The football federations of Argentina and Mexico have become the newest members of a growing coalition that publicly backs FIFA president Gianni Infantino, even as his controversial proposal to sell a stake in the World Cup commercial entity continues to generate intense debate. Their statements arrive just days after the FIFA Management Board issued a formal declaration of "full support" for Infantino, despite his abrupt abandonment of the stake‑sale plan following widespread criticism from clubs, players, and governing bodies.
The African governing body, the Confederation of African Football (CAF), which has long been a vocal ally of Infantino, also reiterated its confidence in the president. In a unanimous motion, CAF thanked him for his contributions to African football and endorsed the FIFA Board’s statement, underscoring the continent’s desire for stability and continued development under his leadership. Argentina’s football association (AFA) sent a letter to Infantino that praised the work of FIFA over the past decade.
The letter highlighted the organization’s focus on global soccer development, institutional strength, and a governance model described as clear, stable, and transparent. By echoing these themes, the AFA positioned itself as a supporter of the status quo and a defender of the reforms that have been introduced since Infantino’s election.
In contrast, the Mexican Football Federation (FMF) has taken a more independent stance by breaking with its regional confederation, CONCACAF, to voice its support for the FIFA chief. This move illustrates the complex dynamics within the North‑American region, where some members feel pressure to align with the broader continental agenda while others prioritize their own strategic interests. Even with these endorsements, the pressure on Infantino shows no sign of abating.
Critics point out that if he refuses to step down, his continued tenure will hinge on a precise numbers game: at least 106 votes of confidence are required to keep him in office. FIFA comprises 211 member associations, and a minimum of 20 percent (43 associations) must call for an Emergency Congress to trigger a no‑confidence vote.
Should such a congress be convened, a simple majority of 106 votes would be sufficient to remove the president. The distribution of voting power across the six confederations is a crucial factor. UEFA, representing European football, must assess whether it can marshal enough support to reach the 106‑vote threshold before an emergency meeting is called.
If UEFA fails to secure that majority, Infantino could survive a confidence vote and further consolidate his authority. Additionally, the 37 members of the FIFA Council—including nine from UEFA—have the ability to convene an Emergency Council meeting, which could also result in a no‑confidence decision. The controversy surrounding the World Cup stake‑sale plan has taken a toll on Infantino’s reputation both inside and outside FIFA. Arsène Wenger, FIFA’s chief of global football development, publicly distanced himself from the proposal, while Carlos Cordeiro, Infantino’s senior advisor, resigned on July 31, labeling the scheme a "bad deal" and "irresponsible." Their departures signaled a growing internal dissent that could eventually force Infantino out, even without an external vote.
Nevertheless, there have been a few bright spots for the president. CAF’s executive committee once again voted unanimously to stand behind him, and CONMEBOL, the South American confederation, suggested that Infantino’s fate should be decided at the next presidential election scheduled for March, effectively postponing any immediate challenge.
The global players’ union, FIFPRO, has also entered the fray, condemning what it calls a "cover‑up" of the stake‑sale plan. In a strongly worded statement, FIFPRO expressed deep concern over FIFA’s handling of the issue and warned that any attempts to frame legitimate scrutiny as disloyalty would only exacerbate the crisis.
FIFPRO represents more than 70,000 professional footballers through 70 national player unions, including the English and Scottish PFAs, and has a long history of advocating for player rights, most famously through the Bosman ruling in 1995. On the national level, the English FA announced it would withdraw its support for Infantino’s re‑election, with the next presidential vote slated for March 2027. England’s captain, Lucy Bronze, has also voiced support for UEFA’s call to boycott FIFA competitions if the stake‑sale plan proceeds, emphasizing that protecting the integrity of the sport outweighs short‑term interests. In Norway, federation president Lise Klaveness called for Infantino’s resignation, a stance that received backing from former FIFA president Sepp Blatter, who has recently been linked to a potential leadership role within the Norwegian federation.
Klaveness has built a reputation for taking principled positions on issues such as the awarding of World Cups to Qatar and Saudi Arabia. UEFA was the first continental body to publicly oppose Infantino’s proposal, threatening a complete boycott of FIFA tournaments unless the plan was withdrawn and guarantees were made that similar initiatives would never recur. UEFA’s statement made clear that the organization had lost confidence in Infantino’s presidency and would maintain its boycott until the demands were met. The first practical test of UEFA’s boycott will occur at the upcoming FIFA U‑20 Women’s World Cup, where England will field a squad despite the ongoing dispute.
Meanwhile, Infantino has managed to retain his position for now, apologising for the "mistakes" associated with the failed stake‑sale and receiving renewed backing from the FIFA Management Board, including Secretary‑General Mattias Grafström, who had previously described the episode as "sad and reproachable." The timeline of events highlights the rapid escalation of the crisis: on July 28 FIFA announced the "FIFA Forward Enterprise" plan to spin off commercial rights; UEFA launched a swift public attack; by July 31 Infantino’s senior adviser resigned; on August 1 FIFA withdrew the plan after intense opposition; and throughout August, a cascade of resignations, statements, and boycott threats followed from players, unions, and national associations. By early August, the FA, Wales, and several other bodies had formally withdrawn support for Infantino’s re‑election, while prominent figures such as former player Luís Figo joined the chorus demanding his departure. As the situation evolves, the balance of power within FIFA remains uncertain. The next weeks will determine whether the accumulated opposition can translate into a formal vote of no confidence or whether Infantino will navigate the crisis and emerge with his mandate intact.
The outcome will have lasting implications for the governance of world football, the commercial future of the World Cup, and the credibility of FIFA’s leadership on the global stage.