Adam Rifau Abdul Raheem
Gianni Infantino has survived years of controversy by keeping FIFA’s national associations financially satisfied and politically divided. The rebellion against FIFA Forward Enterprise may be the first crisis to break both pillars of his presidency at once.
Gianni Infantino’s authority has rarely depended on being admired. Since becoming FIFA president in 2016, his power has rested on something more durable: the loyalty of national associations benefiting from FIFA’s expanding development grants and the inability of his opponents to unite behind a credible alternative. FIFA Forward Enterprise, or FFE, may have shattered that arrangement. Within days of the proposal becoming public, UEFA’s 55 associations unanimously rejected it, Concacaf’s 41 associations formally followed, the Asian Football Confederation placed its 47-member bloc in solidarity with the opposition, and one of Infantino’s own senior advisers resigned. Together, the three confederations encompass 143 associations far beyond the 106 votes required for a majority at FIFA Congress, even though not every individual federation is guaranteed to follow its confederation’s position. What makes this moment different is not simply that Infantino is being criticised again. It is that associations that previously tolerated, supported or quietly accommodated his presidency are now questioning both his proposal and the way he governs.
The proposal that caused the rupture is among the most consequential commercial restructurings FIFA has ever attempted. FFE would become a FIFA-controlled subsidiary combining the commercial rights and operational delivery of the World Cup and FIFA’s other men’s, women’s and youth tournaments, including broadcasting, sponsorship, licensing and ticketing. FIFA says the company would have an initial valuation of approximately $20 billion and would raise up to $4.2 billion by selling minority, non-controlling interests of as much as 20 percent to outside investors. Thrive Eternal, associated with Joshua Kushner-founded Thrive Capital, is expected to lead the proposed investor group, while J.P. Morgan has been advising FIFA. In exchange, FIFA promised every association access to an optional $20 million in immediate project funding and proposed increasing regular Forward funding from the currently budgeted $8 million to $20 million for 2027–2030, followed by $22 million and $24 million in the next two cycles. FIFA insists it would retain exclusive sporting and regulatory control. Opponents, however, argue that once investors own part of the commercial vehicle controlling FIFA’s tournaments, generating returns would inevitably begin influencing calendars, formats, ticketing and tournament expansion.
The rejection was overwhelming and unusually coordinated.
UEFA declared that “the World Cup is not for sale” and accused FIFA of presenting associations with an ultimatum rather than a genuinely democratic choice. Its 55 members agreed that their national teams would withdraw from FIFA competitions while the proposal remained alive, unless FIFA abandoned it completely and guaranteed that its competitions would never again be opened to private ownership.
Concacaf then announced that all 41 of its associations had rejected FFE, citing the artificially short deadline, the absence of prior review by FIFA’s governance bodies and the questionable need for private capital after what FIFA itself called the most successful World Cup in history.
The AFC subsequently said FFE could not achieve the broad consensus required to proceed and demanded institutional reform at FIFA.
Formally, UEFA and Concacaf account for 96 declared rejections; politically, the AFC’s intervention expands the opposing camp to confederations encompassing 143 associations. There are complications Mexico said it would conduct its own review, while Czech federation president David Trunda saw potential benefits but the coalition is already large enough to make approval extraordinarily difficult.
The most damaging blow may have come from inside Infantino’s own circle.
Carlos Cordeiro, a senior adviser to the FIFA president, resigned with immediate effect on July 31 and publicly distanced himself from the project. “I had no involvement in this proposal, and I oppose it unequivocally,” he said, describing FFE as “a bad deal for football” and for the game’s long-term future. Cordeiro’s departure matters because it transforms the dispute from the familiar institutional rivalry between FIFA and UEFA into evidence of internal dissent close to the president. Infantino has often portrayed criticism as the product of wealthy European interests attempting to prevent FIFA from distributing more money to smaller nations. That defence becomes harder to sustain when Concacaf rejects the plan, Asia challenges FIFA’s consultation process and a senior presidential adviser resigns rather than remain associated with it. There is currently one confirmed senior resignation directly linked to FFE, rather than a demonstrated mass departure, but such exits can become politically contagious: once insiders conclude that distancing themselves is safer than defending the president, the appearance of invulnerability begins to collapse.
Senior figures across football are now using language that goes beyond disagreement over financial structure. AFC president Sheikh Salman bin Ebrahim Al Khalifa an important Infantino ally since losing the 2016 FIFA election to him called the way the proposal was introduced “totally unacceptable” and said FIFA’s actions risked undermining the foundations of continental football. The AFC later said the episode had exposed “fundamental weaknesses” in FIFA’s consultation and decision-making. Former FIFA president Sepp Blatter argued that football belongs neither to an individual nor an institution and warned that placing FIFA’s assets inside a profit-oriented corporate structure would cost the organisation its soul. La Liga president Javier Tebas was even more direct when asked whether Infantino should resign: “In my opinion, yes, I think his time is up.” World Cup winner Xabi Alonso added that football must remain “in the hands of everyone,” rather than being reshaped around private interests. FIFA has responded defiantly “Nobody is selling football,” it said and maintains that each association must be allowed to vote independently. Yet the breadth of the criticism shows that this is no longer merely Ceferin against Infantino. It has become a dispute over who football belongs to.
Infantino is not finished yet. FIFA says FFE will not proceed without majority support from its 211 associations and approval from the FIFA Council, and the president still possesses significant influence among federations reliant on FIFA funding. But his political calendar has suddenly become dangerous. Candidates for the next FIFA presidential election must declare by November 18, 2026, before the vote in Rabat on March 18, 2027. Only days before the FFE crisis, Infantino appeared likely to secure another term without serious opposition; now European officials are openly searching for a challenger, even though Nasser Al-Khelaifi has denied any intention of running. Infantino could withdraw FFE and survive, but retreat would demonstrate that the associations can defeat him. Continuing would risk a boycott that could deprive FIFA tournaments of Europe’s biggest teams and jeopardise the organisation’s commercial credibility. That is why this may represent the beginning of the end: not necessarily because Infantino will immediately resign or lose an election, but because the system that sustained him money offered from above, fragmented opposition below and unquestioned loyalty around him has begun to break apart.
