FIFA increasingly divided: national associations turn their backs on the positions of their confederations
The crisis of confidence in FIFA has entered a new phase following the collapse of the FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE) project, a plan through which the world football governing body wanted to open part of the commercial rights to its biggest competitions to private capital. The dispute is no longer limited to the conflict between President Gianni Infantino and some of the continental confederations. In recent days, it has become clear that even the confederations themselves cannot count on unified support from their members: individual national associations are publicly taking positions contrary to the political line of the organizations to which they belong. The split is particularly visible in Asia and Oceania, while ahead of the 2027 presidential election an increasingly intense battle is emerging for the votes of each of FIFA's 211 member associations. As a result, the debate over a single failed investment project is turning into a much broader dispute over the way world football is governed, the distribution of revenues, the powers of the president and the level of independent oversight of FIFA's decisions.
Six Arab associations backed Infantino
The presidents of the football associations of Qatar, Morocco, Egypt, Mauritania, Lebanon and Sudan published a joint message of full support for Gianni Infantino on August 13. According to a Reuters report, the six associations expressed confidence in his leadership and highlighted his contribution to the development of football, the expansion of opportunities in different parts of the world and the strengthening of the role of Arab football. The political weight of that message is greater than the number of signatories alone because four of the officials among them are also members of the FIFA Council: the representatives of Qatar, Egypt, Morocco and Mauritania. Their alignment with Infantino shows that the position of a continental confederation no longer automatically means a unified position among all national associations under its umbrella. That very fact could become decisive when the political conflict moves from statements and open letters to the electoral congress, where national associations vote individually.
The most pronounced example comes from the Asian Football Confederation, the AFC. As early as July 29, the AFC publicly stated that it had not been consulted about the FIFA Forward Enterprise proposal and that it was disappointed that a project of such importance had entered the public domain before the member associations and competent bodies had received sufficient information and time for discussion. After the proposal was withdrawn, AFC President Salman bin Ibrahim Al Khalifa welcomed the decision but stressed that future initiatives that could affect global football must be discussed in a timely, transparent and substantive manner with the confederations, the FIFA Council, national associations and other stakeholders. A few days later, the AFC joined UEFA and Concacaf in a joint call for a fully independent review of the entire case. Qatar's and Lebanon's support for Infantino therefore represents a direct example of AFC members that, on a key political issue, are not following the direction of their own confederation.
Morocco, Egypt, Mauritania and Sudan belong to the African football sphere, but there too individual positions carry additional weight because of the broader balance of power within FIFA. On August 1, immediately after the project was abandoned, the Moroccan association publicly backed Infantino and his decision to withdraw the proposal in order to preserve unity. In a statement by the Royal Moroccan Football Federation, President Fouzi Lekjaa emphasized the importance of FIFA's development programs, particularly in Africa, and reiterated support for Infantino in initiatives aimed at developing world football. This showed that criticism of the process surrounding FFE and support for the current president are not necessarily mutually exclusive. For some associations, the problem was the way the project was presented, but not their broader political relationship with Infantino.
UEFA, AFC and Concacaf demand an independent review
The opposing bloc is trying to steer the crisis toward the issue of accountability and institutional oversight. UEFA, AFC and Concacaf published a joint open letter on August 10 in which they argued that the case could not be reduced to a communication failure. According to their joint statement, the problem lay in the judgment itself and in the process by which the proposal was pushed forward within a short timeframe, without enough time for meaningful consideration among the members. The three confederations specifically challenged the possibility of FIFA conducting the review itself, demanding that the process be led by a fully independent third party. Their argument is that an investigation carried out by the same administration whose decisions are under review could hardly restore confidence in the organization's governance.
As early as August 1, after the plan was withdrawn, UEFA stated that the proposal to bring private investors into the commercial structure of the competitions had been unanimously rejected among its national associations. At the same time, the European confederation called for a thorough analysis of accountability and a broader debate on the way FIFA's financial resources are distributed. Concacaf stated in its own release that its members welcomed the withdrawal of FFE, but described the process as an example of a serious lack of transparency, consultation and due process. The AFC, meanwhile, had emphasized from the outset that it had not been consulted in advance about the project. The joint action by the three confederations therefore did not emerge only after the plan collapsed, but was the result of a series of parallel objections to the way the proposal had been prepared and presented.
