association (AFA) also sent a letter to Infantino praising the work of FIFA over the past decade.
The letter highlighted what the AFA described as a "clear, stable and transparent governance model" that has supposedly driven the development of the sport worldwide. Meanwhile, the Mexican Football Federation (FMF) broke with its regional confederation, CONCACAF, by siding with Infantino, signalling that the divide over the issue cuts across traditional alliances. Even with these endorsements, the pressure on Infantino remains intense. Critics point out that his survival now hinges on a simple numbers game: 106 votes are required to remove him in an emergency FIFA Congress.
With 211 national associations forming the FIFA family, a minimum of 20% (43 associations) must call for such a congress. If that threshold is met, a no‑confidence vote could be held, and a majority of 106 votes would be enough to oust the president. The distribution of votes among the six confederations is crucial.
UEFA, representing Europe, would need to secure a substantial share of its 55 council members – nine of whom sit on the FIFA Council – to reach the magic number before an emergency congress is convened. If UEFA cannot muster enough support, Infantino could survive any confidence vote, thereby consolidating his grip on the organisation.
The controversy has also eroded Infantino’s standing within FIFA itself. Arsène Wenger, FIFA’s chief of global football development, publicly distanced himself from the plan, while Carlos Cordeiro, Infantino’s senior advisor, resigned on July 31, calling the proposal a "bad deal" and "irresponsible". Their departures underscored the internal dissent that now threatens the president’s tenure. Nevertheless, Infantino received a few bright spots.
CAF’s executive committee continued its unanimous backing, and CONMEBOL suggested that any decision about Infantino’s future should wait until the next presidential election in March, effectively postponing immediate action against him. Beyond national federations, the global players’ union FIFPRO has taken a strong stance. In a statement that labelled the whole episode a "cover‑up" and an "abuse of presidential power", FIFPRO expressed deep concern over FIFA’s handling of the stake‑sale plan.
The union warned that attempts to brand legitimate scrutiny as disloyalty would only deepen the crisis of confidence surrounding FIFA’s leadership. FIFPRO represents more than 70,000 professional footballers through 70 national players’ unions, including the English PFA and the Scottish PFA, and has a history of championing players’ rights since its founding in 1965.
The English FA also announced that it would withdraw its support for Infantino’s re‑election, with a vote scheduled for March 2027. Prominent players such as Lucy Bronze, a defender for England and Chelsea, have voiced support for UEFA’s boycott of FIFA competitions, arguing that protecting the integrity of the sport is more important than short‑term personal interests. Bronze emphasised that the boycott is about safeguarding the future of football for the next generation of boys and girls, not just about current players. In Norway, federation president Lise Klaveness called for Infantino’s resignation, echoing the sentiment that the sport’s governing bodies must be held accountable.
Former FIFA president Sepp Blatter even backed Klaveness’s call, suggesting a shift in the traditional power dynamics within football administration. UEFA was the first continental confederation to publicly oppose Infantino’s proposal, threatening a total boycott of FIFA competitions if the plan was not withdrawn. UEFA’s statement made clear two conditions: the removal of any plans to sell off major competitions, and guarantees that similar attempts would never be made again. To date, those conditions have not been satisfied, and UEFA maintains that it has lost confidence in Infantino’s presidency.
The upcoming FIFA U‑20 Women’s World Cup, where England will compete, will serve as the first real test of UEFA’s boycott. If UEFA’s member associations continue to refuse participation, the impact on FIFA’s tournament calendar could be significant, further isolating Infantino.
Despite the mounting criticism, Infantino has so far managed to stay in his position, apologising for the "mistakes" surrounding the failed stake‑sale. After a crisis meeting in Morocco, FIFA’s management board reaffirmed its "full support" for the president, a move that was quickly followed by a photo of Infantino and Secretary‑General Mattias Grafström laughing together at a Women’s AFCON match in Rabat. This public display of camaraderie did little to quell the outrage among players, officials, and fans.
The timeline of events underscores the rapid escalation of the dispute: - July 28: FIFA unveiled the "FIFA Forward Enterprise" plan to spin off commercial rights, including the World Cup, into a new company. - July 28: UEFA launched a public attack, accusing FIFA of rushing the proposal without adequate consultation.
- July 30: UEFA’s 55 member associations voted to boycott the World Cup if the plan proceeded. - July 31: Carlos Cordeiro resigned as Infantino’s senior adviser.
- July 31: UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham described Infantino as the "wrong man" to lead FIFA. - August 1: FIFA abandoned the investment plan after intense opposition; Infantino withdrew the proposal before a formal vote could occur. - August 1: UEFA announced it had lost confidence in Infantino’s leadership. - August 3: Wales became the first association to officially withdraw support for Infantino’s re‑election.
- August 5: Former star Luis Figo called for Infantino’s resignation. - August 6: FIFPRO condemned the "abuse of presidential power" and demanded governance reforms at FIFA. - August 7: Africa, Argentina and Mexico publicly backed the embattled president, illustrating the fragmented nature of the support base.
The ongoing saga highlights a fundamental clash over the direction of global football governance. On one side are those who argue that commercialisation must be balanced with transparency, member consultation, and the preservation of the sport’s core values. On the other side are officials and players who fear that unchecked power and profit‑driven decisions could erode the integrity of the game.
As the deadline for an emergency congress approaches, the balance of power within FIFA remains uncertain. If UEFA, along with a coalition of other confederations and player unions, can rally enough votes, Infantino’s presidency could come to an end before the next scheduled election.
Conversely, if the president can maintain the backing of enough national associations – particularly from regions that have recently voiced support, such as Africa, South America, and parts of North America – he may survive the crisis and continue to shape the future of world football. Regardless of the outcome, the episode serves as a stark reminder that the governance of football is under intense scrutiny, and that the voices of players, clubs, and fans are increasingly demanding accountability from those at the helm.