UEFA loses confidence in Infantino and calls for a thorough investigation into FIFA's leadership
On August 1, 2026, UEFA announced that FIFA's current leadership under President Gianni Infantino had lost its confidence, turning the dispute over the failed private investment plan for the world football governing body's commercial rights into an open governance crisis. The Union of European Football Associations welcomed FIFA's decision to withdraw the FIFA Forward Enterprise project but stressed that merely abandoning the proposal was not enough. In an exceptionally strongly worded statement, UEFA described the process as non-transparent, rushed and conducted behind closed doors, and called for everyone involved in shaping and attempting to implement it to be held accountable. According to UEFA, a thorough analysis must be conducted into how the plan originated, who approved it and how it could have reached a stage at which national associations were asked to support it without sufficient time and information for a serious assessment. The European organisation said that the project's withdrawal was only the beginning of the process of rebuilding trust in FIFA.
At the centre of the dispute was a proposal to establish a special commercial company, FIFA Forward Enterprise, which would consolidate the commercial rights and operational organisation of FIFA competitions. According to FIFA's official announcement of July 28, 2026, the new company was intended to manage rights related to television broadcasting, sponsorships, ticket sales, licensing and other business activities. The project was based on an initial valuation of 20 billion US dollars, while FIFA planned to raise up to 4.2 billion dollars by selling minority, non-controlling stakes to long-term private investors. FIFA claimed that it would retain ownership and control, but opponents warned of a conflict between the organisation's public sporting role and the interests of private capital. Criticism also focused on the secrecy of the negotiations, the short deadlines and the fact that important football institutions learned about the proposal from the media.
20-billion-dollar plan withdrawn
FIFA presented the project as a way to increase funding for football development across all 211 member associations. According to the official proposal, regular allocations through the FIFA Forward programme were to increase from eight million dollars per national association in the 2023-2026 cycle to 20 million dollars in the 2027-2030 period. In addition, associations were offered the possibility of accessing further funds through the FIFA Fast Forward programme, which could bring the total potential amount for an individual member to 40 million dollars. Infantino described the project as an opportunity to build pitches and training centres, strengthen national teams, develop women's football and create new opportunities for young players. FIFA also claimed that all net benefits would be reinvested in football and that external investors would not gain control over sporting rules or regulatory decisions.
Opponents of the plan believed that such promises did not resolve the key question: why a global non-profit sports organisation should sell a stake in a business built around its most valuable competitions. UEFA emphasised that the commercial and governance rights connected with the World Cup were not ordinary assets that the current leadership could dispose of over the long term without broad consensus within the football community. Particular concern was caused by the possibility that investors, even without formal control, could influence the number of matches, competition formats, scheduling and the sale of media rights through their expectations of financial returns. UEFA therefore insisted that the debate should not focus only on the amount FIFA would receive, but also on the long-term obligations imposed on future administrations.
On July 31, FIFA initially published additional clarifications, stating that it respected the concerns of the confederations and that the process had been designed as an open and democratic consultation. The organisation claimed at the time that inaccurate media reports had disrupted the planned course of consultations and repeated that football was not being sold. Only a few hours later, Infantino confirmed that the proposal would not be pursued. In an official statement, he acknowledged that the project had created divisions that were no longer in the interests of the objective for which it had been launched. He announced talks with stakeholders and an attempt to bring football institutions together again around shared interests, but he did not announce resignations, disciplinary proceedings or an independent investigation into the process that caused the crisis.
UEFA: Withdrawal of the proposal does not close the case
UEFA responded that returning to the situation that existed before the proposal was not enough. In a statement reported by international media, the European organisation said that football could not be governed through secret projects, rushed deadlines and arrangements whose benefits for the game had not been clearly demonstrated. It called for the individuals responsible for creating and promoting the project to be identified and held accountable in accordance with FIFA's rules and standards of good governance. UEFA intends to work with its 55 national associations and other continental confederations to analyse how the proposal was prepared and which institutional safeguards failed. In that process, it said, no possibility should be ruled out in advance.
UEFA's most important political message was its direct assertion that FIFA's current leadership no longer enjoyed its confidence, nor the confidence of a number of other members of the international football community. Such wording is considerably stronger than the usual criticism of an individual decision because it challenges the leadership's ability to govern the organisation transparently and responsibly. UEFA also recalled the promises Infantino made before he was first elected FIFA president in 2016, particularly his commitment to transparency and his claim that FIFA's money belonged to the national associations and had to serve football development. According to the European organisation, the way in which FIFA Forward Enterprise was prepared contradicted those promises. The criticism was further intensified by the assertion that FIFA holds reserves exceeding five billion dollars, leading UEFA to question the need to sell stakes to private investors in order to finance development programmes.
The Football Association of England sided with UEFA and supported the common European position. It also called for a complete, independent review of FIFA's leadership and governance system. According to a statement reported by the British media, the association opposed the plan because the World Cup belongs to football and must not become the subject of a private sale. Other national associations also expressed support for the criticism. The Dutch KNVB announced that the project's withdrawal did not mean that the case was closed and that the way the process had been conducted had led to a fundamental loss of confidence in Infantino's leadership. Opposition was also recorded outside Europe, including reactions from the Asian Football Confederation and Concacaf, reducing the likelihood that the proposal would secure the required majority.
Why the decision-making process caused so much opposition
Most of the institutional resistance did not arise solely from the idea of private investment, but from the impression that the project had been prepared without the usual oversight mechanisms. On July 29, the Football Association of England announced that it had not been aware of the proposal before media reports appeared and had not possessed basic information about its terms and obligations. On the same day, UEFA stated that FIFA had imposed a deadline on national associations to support the proposal, with the possibility that a one-off financial offer would be withdrawn if they did not respond in time. Critics interpreted such an approach as pressure on members that depend on FIFA's development funding. Small and financially weaker associations were particularly vulnerable, because the promised amounts could significantly transform their budgets, infrastructure and national-team programmes.
