Concacaf accused Infantino of a serious governance failure and demanded a thorough review of FIFA's leadership
Following the withdrawal of the FIFA Forward Enterprise project, Concacaf issued one of the harshest public criticisms of FIFA president Gianni Infantino since he took charge of world football's governing body in 2016. The Confederation of North, Central America and Caribbean Association Football, which brings together 41 national associations, concluded that the plan to establish a new commercial company and involve private investors had advanced outside the established governance mechanisms, without the required transparency, consultation and prescribed procedure. In a statement published on August 1, 2026, Concacaf said that a project of such magnitude could not have reached its final stage by accident and that the events pointed to a broader problem in the way FIFA is run. The confederation therefore called for a comprehensive examination of accountability, governance processes and the presidency itself, announcing that its representatives would raise the issues within the FIFA Council and other bodies provided for by the Statutes. At the same time, UEFA announced that FIFA's current leadership had lost its confidence and that no option should be ruled out in advance when determining the next steps.
The conflict erupted over a proposal to establish FIFA Forward Enterprise, abbreviated as FFE, within FIFA, a company that would consolidate the commercial rights and operational management of FIFA-owned competitions. According to the world governing body's official presentation, the new company would cover television and sponsorship rights, licensing, ticket sales, hospitality programmes and organisational activities related to the World Cups and other FIFA tournaments. The plan envisaged raising up to 4.2 billion US dollars through the sale of minority, non-controlling stakes, with an initial company valuation of 20 billion dollars. FIFA claimed that it would retain complete control over football rules, the calendar, competitions and all regulatory decisions. Opponents, however, did not accept the assurance that formally retaining control would provide a sufficient guarantee that private capital would not influence the priorities of the world's most important football competitions in the long term.
20-billion-dollar project withdrawn after only a few days
FIFA publicly presented the proposal on July 28, 2026, stating that FFE would enable a major increase in investment in football development. According to the organisation's statement at the time, each of its 211 members could receive 20 million dollars through the FIFA Forward programme between 2027 and 2030, instead of the previously planned eight million, while a separate FIFA Fast Forward programme envisaged the possibility of an additional 20 million dollars for special projects. FIFA estimated that total development funding over several cycles could exceed ten billion dollars. Infantino described the project as an opportunity to build stadiums and training centres, improve infrastructure, develop women's football and create greater opportunities for young players. The organisation also emphasised that the proposal would not be implemented without the support of a majority of national associations and the approval of the FIFA Council.
That explanation did not reassure the confederations. As early as July 29, Concacaf announced that it had learned the details from media reports and a subsequent FIFA statement, which it described as a reason for deep concern. A day later, the presidents of its 41 associations, together with the confederation's leadership and FIFA Council members from the region, rejected the proposal. In a joint statement, they warned of the absence of due process, an artificially shortened decision-making deadline and the fact that the relevant governing bodies had not previously conducted a review or given approval. They also questioned why private capital was needed at all after an exceptionally financially successful World Cup and at a time when FIFA had large reserves.
Pressure quickly spread beyond Concacaf. UEFA's 55 national associations unanimously rejected the project, while the Asian Football Confederation warned that decisions with potentially long-term consequences had to be prepared through timely, transparent and meaningful consultation. According to an Associated Press report, the European associations were prepared to boycott FIFA competitions if the plan continued, thereby also jeopardising its commercial viability. Serious cracks appeared within FIFA itself: Infantino's senior adviser Carlos Cordeiro resigned, while chief operating officer Kevin Lamour publicly asserted that it was one person's project and called on football officials to make the appropriate decisions. Under those circumstances, FIFA announced on July 31 that the project would not proceed.
In an official statement, Infantino said that the objective had been to strengthen national associations and football development, particularly in countries where assistance was needed most. He added that, after considering all viewpoints, it had become clear that the proposal had caused divisions that were no longer in the interests of the original objective. He announced that the interested parties would be brought together again and that discussions on the growth of football worldwide would continue. That decision stopped the project, but it did not stop the political crisis, because UEFA and Concacaf immediately said that merely withdrawing the plan was not enough and that it had to be established how the proposal had been able to advance so far in the first place.