FIFA rejects the claim that it acted outside its own rules. After a leadership meeting in Rabat on August 5, the organization acknowledged that mistakes had been made in the process, that the FIFA Council and national associations may have felt excluded and that the project should have been handled differently. FIFA also announced that it would conduct a review of the case and present a report to the FIFA Council at its next meeting. At the same time, it stressed that everything had been done in accordance with the organization's regulatory framework and that it would not tolerate attacks on its integrity, governance and reputation. This is precisely where the two interpretations collide: FIFA speaks of improving the process and conducting an internal review, while its critics believe that only an external and independent analysis can have credibility.
What FIFA Forward Enterprise was
FIFA Forward Enterprise was conceived as a new commercial structure through which part of the revenues associated with FIFA's biggest competitions would be managed. According to Reuters and Associated Press reports from the time the proposal was presented, the model envisaged separating commercial rights and selling approximately a 20 percent stake to private investors, with the aim of raising around 4.2 billion US dollars. The project was linked to an estimated valuation of the new structure of around 20 billion dollars. FIFA argued that the additional capital would enable greater investment in football development and increased support for national associations, especially those with limited commercial revenues of their own. Critics, however, warned that a private stake in a structure linked to the World Cup would permanently alter the relationship between FIFA, its members and commercial partners.
On July 31, Infantino announced that the project would not proceed. In an official statement, he said that FFE was intended to create a basis for further strengthening national associations and football development and that it would only have been implemented with the support of a majority of members and following consultations with the FIFA Council, confederations and other stakeholders. He added that, after reactions demonstrated deep divisions, continuing the project had become contrary to the goal of bringing the football community together. The withdrawal of the proposal stopped the transaction itself, but it did not stop the political crisis. On the contrary, after the abandonment, the focus shifted from the economic substance of the plan to the question of who designed the project, who authorized it to be presented and why key parts of the football structure claim that they were not involved in a timely manner.
In April 2026, FIFA announced that over the previous ten years it had invested around five billion dollars in football development through the FIFA Forward program and that 2.7 billion dollars was planned for the 2027 to 2031 cycle, around 20 percent more than in the previous cycle. The financial dimension is important because development programs finance infrastructure, administration, youth and women's football for many smaller associations. UEFA, AFC and Concacaf therefore emphasized in their joint letter that their dispute was not directed against development support to which national associations are entitled.
New Zealand opposed Oceania's direction
An even clearer example of a split within a single confederation emerged in Oceania. The Executive Committee of the Oceania Football Confederation, OFC, after a meeting held on August 12, welcomed FIFA's decision to withdraw FFE and the announced review of the circumstances surrounding the project. In a statement published on August 14, the OFC simultaneously acknowledged the progress achieved over the past decade in the development of football in Oceania under FIFA's leadership and called on the world governing body to use the review to identify and implement necessary changes. The OFC emphasized the importance of good governance, transparency and respect for established institutional processes, but did not call for Infantino's departure or announce that it was withdrawing political support from him. Such a cautious tone differs significantly from the open conflict that UEFA, AFC and Concacaf have developed with FIFA's leadership.
Only a few hours in political terms were enough to show that even this position does not represent all of Oceania. New Zealand Football announced on August 14 that it was formally withdrawing its support for Gianni Infantino's candidacy for a new term at the 2027 FIFA Congress. At the same time, the New Zealand association called for an independent review of the steps taken during the development of FIFA Forward Enterprise. In its official explanation, NZF stated that decisions and actions within FIFA had contributed to a loss of trust and increased divisions in international football and that stronger governance, accountability and transparency were needed to restore credibility. In doing so, Oceania's largest and most internationally visible association adopted a noticeably tougher position than its confederation.
