Top News

Translated version

Isolation shock hits Infantino: from total legitimacy to the threat of being removed

A reputational jolt driven by accusations of greed has hit the FIFA president.

Within only a few days, Gianni Infantino watched a dream of securing “big support” slip away and turn into one of the gravest crises he has encountered since becoming FIFA president in 2016.

Unveiled in late July 2026, the “FIFA Forward Enterprise” project was designed to create a commercial company valued at about 20 billion dollars. The company would have overseen the commercial rights and regulatory operations linked to FIFA competitions, most notably the men’s and women’s World Cups and the Club World Cup.

The proposal involved selling a minority share of up to 20% to private investors, generating around 4.2 billion dollars, alongside promises of substantial extra funding for member associations. But the plan fell apart almost immediately. Opposition from continents, resignations from within and heavy criticism mounted until Infantino was forced to step back, doing so formally in a statement released in the early hours of 1 August 2026.

Infantino acknowledged that the project “caused divisions” that were no longer helping the main objective, and confirmed that it “will not proceed”. This was not simply the withdrawal of a business proposal. It laid bare setbacks on several fronts for a man who, until recently, was seen as one of the most influential figures in global sport.

Political and leadership setback: loss of trust and danger to his position

The hardest hit was clearly political. UEFA stated that FIFA’s current leadership had “lost the trust” of the European governing body and of many members across the football family.

UEFA went further still, warning that it could boycott all FIFA competitions, including the World Cup, if the project went ahead. Other major confederations supported that line, especially CONCACAF, which represents hosts of the 2026 World Cup, along with the Asian Football Confederation. The resistance had now spread to nearly more than half of the member associations.

Inside FIFA, criticism and resignations came from people in the closest inner circle. Carlos Cordeiro, a senior adviser to Infantino and former president of the United States federation, resigned and flatly rejected the proposal, describing it as “a bad deal for the member associations and a bad deal for football and its long-term future”.

Kevin Lamour, FIFA’s chief operating officer, also launched an attack, accusing the leadership of having “deceived” staff and labelling the initiative “a one-man project”.

All of that has left Infantino’s future uncertain, with the 2027 presidential election approaching. Once regarded as almost certain to win re-election, he now appears isolated and under pressure from calls for a full review of FIFA governance.

Media reports over the previous two days said people close to him had warned him beforehand, yet he still pushed ahead with unilateral decisions. That approach made him appear, in the words of some observers, like “a dead man walking on the ground”.

The setback here is not just the abandonment of one project. It is the weakening of the political legitimacy on which Infantino built his authority over almost a decade. He must now try to rebuild ties with the major continents in a climate of mistrust and demands to hold to account those behind the “secret schemes”.

Damage to reputation and integrity: an image of greed and secrecy

The crisis moved beyond politics and harmed Infantino’s personal and institutional standing. Critics quickly described the project as “pure greed”, “a bad deal” and “a secret scheme”, making direct comparisons with the failed European Super League in 2021. As The Times and others noted, the proposal had been prepared away from the scrutiny of member associations and then presented in a manner that looked like an attempt to impose a fait accompli in return for promises of funding.

A possible connection to investors linked to American political circles, such as the “Thrive Capital” group associated with the Kushner family, added to doubts over the real motives. Then there was the timing. Coming only weeks after the 2026 World Cup, promoted as the most profitable in history, the move was seen by many as an attempt to use that financial success for personal or narrow interests.

UEFA did not hold back. It referred to a “suspicious deal struck in secret” and “secret schemes on rapid timelines”, and said Infantino had failed to uphold the transparency promises he made when elected. His image as a “reformer” after the Joseph Blatter era suffered a serious blow, and the consequences may remain for years. Even after the reversal, reports said that “the damaged reputation will linger for longer”.

Rob Harris, the well-known journalist at Sky News, put it this way: “There, the crisis over Infantino is escalating, and this can be inferred from what the Football Association of Wales did, as it became the first football institution in the world to formally withdraw its support for the re-election of FIFA president Gianni Infantino.”

