Argentina and Mexico Join Recent Supporters of Infantino Amid FIFA Turmoil

Mexico and Argentina have become the newest national football federations to publicly back FIFA president Gianni Infantino, even as his controversial plan to sell a stake in the World Cup commercial vehicle has collapsed. Their endorsements arrive at a moment when Infantino’s leadership is under intense scrutiny from multiple quarters, including continental confederations, players' unions, and even some of his own allies. On Wednesday night the FIFA management board issued a statement reaffirming its "full support" for Infantino, despite the fact that he was forced to abandon the proposed sale of World Cup stakes to private investors. The board’s declaration was intended to stabilise the organisation after a week of chaotic headlines, but critics argue it merely postpones an inevitable showdown.

The African football confederation (CAF), a long‑standing champion of Infantino, went a step further by "unanimously reconfirming" its backing and thanking him "for his contribution to African football." CAF also endorsed the official FIFA statement, signalling that at least one continental body remains firmly in his corner. Argentina’s Football Association (AFA) sent a letter to Infantino praising the past decade of FIFA work, describing it as "centred on the development of soccer worldwide and institutional strength based on a clear, stable and transparent governance model." The AFA’s wording mirrors the language often used in FIFA’s own communications, suggesting a desire to align closely with the organisation’s narrative. In contrast, the Mexican Football Federation (FMF) has broken with its regional partner CONCACAF by siding with Infantino.

This divergence highlights the growing fissures within the football community, where national associations are forced to choose between regional solidarity and personal calculations about influence within FIFA. Nevertheless, the wave of support has done little to halt the mounting criticism aimed at the president.

If Infantino refuses to step down, his survival will hinge on a numbers game: 106 votes are needed to remove him in a confidence vote. With 211 member associations making up FIFA, 20 % (43 associations) must call for an Emergency Congress before such a vote can be held. At that congress, a simple majority of 106 would be sufficient to oust the incumbent. The distribution of voting power among the confederations adds another layer of complexity.

UEFA, representing Europe, would need to secure a substantial bloc of votes before it could trigger an emergency meeting; otherwise Infantino could survive a confidence vote and consolidate his position. UEFA’s 37 members on the FIFA Council—including nine from UEFA itself—could also convene an emergency council meeting to force a no‑confidence vote, but the political calculus remains uncertain. Internal dissent has been growing.

Arsène Wenger, FIFA’s chief of global football development, publicly distanced himself from the failed plan, while Carlos Cordeiro, Infantino’s senior advisor, resigned on July 31, calling the proposal a "bad deal" and "irresponsible." Their departures underscore the depth of the internal crisis. Despite the turmoil, Infantino received a glimmer of positive news on Thursday. CAF’s executive committee unanimously pledged continued support, and CONMEBOL suggested that any decision about Infantino’s future should wait until the next presidential election in March, effectively buying him time.

Beyond the national and continental level, the global players’ union FIFPRO has added its voice to the chorus of opposition. FIFPRO condemned what it described as a "cover‑up" surrounding the stake‑sale scheme, expressing deep concern over FIFA’s handling of the matter and warning against attempts to label legitimate scrutiny as disloyalty. The union, which represents more than 70,000 professional players through 70 national players’ associations, invoked its historic role in defending player rights—recalling landmark cases such as Jean‑Marc Bosman’s 1995 challenge that reshaped transfer regulations. The English FA also announced it would withdraw its support for Infantino’s re‑election, with a vote scheduled for March 2027.

Prominent players have weighed in as well. England and Chelsea defender Lucy Bronze endorsed UEFA’s call for a boycott of FIFA competitions, arguing that protecting the integrity of the game outweighs short‑term interests. She emphasized that the decision should benefit future generations of players, not just the current cohort. In Norway, federation president Lise Klaveness called for Infantino’s resignation, a stance later backed by former FIFA president Sepp Blatter, who urged her to become the new leader of the Norwegian federation.

Klaveness has a reputation for taking principled stands on issues ranging from World Cup host selections to broader governance reforms. UEFA was the first continental body to openly condemn Infantino’s proposals, threatening a total boycott of FIFA competitions unless the plans to commercialise the World Cup were withdrawn and guarantees were given that such attempts would never recur. UEFA’s statement made clear that it had lost confidence in Infantino’s presidency and would not reverse its position without concrete action. The first real test of UEFA’s boycott will arrive at the upcoming FIFA U‑20 Women’s World Cup, where England’s squad will take the field after naming its final training roster.

The tournament could become a litmus test for how far the boycott will be enforced and whether other associations will follow suit. Infantino has so far managed to deflect the immediate pressure, apologising for the "mistakes" surrounding the failed stake‑sale and receiving renewed backing from FIFA’s senior officials, including secretary‑general Mattias Grafström.

The two were even seen sharing a light moment watching a Women’s AFCON match in Rabat, a gesture that some observers interpreted as an attempt to normalise the situation. The controversy began in late July when FIFA announced its "FIFA Forward Enterprise" plan, which sought to spin off commercial rights to a new company. UEFA responded with a fierce public attack, accusing FIFA of rushing the proposal without adequate consultation.

Within days, UEFA’s 55 member associations voted to boycott the World Cup if the plan proceeded, and a cascade of resignations, public condemnations, and political statements followed. Key dates in the rapid escalation include: - July 28: FIFA unveils the commercial‑rights spin‑off plan. - July 30: UEFA votes to boycott the World Cup.

- July 31: Infantino’s adviser Carlos Cordeiro resigns; UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham labels Infantino the "wrong man" for FIFA. - August 1: FIFA abandons the plan after intense opposition; UEFA declares loss of confidence. - August 3: Wales becomes the first association to withdraw support for Infantino’s re‑election. - August 5: Former star Luís Figo calls for Infantino’s resignation.

- August 6: FIFPRO condemns the "abuse of presidential power" and demands structural reform. - August 7: Argentina, Mexico and African bodies publicly reaffirm their support for Infantino. The saga illustrates a deepening rift within world football, pitting those who seek to preserve the status quo against a growing coalition demanding transparency, accountability and a re‑examination of how the sport’s most lucrative assets are governed. The outcome will likely hinge on whether enough associations can rally to the 106‑vote threshold needed to trigger a decisive confidence vote, or whether Infantino can continue to marshal the support of key continental partners to survive the crisis.