FIFA president Gianni Infantino remains under fire despite backing from several national associations, as the global players’ union FIFPRO slammed the organization for what it described as an “abuse of presidential power.” The embattled leader was given the “full support” of FIFA’s management board on Wednesday night, just days after he abandoned plans to sell stakes in a company to run the World Cup to private investors. The proposal, which had been met with swift and severe criticism, has now been withdrawn, but the fallout continues to reshape the future of international football governance.
Mexico and Argentina have become the latest football associations to publicly back Infantino. The Argentine Football Association (AFA) sent a letter to the president expressing support for FIFA’s work over the last decade, which it described as centred on “development of soccer worldwide and institutional strength based on a clear, stable, and transparent governance model.” Meanwhile, the Mexican Football Federation (FMF) broke ranks with its own regional confederation, CONCACAF, by supporting Infantino.
Elsewhere, the African governing body CAF also reaffirmed its support. The confederation “unanimously reconfirmed” its backing for the president and thanked him for his contribution to African football, while also endorsing the statement released by FIFA. This coalition of support stands in contrast to the growing chorus of opposition from other corners of the sport.
Related: McKenna brothers launch world title bid
UEFA doubles down on boycott threat
The football association in England formally withdrew its support for Infantino’s re-election in March 2027. The withdrawal marks a significant shift from the organization’s previous stance.
UEFA was the first continental body to threaten a total boycott of FIFA competitions. In its first public comments since the threat was initially issued, the organization stated that the conditions attached to their non-participation had not been met. Specifically, UEFA demanded that the proposals to sell off major competitions be withdrawn and that assurances be made such attempts will not happen again. The statement made it clear that UEFA has lost confidence in Infantino’s presidency, a position that remains unchanged despite Wednesday’s announcement.
One of the first major tests of the boycott will take place next month during the FIFA U20 Women’s World Cup. England is scheduled to compete in the tournament. For senior national teams, the next test will arrive in October during the play-offs for qualification to the 2027 FIFA Women’s World Cup, where England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Republic of Ireland are all set to participate.
Related: Louisville leads in sports business growth
The numbers game and the magic number
Infantino’s survival depends on a complex numbers game involving the 211 member associations of FIFA. To force an Emergency FIFA Congress and hold a vote of no confidence, 43 national associations—representing 20% of the total—must formally call for the meeting. At that Congress, a majority of votes—106—would be required to remove the president.
UEFA is confident it can secure these votes before initiating the process. The bloc controls 55 votes, the largest single block of power in the organization. Combined with the 54 votes from CAF and the 47 from the Asian Football Confederation (AFC), the opposition would need support from the remaining confederations to reach the threshold. UEFA members of the FIFA Council could also force an Emergency Council meeting, though this would require a specific vote of no confidence from the 37 council members, including the nine from UEFA.
It is worth noting that while the opposition has secured the votes on paper, the mechanics of calling a congress are not instantaneous. FIFA’s internal machinery, often criticized for its opacity, would handle the logistics. If the process is delayed, or if Infantino’s supporters mobilize to block the motion, the timeline could stretch well beyond the next election cycle. This delay could effectively neutralize the threat, allowing the president to weather the storm until the 2027 election is finally on the horizon.
Related: Chelsea Faces Western Sydney Wanderers Today
Players union demands structural change
Beyond the national associations, the global players’ union FIFPRO has added to the pressure on the FIFA leadership. The union slammed the “cover-up” surrounding the botched investment plans and said it viewed FIFA’s statement with deep concern. FIFPRO argued that FIFA could not restore confidence in Infantino’s position because it had “dismantled the conditions upon which confidence depends.”
The union demanded legally-binding engagement with professional football stakeholders over the international match calendar and the expansion of competitions. They also called for governance and structural reforms to “prohibit any individual, ever again, to drive unilateral decisions through the game.” FIFPRO further addressed threats issued by FIFA over future “attacks on its integrity,” warning that portraying legitimate scrutiny as disloyalty would only deepen the concern caused by the recent events.
Timeline of the crisis
- July 28: FIFA announces the “FIFA forward Enterprise” investment plan to spin off commercial rights to competitions.
- July 30: UEFA’s 55 member associations vote to boycott World Cup matches if the plan proceeds.
- July 31: Carlos Cordeiro, Infantino’s senior advisor, resigns, calling the plans a “bad deal” and “irresponsible.”
- August 1: FIFA withdraws the investment plan following days of criticism. UEFA states it has lost confidence in Infantino.
- August 5: Luis Figo calls for Infantino’s resignation. A crisis meeting in Morocco reaffirms “full support” for the president.
- August 6: UEFA confirms the boycott remains in place. The Football Association withdraws support for his re-election.
- August 7: Argentina, Mexico, and CAF announce their support for Infantino.