Inside the Four Chaotic Days That Put Gianni Infantino’s FIFA Presidency Under Threat

Only a short time ago, Gianni Infantino appeared to be at the height of his influence. Standing alongside US President Donald Trump in New Jersey, the FIFA president proudly presented the Jules Rimet Trophy to Spain after the World Cup final. Dressed in an elegant dark suit and striking white sneakers, Infantino looked like a leader celebrating not only the success of football’s biggest tournament but also his own achievements.

After spending weeks travelling across North America on a private aircraft, closely following the progress of the expanded 48-team World Cup, Infantino described the tournament as a major success. He praised the new format and presented the competition as proof that his leadership had taken FIFA into a new era.

Many people in his position might have taken time to celebrate the event, review its successes and challenges, or simply enjoy a period of rest. However, Infantino quickly turned his attention to another ambitious project. Instead of slowing down, he pursued a plan that would ultimately create the biggest crisis of his presidency and threaten his position at the top of world football.

In less than four days, Infantino’s proposal to transform the commercial future of FIFA collapsed dramatically. His idea was to sell part of football’s most valuable asset — its major tournaments, especially the World Cup — to private investors in a deal potentially worth around £15 billion. The plan went from being a powerful business strategy to a political disaster, ending with Infantino forced to abandon it after facing overwhelming resistance.

The controversy began when reports revealed that FIFA intended to establish a new company called FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE). This subsidiary would control and manage FIFA’s most important events, allowing private investors to purchase shares in the organisation’s commercial operations.

The investment group behind the plan was expected to include Thrive Eternal, a US venture capital firm founded by Joshua Kushner, the brother of Jared Kushner, who is married to former US President Donald Trump’s daughter Ivanka Trump.

As part of the proposal, FIFA’s 211 member associations were reportedly offered financial benefits, including a potential payment of £30 million each, if they supported the plan before the September 19 deadline.

However, the reaction from football’s governing bodies was immediate and overwhelmingly negative. UEFA became the first major organisation to publicly challenge Infantino’s proposal. In a strongly worded statement supported by the English Football Association and Europe’s other football associations, UEFA accused FIFA of serious leadership failures and criticised what it described as a culture of pressure and poor governance.

UEFA’s message was clear: football does not belong to any individual or organisation to sell. The European body argued that FIFA was acting without proper consultation and warned that it could consider boycotting the World Cup if Infantino refused to abandon the proposal.

The opposition quickly spread beyond Europe. CONCACAF, representing football associations across North America, Central America and the Caribbean, rejected the idea and expressed concerns about the lack of transparency and the unusually short period given for decision-making.

The Asian Football Confederation also criticised the process, stating that football should never have reached a situation where such important decisions were made without proper consultation. The AFC argued that the controversy exposed serious weaknesses in FIFA’s internal decision-making system.

Infantino needed support from a majority of FIFA’s 211 member associations to approve the proposal. However, opposition grew rapidly, with more than half of the members reportedly against the plan.

Despite increasing criticism, Infantino initially attempted to defend the project. FIFA released a statement insisting that nobody was attempting to “sell football” and argued that the proposal had been misunderstood. However, the political damage had already been done, and support continued to disappear.

The criticism became even more damaging when political figures became involved. Manchester mayor Andy Burnham questioned whether Infantino remained the right person to lead FIFA, describing the proposal as unacceptable and suggesting that it demonstrated a failure of leadership.

The biggest blow came when people close to Infantino began turning against him. Carlos Cordeiro, a former president of the United States Soccer Federation and one of Infantino’s important allies, publicly rejected the proposal. Cordeiro stated that, as someone with experience in finance and a lifelong passion for football, he could not support selling a permanent share of the World Cup.

He argued that the agreement would damage FIFA’s member associations and risk the future of the sport. According to Cordeiro, raising billions of dollars by giving away ownership of football’s most valuable competition was unnecessary and represented a dangerous decision that could harm future generations.

Shortly afterwards, FIFA’s chief operating officer Kevin Lamour also resigned. His departure created another serious crisis for Infantino. Lamour accused the FIFA president of hiding information from his own administration and described the proposal as a personal project driven by one individual rather than a collective decision.

He criticised the lack of transparency, trust and good governance within FIFA. Lamour argued that football leaders now had a responsibility to question the direction of the organisation and make changes to protect the values of the game.

Facing growing pressure from inside and outside FIFA, Infantino finally abandoned the project shortly after midnight. He explained that the proposal had created divisions that were no longer compatible with FIFA’s original objectives.

However, cancelling the plan did not end the crisis. Instead, it opened a much bigger debate about Infantino’s future. On Saturday morning, UEFA announced that it was considering a vote of no confidence against him.

European football officials criticised what they called a secretive and poorly handled agreement. They promised to work with other football confederations to investigate what had happened and hold those responsible accountable.

UEFA described the collapse of the proposal as a victory for football but warned that rebuilding trust in FIFA would require significant work. The organisation argued that removing the controversial plan was only the beginning of a larger process of reform.

The future of Infantino’s presidency is now uncertain. After nearly a decade in power, he had been expected to win another term without opposition at the FIFA Congress in Morocco. However, the rapid loss of support has changed the situation completely.

Several potential challengers have already emerged, including CONCACAF president Victor Montagliani, FIFA general secretary Mattias Grafström, and European football executive Dariusz Mioduski.

Only weeks after appearing to control the future of global football, Gianni Infantino now faces the most serious challenge of his career. The ambitious plan that was supposed to strengthen his legacy may instead become the event that brings his leadership to an end.