Concacaf demands accountability, not merely withdrawal of the proposal
In a second statement, published after FIFA abandoned the plan, Concacaf welcomed the withdrawal of FFE but stressed that the events had exposed a problem that could no longer be ignored. The confederation stated that the future of the World Cup, which it described as world football's greatest asset, had been considered outside the established governance framework. In its assessment, this was a unilateral and extremely poor act of governance that fitted a pattern of previous mistakes. Concacaf also emphasised that FIFA was not a private company, but an institution entrusted with being managed in the interests of football and its members, meaning that accountability for people in leading positions could not be optional.
Particularly significant was the announcement that FIFA Council members from Concacaf would act directly and through that body to ensure that questions of governance, accountability and leadership were considered in accordance with the FIFA Statutes. The Council is the main decision-making body between sessions of the Congress and has 37 members, including the president, eight vice-presidents and 28 other representatives. Concacaf did not describe a predetermined institutional measure in its statement or publish a specific demand for removal, but by referring to a "comprehensive reckoning with this presidency" it made clear that it expected far more than a technical analysis of one failed business project. The confederation also announced that it would seek a way to direct part of FIFA's reserves to members through the existing FIFA Forward programme, without selling stakes to private investors.
That position connects the governance issue with the debate over the distribution of money. UEFA claims that FIFA has reserves exceeding five billion dollars and that funds intended for development do not need to be secured by selling part of the commercial structure. The European confederation announced cooperation with partners on a new distribution model through the already existing FIFA Forward programme. Concacaf put forward a similar idea, demanding that available capital be used for football development in its member associations, but without creating long-term obligations to external investors. The dispute therefore no longer concerns only who knew about FFE and when, but also the fundamental question of whether FIFA should finance development from its own revenue and reserves or partially open its commercial rights to private capital.
UEFA announced that it had lost confidence in the current leadership
On August 1, UEFA welcomed the abandonment of the sale of stakes in FIFA competitions but announced that confidence in the current leadership had been seriously damaged. In an official statement, it said that world football could not be governed through secret plans, accelerated deadlines and an unclear circle of people involved in preparing them. It demanded the identification of those responsible and a thorough examination of how the entire case arose, adding that no option should be excluded from that review. UEFA said that FIFA's current leadership had lost not only the confidence of the European confederation but also that of numerous other members of the international football community.
The European organisation specifically recalled Infantino's promises from 2016, when he spoke during his presidential campaign about transparency and emphasised that FIFA's money belonged to the national associations. UEFA now claims that those promises have not been fulfilled. It described the project as a non-transparent deal prepared behind closed doors and said that its withdrawal represented a victory for football, but not the end of the story. In its view, the next task is to restore confidence in FIFA and create mechanisms that will prevent a similar process from being repeated.
Criticism also came from individual national associations. Reuters reported that the Dutch association spoke of a fundamental breach of trust, while German Football Association president Bernd Neuendorf accused Infantino of unilateral and non-transparent conduct. Spanish La Liga president Javier Tebas went a step further and demanded Infantino's resignation, arguing that the problem was not merely one proposal but a governance model that concentrates power and weakens oversight mechanisms. On the other hand, support for the FIFA president has not completely disappeared: according to Reuters, officials from Qatar and Morocco welcomed the withdrawal of the project but again expressed support for Infantino. It is therefore not yet possible to conclude how much the confederations' criticism can be converted into the majority required for political change.
