Infantino under increasing pressure: at least 90 associations reject the plan, but his departure from FIFA has not been confirmed
Gianni Infantino has not resigned as FIFA president, nor had the world football organization announced by July 31, 2026 that he was stepping down. Nevertheless, his political position within international football has been seriously weakened following coordinated resistance to a plan that would consolidate the commercial rights and organization of FIFA competitions in a new company open to minority private-capital investment. UEFA, together with all 55 national associations, unanimously rejected the project and announced that its national teams would not participate in FIFA competitions while the proposal remained on the table. Concacaf then announced that its 41 member associations had also rejected the plan, meaning that the rebellion had spread to a confederation that had generally maintained a close relationship with Infantino in recent years.
According to Sky News calculations, at least 90 of FIFA's 211 voting member associations now oppose the FIFA Forward Enterprise project. This is a major blow to a president who announced at the FIFA Congress in Vancouver on April 30, 2026 that he would stand for re-election in 2027. Opposition to the project, however, is not automatically the same as a demand for his removal: no official FIFA body has so far announced dismissal proceedings, and Infantino has not withdrawn his candidacy. It is therefore more accurate to speak of the most serious political crisis of his tenure than of a confirmed departure.
What FIFA Forward Enterprise provides for
On July 28, FIFA presented the concept of FIFA Forward Enterprise, abbreviated as FFE, as a new subsidiary owned and controlled by football's global governing body. According to FIFA's official explanation, FFE would bring together television rights, sponsorships, licensing, ticketing, hospitality programs and the operational delivery of competitions in men's, women's and youth football. The new company would have its own governance structure and commercial mandate, while FIFA, according to its version of the proposal, would retain majority control and exclusive authority over rules, the calendar, competition formats and all sporting decisions.
The financial part of the project envisages raising up to 4.2 billion US dollars by selling minority, non-controlling stakes to long-term investors, with an initial valuation of FFE of approximately 20 billion dollars. FIFA claims that the net benefit would be returned to football and used to significantly increase development funding. Each of the 211 national associations would be offered up to 20 million dollars in one-off funding for specific infrastructure and development projects, while regular FIFA Forward program funding for the 2027-2030 cycle would rise from a planned eight million to 20 million dollars per association. Further increases are envisaged in subsequent cycles, to 22 million dollars from 2031 to 2034 and to 24 million dollars from 2035 to 2038.
FIFA presents the project as a way to direct part of the growing commercial value of world football toward associations that struggle to independently finance stadiums, training centers, women's football, youth competitions and professional development. The Zurich-based organization also rejects the claim that it is selling the World Cup, stressing that private investors would receive only a minority stake in the commercial subsidiary, not control over FIFA or sporting rules. According to the official documentation, the project can proceed only if it is supported by a majority of member associations and if the necessary regulatory changes are approved by the FIFA Council.
It is precisely the difference between FIFA's legal description of the project and the political perception of its opponents that has become the center of the dispute. Critics believe that an ownership stake in a company managing revenues and the operational delivery of the World Cup inevitably gives private investors an economic interest in future decisions about the calendar, format and location of competitions, even when formal sporting authority remains with FIFA. FIFA responds that its majority on the board and retention of regulatory powers would prevent such influence. The information published so far has not dispelled the doubts of associations seeking a more detailed legal, financial and governance analysis before any decision is made.
UEFA drew a red line and threatened a boycott
The fiercest response came from Europe. UEFA and its 55 national associations unanimously rejected the proposal on July 30, arguing that the World Cup must not be treated as an investment product. In an official statement, the European confederation accused FIFA of developing a plan of such importance without genuine consultation with key stakeholders and of placing national associations under financial and political pressure. UEFA believes that the introduction of external owners would permanently alter the way decisions are made about global football because the expectation of a return on capital would become a constant factor in the management of competitions.