Financial setback: the salary of “Haaland, Lewis Hamilton and Steve Carey” thrown into question

On the financial side, Infantino lost the opportunity to bring in billions of dollars, some of which he had hoped to channel into development programmes, with promises of distributing sums worth tens of millions to each member association if the plan succeeded. Instead, the project collapsed without producing any return. FIFA already had reserves of more than 5 billion dollars, something that raised serious doubts about whether a partial sale was needed at all.

Then came the most controversial point: the personal benefit. A journalist from The Times reported that Infantino stood to receive an annual salary of more than 30 million euros for running the new company, in addition to performance-related bonuses. That would be about 10 times his current salary, which is estimated at around 3 million euros.

The Sun went even further, reporting that if the project had been approved, Infantino would have received a salary comparable to those of Haaland, Lewis Hamilton and Steve Kerr. No one has officially and categorically denied that figure. It strengthened accusations that the project was serving personal interests as much as the interests of the game.

The collapse of the deal also means losing the chance to expand FIFA’s financial influence over the longer term, and missing the possibility of injecting those funds into the enlarged “FIFA Forward” programmes. Instead, the governing body returned to square one, with less money than had been promised. There are also concerns that the associations which opposed the plan may feel financially penalised in future cycles.

Loss of influence: a worldwide split exposes the limits of Infantino’s power

The project split the global football family into two camps. All 55 European federations stood united, joined by voices from Asia and North America, while some federations in Africa, South America and Oceania remained more cautious or gave only partial backing. That divide revealed the limits of Infantino’s authority. He had been a figure accustomed to pushing decisions through with a comfortable majority, supported by smaller federations.

Bringing the ranks together again is now his task, something he himself admitted in his second statement. He said that “football speaks every language” and called for dialogue. But the trust damage has already been done, and the calls to review FIFA’s decision-making mechanisms are now out in the open. The Asian Football Confederation called for an “urgent review” of consultation processes, while UEFA said that “the real task of rebuilding trust has only just begun”.

Infantino no longer enjoys the broad margin he once had. Any future project will come under tougher examination, and his political room for manoeuvre will narrow. Five days of chaos wiped out investment ambitions and damaged FIFA’s reputation. It also served as a reminder that world football can still refuse to let its biggest tournaments become a purely investment-driven commodity.

Loss of the support front: CAF between hesitation and the missed moment

Patrice Motsepe’s Confederation of African Football, or CAF, has long been one of Infantino’s most important pillars of support, built on a close relationship and on the generous funding that has reached the continent through the “FIFA Forward” programmes. Yet Infantino was unable to turn that historic support into a decisive position capable of saving his project.

CAF merely asked its members to “study and evaluate” the proposal during an executive committee meeting. There was no direct endorsement and no outright rejection. At the same time, UEFA, CONCACAF and the AFC were all voicing firm opposition.

That hesitation amounts to a temporary setback. The project collapsed before a potential African alliance could fully emerge, even though many African associations are in urgent need of the extra funding the proposal promised, with sums that could reach 40 million dollars per association. BBC reports suggested Africa was a candidate to become a “lone voice” of support, driven by loyalty and development needs.

Yet within that setback lies a real strategic opportunity. Once the storm passes, Infantino can once again rely on the African front as a “winning card” to rebuild the project or to present a revised and more consultative version.

African associations, including those of Egypt and Morocco, moved quickly to praise the withdrawal as soon as it happened, calling it “wise” while renewing their confidence in his leadership.

There is also the personal relationship between Infantino and Motsepe, whom he once described as “a loyal friend of Africa”. That remains an asset he may use to advance new initiatives focused on development and funding, without provoking the same fears in Europe.

Infantino no longer has the broad margin of support he once enjoyed. Any future proposal will face stricter scrutiny. But keeping Africa onside still gives him some room to manoeuvre once tensions ease. A few days destroyed investment ambitions and hurt FIFA’s reputation, but they did not destroy every bridge.

Statements from UEFA, FIFA and CAF confirm that the losses are deep and that the path back to trust will be long. Africa remains one of the most valuable cards still available to him.