Argentina and Mexico Join Recent Backers of Infantino Amid Ongoing FIFA Turmoil

Mexico and Argentina have become the newest national federations to publicly endorse FIFA president Gianni Infantino, even as his controversial plan to sell a stake in the World Cup commercial vehicle has collapsed. Their statements arrive alongside a wave of criticism from other governing bodies, players' unions and former officials, creating a complex and volatile situation for the sport's global authority.

On Wednesday night the FIFA Management Board issued a formal declaration that it continues to give Infantino its "full support" despite the fact that the proposed sale of World Cup stakes to private investors was abruptly abandoned. The board’s endorsement was meant to stabilise the organisation after the plan was widely condemned as opaque, financially risky and contrary to FIFA’s statutes.

The African football confederation (CAF), a long‑standing ally of Infantino, also issued a unanimous vote of confidence, thanking the president "for his contribution to African football" and reiterating its backing of the FIFA statement. This move underscored the regional split that has emerged, with some continents rallying around Infantino while others, notably Europe, have taken a far more confrontational stance. Argentina’s Football Association (AFA) sent a letter to Infantino praising the work of FIFA over the past decade.

The AFA highlighted that the organisation’s focus has been on "the development of soccer worldwide and institutional strength based on a clear, stable and transparent governance model." The tone of the letter was diplomatic, emphasizing continuity and shared goals rather than delving into the specifics of the failed commercial deal. In contrast, the Mexican Football Federation (FMF) broke with its regional partner CONCACAF by siding with the president. This divergence illustrates how the controversy is reshaping traditional alliances within the sport, as national bodies weigh the benefits of supporting the status quo against the growing pressure for reform.

Nevertheless, the surge of support has done little to quell the mounting criticism aimed at Infantino. If he refuses to step down, his tenure will ultimately be decided by a numbers game within FIFA’s 211 member associations. To trigger an Emergency FIFA Congress, at least 20% of the members – 43 national federations – must call for it. At such a congress a vote of no confidence could be held, and a simple majority of 106 votes would be sufficient to remove Infantino from office.

The distribution of voting power among the six confederations is a crucial factor. UEFA, representing Europe, controls a large bloc of votes and must be confident it can either reach the 106‑vote threshold or block an emergency meeting. If UEFA decides to act, it could also convene an Emergency Council meeting, where the 37‑member FIFA Council – including nine UEFA representatives – could vote to oust the president.

The controversy has also drawn sharp rebukes from within FIFA itself. Arsène Wenger, FIFA’s chief of global football development, publicly distanced himself from the plan, while Carlos Cordeiro, Infantino’s senior adviser, resigned on July 31, labeling the proposal a "bad deal" and "irresponsible." Their departures added credibility to the claim that the president’s actions were not only unpopular but potentially damaging to FIFA’s reputation. On the positive side for Infantino, CAF’s executive committee continued its unanimous support, and CONMEBOL suggested that any decision about his future should wait until the next presidential election in March, effectively postponing immediate challenges. However, the global players’ union FIFPRO has taken a starkly different view.

In a strongly worded statement, FIFPRO condemned what it called a "cover‑up" and expressed "deep concern" over FIFA’s handling of the episode. The union warned that attempts to brand legitimate scrutiny as disloyalty would only exacerbate the crisis and called for structural and governance reforms.

FIFPRO represents more than 70 national players’ unions and over 70,000 professional footballers worldwide. Its history of advocacy dates back to the landmark Bosman ruling in 1995, and its current stance underscores the growing influence of players in shaping the sport’s governance. The English FA also announced its intention to withdraw support for Infantino’s re‑election, with a vote scheduled for March 2027.

Prominent players such as Lucy Bronze have voiced support for UEFA’s boycott of FIFA competitions, arguing that protecting the integrity of the game is essential for future generations. Bronze’s comments highlighted a broader sentiment among players that the sport’s long‑term health must outweigh short‑term political considerations.

In Norway, federation president Lise Klaveness called for Infantino’s resignation, a position echoed by former FIFA president Sepp Blatter, who backed her bid to become the new leader of the Norwegian federation. Klaveness has built a reputation for taking principled stands on issues ranging from World Cup host selections to gender equality, and her criticism adds another layer of pressure from within the football community.

UEFA was the first continental body to openly oppose Infantino’s commercial proposal, threatening a total boycott of FIFA competitions unless the plan was withdrawn and guarantees were made that similar attempts would never recur. UEFA’s statement made clear that the conditions for participation had not been met, and that confidence in Infantino’s leadership had been lost. The first practical test of UEFA’s boycott will occur at the upcoming FIFA U‑20 Women’s World Cup, where England’s squad will compete. The outcome could set a precedent for how seriously the boycott is enforced across other tournaments.

Despite the onslaught of criticism, Infantino has so far managed to retain his position, largely due to the continued backing of the FIFA Management Board and key officials such as Secretary‑General Mattias Grafström. After a crisis meeting in Morocco, the board reiterated its "full support" for Infantino, even as Grafström, who had previously described the World Cup plan as "a sad and reproachable series of events," was later seen sharing a light moment with the president at a Women’s AFCON match in Rabat.

The timeline of events over the past weeks illustrates the rapid escalation: - July 28: FIFA announces the "FIFA Forward Enterprise" plan to spin off commercial rights, sparking immediate backlash. - July 30: UEFA’s 55 member associations vote to boycott the World Cup if the plan proceeds. - July 31: Infantino’s adviser Carlos Cordeiro resigns; UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham calls Infantino the "wrong man" for FIFA.

- August 1: FIFA abandons the investment plan after intense opposition; UEFA declares loss of confidence. - August 3: Wales withdraws support for Infantino’s re‑election; UEFA threatens legal action to preserve documents.

- August 5: Legend Luis Figo joins calls for Infantino’s resignation; a crisis meeting in Morocco reaffirms board support. - August 6: UEFA confirms its boycott remains; FIFPRO denounces abuse of presidential power; the FA formally withdraws support.

- August 7: Argentina, Mexico and African federations become the latest to publicly back Infantino. These developments show a sport at a crossroads, with powerful regional bodies, national federations, players and former officials all weighing in on the future direction of FIFA. Whether Infantino can survive the next round of votes, or whether a coordinated effort by UEFA, FIFPRO and a coalition of dissenting national associations will finally force a leadership change, remains to be seen. The outcome will have profound implications for the governance of world football and the credibility of its most influential institution.