The European confederation did not stop at symbolic condemnation. It announced that the national teams of its member associations would not participate in any FIFA competition until the proposal was completely withdrawn and binding guarantees were provided that FIFA competitions and governance would not again be opened to private ownership. Such a decision, if actually implemented, would have consequences far beyond the relationship between Infantino and European football leaders. Without European national teams and clubs, it would be difficult to preserve the sporting, television and sponsorship value of a large part of FIFA's portfolio, meaning the boycott threat directly affects the project's business logic as well.
For now, FIFA continues to maintain in its public materials that the World Cup is not being sold and that this is a consultation rather than a completed deal. However, UEFA's decision changed the political balance of power because, for the first time, an entire confederation has openly linked participation in competitions to the complete abandonment of the president's key commercial proposal. The dispute is therefore no longer only about the model for financing development, but also about who in practice determines the limits of the FIFA leadership's authority.
Concacaf's reversal is a particularly severe blow
Several hours after UEFA, Concacaf, which brings together associations from North and Central America and the Caribbean, issued its response. Following a meeting of the presidents of its 41 member associations, the confederation announced that it was rejecting the proposal because of the lack of due process, an artificially short deadline and the fact that the project had not previously been reviewed and approved by FIFA's competent governing bodies. Concacaf also questioned why private capital was needed at all after the most financially successful World Cup in the organization's history and requested an examination of whether greater development funding could be secured from FIFA's existing reserves.
The political importance of that decision is greater than the number of votes alone. For years, Infantino built support among associations outside Europe by increasing development payments, expanding competitions and emphasizing the equality of all 211 members, from the largest football markets to the smallest associations. Concacaf was an important pillar of that support, especially during the preparations for and staging of the 2026 World Cup in Canada, Mexico and the United States of America. The public rejection of the project therefore demonstrates that dissatisfaction can no longer be described solely as European resistance to FIFA policy.
Concacaf, however, did not adopt UEFA's boycott threat. Its statement focuses on governance, transparency and the use of existing funds rather than on ending participation in FIFA competitions. That distinction leaves room for negotiations, changes to the project or withdrawal of the disputed model without a broader institutional rupture. At the same time, the fact that the confederation's member associations acted together further narrows Infantino's room for maneuver ahead of a possible vote.
Asia is seeking answers, and a global majority is no longer certain
The Asian Football Confederation has not announced a complete rejection of the project, but it confirmed that it had not been consulted before the public announcement. The AFC requested sufficient information and time so that its members could assess the legal, financial and governance consequences of the proposal through the usual institutional channels. Such a position is important because, in previous election cycles, Infantino relied on broad support in Asia, Africa, South America and Oceania to overcome periodic conflicts with UEFA.
Formal approval of FFE requires the support of a majority of the 211 member associations, meaning at least 106 votes, followed by the consent of the FIFA Council. If at least 90 members remain firmly opposed, the project's advocates could theoretically still gather the required majority, but they would have very little room for further defections among the remaining associations. Any spread of opposition in Asia, Africa, South America or Oceania could therefore make the project mathematically and politically unworkable.
The figure of at least 90 opponents should be interpreted cautiously. It refers to opposition to a specific commercial proposal, not necessarily to a unified bloc that has already decided to vote against Infantino in the presidential election. National associations within FIFA often separate their position on an individual reform from their support for the president, especially when development funding, the distribution of competition places and regional interests influence their decisions. Nevertheless, the loss of confidence in the way the process has been managed could turn into an electoral problem if the president fails to find a compromise.
Resignation, removal and the 2027 candidacy are currently three separate issues
As of July 31, there is no official confirmation that Infantino intends to leave FIFA. He has not announced his resignation, the FIFA Council has not stated that his mandate is ending, and no publicly confirmed procedure for his removal has been initiated. Likewise, there is no confirmation that he has abandoned the candidacy he announced at the 76th FIFA Congress in Vancouver. There, he thanked the member associations for ten years of support and explicitly said that he would be a candidate in the 2027 presidential election.