Each of FIFA's 211 national associations has one vote at the FIFA Congress, regardless of the size of its market or sporting results. This model ensures global representation, but it gives the distribution of funding considerable political importance. Critics warn that large and equal allocations can consolidate support for the current leadership, while FIFA argues that investment is essential in countries without substantial revenue from television rights and sponsorships. The controversy surrounding FFE therefore linked a legitimate development policy with the question of how political support from member associations is sought.
An additional problem was the scope of the rights concentrated in the new company. According to FIFA's documents, FFE would consolidate rights for men's, women's and youth competitions, as well as the operational delivery of events, including revenue from broadcasting, sponsorships, licences, tickets and hospitality packages. Critics demanded answers about investors' rights, exit clauses, the duration of commitments and protection against the future sale of additional stakes. According to the available information, these details were not publicly presented to an extent that would permit a complete independent assessment.
Leadership crisis ahead of the 2027 election
UEFA's open loss of confidence comes at a politically sensitive moment for Infantino. FIFA's presidential election is expected to be held at the Congress in Rabat in March 2027, and before the scandal broke, Infantino appeared to be on course for another term without a serious rival. According to a report by The Guardian, he had already secured more than 200 letters of support from national associations, but such endorsements can be withdrawn before the deadline for candidacies in November 2026. UEFA has not formally called for his immediate resignation, but the message that the leadership has lost its confidence opens space for a rival candidate and coordinated action by dissatisfied confederations. Whether the resistance will translate into an actual electoral majority remains unclear, because Infantino still has a strong network of support among associations that received significantly greater development funding during his term.
Infantino has led FIFA since February 2016, when he was elected following the greatest corruption crisis in the organisation's history. His term has been marked by revenue growth, increased development allocations and the expansion of major competitions, including a World Cup featuring 48 national teams. At the same time, criticism has repeatedly focused on centralised decision-making, close relations with political leaders and the insufficient involvement of confederations, leagues, clubs and players in decisions that alter the global calendar. The current crisis demonstrates that formal rules alone cannot eliminate a political problem if key members believe that they were bypassed in decisions concerning the organisation's most valuable assets.
It is also significant that the dispute occurred immediately after the 2026 World Cup in the United States, Canada and Mexico, a tournament FIFA presented as a commercial and organisational success. Instead of the competition's conclusion strengthening Infantino's position, the FFE proposal raised the question of whether revenue growth had become more important than institutional consensus. UEFA and the associations joining it now want a debate on how FIFA's funds should be distributed without surrendering a share of future revenue to private investors. The European organisation announced that it would work with partners on a new distribution model through the existing FIFA Forward programme. Its argument is that a portion of the substantial cash reserves can immediately be directed towards infrastructure, women's football, youth development, coaches and competitions without creating a commercial structure that would bind FIFA to investors for decades.
What the announced review should cover
For a credible restoration of trust, it will not be enough merely to determine who publicly presented the proposal. An independent review would have to establish who commissioned the financial valuation, when talks with potential investors began, which FIFA bodies received reports and whether rules on conflicts of interest and confidentiality were respected. It should also examine the roles of the president, the secretary general, members of the FIFA Council, external advisers and financial institutions involved in preparing the project. It is also important to determine whether the associations received complete information and whether linking development funding to a short deadline for support complied with the principles of fair decision-making. Without the publication of key documents, an internal review could appear to be an attempt to calm the crisis rather than a genuine effort to establish accountability.
FIFA has not yet announced that it will launch an external investigation. In his statement withdrawing the project, Infantino emphasised the need for unity and continued investment in countries where assistance is most needed, but he did not respond to demands for personal and institutional accountability. UEFA, on the other hand, says that it will cooperate with national associations and other confederations to ensure that a similar process cannot be repeated. This could lead to proposals for stricter rules governing the sale or transfer of commercial rights, mandatory advance publication of investment documents, longer consultation periods and independent assessments of major transactions. Such reforms would have consequences far beyond this case because they would define the boundaries between sports governance and private capital during a period of rapid growth in the value of media rights.
The withdrawal of FIFA Forward Enterprise avoided the immediate possibility of a boycott and a severe institutional conflict over future FIFA competitions. However, the political damage did not disappear together with the proposal. For the first time, UEFA directly questioned confidence in Infantino's leadership in such unequivocal terms, while the support of the Football Association of England, the KNVB and other organisations shows that the debate is no longer confined to a single financial idea. At the centre of the dispute are now the way FIFA is governed, the transparency of its decisions and its accountability to associations, players, clubs and supporters. The next steps - an independent review, possible rule changes and political positioning ahead of the 2027 election - will show whether the withdrawal of the plan was the genuine beginning of reform or merely a temporary response to pressure.
Sources:
- FIFA - official statement by Gianni Infantino on the withdrawal of the FIFA Forward Enterprise proposal (link)
- FIFA - official presentation of the financial structure, valuation and planned development funding (link)
- FIFA - clarifications on ownership, control and consultation regarding the FFE project (link)
- UEFA - official statement opposing the plan and the deadline imposed on national associations (link)
- UEFA - initial reaction to the proposal to sell a stake in FIFA's commercial rights (link)
- The Football Association - statement that the association was not informed of the proposal before media reports appeared (link)
- The Guardian - report on UEFA's loss of confidence, reactions from associations and the political consequences for FIFA (link)
- talkSPORT - report on the Football Association of England's support for a review of FIFA's leadership and governance (link)
- Reuters - report on the withdrawal of the plan, opposition from the confederations and demands for transparency (link)