The difference is particularly significant because the OFC had publicly highlighted the benefits the region had received from FIFA's development policy. In February 2026, OFC officials praised the decade of Infantino's tenure, citing, among other things, Oceania's direct place at the 2026 World Cup and support for the professionalization of regional football. New Zealand is now demonstrating that development investment does not necessarily translate into permanent political loyalty to FIFA's leadership.
Votes of national associations are more important than bloc discipline
The most important consequence of the current divisions is the fact that the FIFA president is not elected by confederations voting as unified blocs, but by national associations at the Congress. FIFA has 211 members, and in April 2026, at the Congress in Vancouver, Infantino officially confirmed that he would run again in 2027. For that reason, public statements by individual associations have immediate political value: they are an early indicator of possible electoral arithmetic, but also a warning that declarations by continental organizations cannot simply be translated into guaranteed votes. The example of Qatar, an AFC member that supports Infantino despite the Asian confederation's sharp stance, and the example of New Zealand, which has distanced itself from the OFC's considerably more moderate tone, show that the final balance of power will be much more complex than a division into six continents.
This also changes the character of the political conflict. In the first phase of the crisis, the main dividing line was between FIFA's leadership and the confederations that challenged FFE. In the second phase, the question has emerged of whether the leadership of each confederation can even speak on behalf of all its members when the time comes to vote for the president. The six Arab associations that have publicly backed Infantino and New Zealand's decision to withhold support from him show movement in both directions. Some federations are rejecting pressure from their own confederation and remaining with the president, while others believe their regional leadership has not gone far enough in demanding accountability. As a result, FIFA's political map can no longer be read solely through the traditional alliances of Europe, Asia, Africa, South America, North and Central America and Oceania.
The debate expands from the investment plan to the governance model
The central question is no longer whether FFE will be implemented, because FIFA has officially abandoned the project. The dispute is now about what the standard of governance should be when the organization's leadership considers changes that could affect its most valuable commercial product, the World Cup. UEFA, AFC and Concacaf argue that an independent review is necessary, while FIFA has so far announced its own review and a report to the Council. The OFC is calling for improvements but maintaining a constructive relationship with the leadership, while New Zealand is demanding external oversight and withdrawing political support from the president. The Arab associations that have publicly backed Infantino, on the other hand, emphasize continuity of development and his contribution to global football.
The coming months will therefore show whether the crisis will subside through an institutional review and new consultations or grow into an open election campaign long before the 2027 Congress. Infantino still has strong allies, and his administration points to the scale of investment and development programs implemented over the past decade. At the same time, opponents of the current governance model have for the first time linked criticism of a specific project with the question of trust in the leadership and a demand for independent oversight. The most important signal comes precisely from the behavior of the national associations: political discipline within the confederations is not guaranteed, and every new public position can change the assessment of the balance of power. The FIFA Forward Enterprise crisis has therefore ceased to be a debate about a single investment idea and has become a test of how 211 members will define the limits of power, accountability and transparency in world football.
Sources:
- FIFA – official statement by Gianni Infantino on the withdrawal of the FIFA Forward Enterprise project and the reasons for abandoning it (link)
- FIFA – statement following the leadership meeting in Rabat, acknowledgement of mistakes in the process and announcement of a review of the case (link)
- FIFA – confirmation of Infantino's candidacy for the 2027 presidential election and data on the 211 members and the FIFA Forward program (link)
- UEFA – joint open letter from UEFA, AFC and Concacaf calling for a fully independent review of the case (link)
- AFC – official reaction to the FFE proposal and statement that the confederation had not been consulted in advance (link)
- Concacaf – official statement on the withdrawal of FFE, transparency and accountability in governance (link)
- Oceania Football Confederation – position of the OFC Executive Committee on the withdrawal of FFE and progress under FIFA's leadership (link)
- New Zealand Football – official announcement on withdrawing support for Infantino's candidacy and calling for an independent review (link)
- Royal Moroccan Football Federation – support for Infantino following the withdrawal of the project and emphasis on FIFA's development programs (link)
- Reuters – report on the joint support of the associations of Qatar, Morocco, Egypt, Mauritania, Lebanon and Sudan and the role of four signatories on the FIFA Council (link)