Infantino was first elected in February 2016, following a deep institutional crisis caused by corruption investigations and the departure of Sepp Blatter. During his tenure, FIFA increased its revenues, expanded the World Cup to 48 national teams, developed new club competitions and significantly increased the amounts distributed to national associations. At the same time, critics accuse him of concentrating power, rapidly expanding the calendar, providing insufficient transparency and relying excessively on financial incentives to build political support. The dispute over FFE has now become a test of the limits of that governance model.
His immediate future will depend primarily on whether he withdraws the proposal, offers a substantially revised version or attempts to proceed with a vote despite the opposition. Withdrawal could reduce the risk of a boycott, but it would also represent a rare public defeat for a president who has generally succeeded in securing a majority for his strategic initiatives. Persisting, on the other hand, could further unite opponents from different regions and turn a dispute about commercial structure into a broader debate about confidence in his leadership.
Montagliani is being mentioned, but there is no official candidacy
Concacaf president and FIFA vice-president Victor Montagliani is increasingly being mentioned among possible future successors. The Canadian football official has led Concacaf since 2016 and played a prominent role in the organizational and political framework of the 2026 World Cup. His position has been strengthened by the fact that the confederation under his leadership acted unanimously in demanding a more transparent process, although Concacaf's official statement was not presented as a personal campaign against Infantino.
There is no confirmation that Montagliani has decided to stand in 2027. In earlier media interviews, his name was more often linked to a possible race in 2031, while sources close to football politics stated that his immediate priority was another term as head of Concacaf. His mention should therefore currently be viewed as a sign that associations and the media are considering alternative centers of power, not as evidence that an official challenger has emerged.
Other names have also appeared in discussions, including leaders of European, Asian and African football, but none of them has officially launched a presidential campaign in the context of the current crisis. The possibility of a challenger will become real only when a candidate obtains the required nominations from member associations and publicly confirms entry into the race. Until then, Infantino remains FIFA president and the declared candidate, although with a visibly weaker political position than before FFE was announced.
The crisis will now be decided between withdrawal of the plan and open institutional conflict
The most important fact at this moment is not that Infantino is leaving, but that, for the first time, he is facing coordinated opposition that crosses the boundaries of a single confederation. UEFA has linked withdrawal of the project to the participation of its national teams in FIFA competitions, Concacaf has unanimously rejected the procedure and substance of the proposal, and the AFC has publicly confirmed that it was not consulted. The combined effect of these moves undermines the claim that this is a broadly accepted reform that merely requires technical approval.
FIFA can still attempt to broaden the consultation, publish additional contractual safeguards, reduce the private-capital stake or completely separate the operational management of competitions from commercial rights. It can also abandon FFE and finance the increase in development funding from other revenues and reserves, as Concacaf explicitly demands. However, each of those moves would require a political retreat and a rebuilding of trust among member associations that believe they were informed about the project too late.
Until that happens, speculation about a resignation and a successor is likely to continue. For now, the facts are clearer than the forecasts: Infantino remains in office, his 2027 candidacy has not been withdrawn, Montagliani has not announced a candidacy, and no formal removal procedure has been confirmed. At the same time, at least 90 member associations oppose a project personally promoted by the president, meaning that the question of his long-term political viability has become legitimate and open in a way that would have been unimaginable only a few days ago.
Sources:
- FIFA – official presentation of the FIFA Forward Enterprise model, financial projections and approval process (link)
- FIFA – official questions and answers on ownership, governance and the role of private investors in FFE (link)
- UEFA – joint statement by 55 national associations rejecting the proposal and announcing a boycott of FIFA competitions (link)
- Concacaf – official statement by 41 member associations rejecting the proposal and demanding a transparent process (link)
- Asian Football Confederation – official position on the lack of consultation and the need for additional information (link)
- Sky News – report on at least 90 opposing FIFA member associations and the weakening of Infantino's political support (link)
- FIFA – official announcement of Infantino's candidacy for the 2027 presidential election (link)
- The Guardian – profile of Victor Montagliani and the context of possible future ambitions for the FIFA presidency (link)