The crisis comes ahead of the 2027 presidential election
The timing of the conflict is particularly sensitive because FIFA is preparing for a presidential election. At the Congress in Vancouver on April 30, 2026, Infantino officially announced his candidacy for a new term. The election will be held on March 18, 2027, at the 77th FIFA Congress in Rabat, and the deadline for submitting candidacies expires on November 18, 2026, exactly four months before the vote. Each of FIFA's 211 members has one vote, and if there are multiple candidates, at least 106 votes would be required to secure a majority. Following his first election in 2016, Infantino was re-elected unopposed in 2019 and 2023, so until recently another term had also been considered highly likely.
For the first time ahead of the nomination deadline, the current crisis raises the question of whether a credible challenger will emerge. Concacaf has not announced that its president Victor Montagliani or any other official intends to enter the race, so such possibilities currently remain matters of political assessment rather than official candidacies. Nevertheless, the public opposition of Concacaf and UEFA changes the balance because the two confederations together bring together a large number of associations and influential markets. Additional weight comes from the fact that the Asian confederation, which had previously often supported Infantino's moves, also joined the criticism. Unless confidence is restored before November, the nomination process could become the first concrete measure of the depth of the rebellion within FIFA.
At the same time, it is not certain that the associations will vote as unified continental blocs. National federations have their own interests, development needs and relationships with FIFA's leadership, while the promised funding from the Forward programme has traditionally been an important part of global football politics. Infantino can point to revenue growth and greater investment during his term, while opponents will emphasise the decision-making process, concentration of power and lack of oversight. That is precisely why the debate over how to finance football development is likely to be as important as the personal conflict surrounding the president. Financial promises will no longer be separable from questions of who makes decisions, under what oversight and after what kind of consultation.
What follows after the withdrawal of FIFA Forward Enterprise
In the immediate period, an institutional debate in the FIFA Council, discussions among the confederations and pressure for the publication of additional information about the preparation of FFE are expected. Key questions include the identity and role of advisers and potential investors, the course of the project's approval, the legal and financial analyses that preceded it and the reasons why the confederations claim they were not involved in a timely manner. Before the withdrawal, FIFA maintained that this was only the beginning of a consultation process and that media reports had disrupted the planned sequence of discussions. Concacaf and UEFA, by contrast, believe that the level of detail and the proposed deadlines show that the project was not merely a preliminary idea.
Equally important will be the question of football development after the plan's collapse. FIFA presented FFE as a way to significantly increase funding for infrastructure, national teams, women's football and youth programmes. Opponents of the project must now demonstrate that a comparable level of support can be secured from reserves, regular revenue and a modified FIFA Forward programme model. UEFA and Concacaf have already announced work on such an approach, but specific amounts, criteria and deadlines have not yet been agreed. The future model will have to respond simultaneously to poorer associations' demands for greater investment and to demands for stricter oversight of how shared money is used.
The withdrawal of FFE removed the immediate possibility of selling a minority stake, but it opened a broader dispute over the legitimacy and limits of presidential power within FIFA. Concacaf said in its statement that accountability had to encompass people, processes and leadership, while UEFA is demanding thorough reform and the restoration of confidence. Infantino remains in office and is continuing preparations for the 2027 election, but the period in which his re-election appeared to be almost a formality has now ended. The coming months will show whether the rebellion ends with stricter rules and a new model for distributing funds or develops into an open battle for the leadership of world football.
Sources:
- Concacaf – statement on the withdrawal of the FIFA Forward Enterprise project and the demand for a review of governance, accountability and leadership (link)
- UEFA – official statement on the loss of confidence in FIFA's current leadership and the announcement of a thorough review (link)
- FIFA – Gianni Infantino's statement on the withdrawal of the proposal following the divisions caused by the project (link)
- FIFA – official presentation of the financial and organisational structure of the FIFA Forward Enterprise proposal (link)
- Associated Press – report on the reactions of the confederations, internal opposition within FIFA and the election calendar for 2027 (link)
- Reuters – overview of political reactions, support and criticism following the withdrawal of the project (link)
- FIFA – confirmation of the date and venue of the 77th FIFA Congress and the presidential election in Rabat on March 18, 2027 (link)