CORNERFLICK
With the curtain coming down on the 2026 FIFA World Cup, attention across global football has shifted from the pitch to FIFA headquarters, where the future of president Gianni Infantino is under greater scrutiny than at any point in his tenure. While Infantino officially remains the most powerful figure in world football, mounting criticism and growing opposition over recent weeks have prompted many observers to warn that FIFA could be heading toward its biggest governance crisis in more than a decade.
The current turmoil was sparked by a proposal to sell stakes in the commercial rights of FIFA's flagship competitions—including the men's World Cup, Women's World Cup and Club World Cup—to private investors. The plan, which had the potential to reshape the commercial landscape of the game's biggest tournaments, met fierce resistance from three of football's most influential confederations: UEFA, the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) and Concacaf. The opposition proved so strong that FIFA ultimately backed away from the proposal.
For many, however, the collapse of the investment project is only part of the story. The deeper issue is the apparent erosion of confidence in Infantino's leadership. Over the past several years, FIFA has introduced a series of controversial initiatives that have divided opinion across the football world. Proposals for a biennial World Cup, the expansion of the World Cup field, and contentious decisions over tournament hosting have all fueled concerns among football executives about the governing body's current direction.
The latest World Cup only intensified those concerns. Commercial breaks introduced during matches under the banner of protecting player welfare were widely viewed by critics as being driven more by commercial interests than medical necessity. Meanwhile, disciplinary decisions—including the suspension of Folarin Balogun and the reduction of Cristiano Ronaldo's ban—raised fresh questions over the consistency and fairness of FIFA's disciplinary process.
Another decision that generated significant debate was Inter Miami's participation in the FIFA Club World Cup. Critics argued that the criteria for selecting the host nation's representative lacked transparency until the final stages, fueling speculation that FIFA was determined to ensure Lionel Messi featured in the tournament. Although the governing body has never officially acknowledged such claims, the issue remains one of the most controversial episodes of the Infantino era.
The controversy deepened further after reports linked the proposed commercial rights investment to Thrive Eternal, an investment fund connected to Joshua Kushner, the brother of Jared Kushner, Donald Trump's son-in-law. The reports prompted concerns among several football officials over the growing influence of investors with close ties to American political circles in FIFA's decision-making process.
Former Germany goalkeeper Oliver Kahn weighed in on the debate by stressing that football's economic value is built on trust, competition, identity and the passion of its supporters. He warned that commercial interests must never be allowed to undermine those core values. His comments resonated widely among analysts, many of whom viewed them as a broader warning about the future direction of professional football.
Despite the growing backlash, removing a FIFA president remains an exceptionally difficult process. Opposition to a commercial proposal does not automatically translate into opposition to the president himself—a distinction that continues to work in Infantino's favor. Moreover, several countries, including Qatar, Mexico and Sri Lanka, distanced themselves from the joint statement issued by FIFA's critics, highlighting the absence of a unified front against the Swiss administrator.
The pressure, however, extends beyond the confederations. Several senior FIFA executives have stepped down in recent weeks, while reports have also pointed to internal divisions within the organization. Some media outlets have even claimed that FIFA secretary general Mattias Grafström favors leadership change at the top, although FIFA has yet to issue an official response to those reports.
From a constitutional standpoint, there are several potential pathways to a change in FIFA's leadership. The FIFA Council can convene an extraordinary meeting with the backing of at least 19 of its 37 members. Reports suggest, however, that opponents have so far failed to secure the required level of support. Even if such a meeting were held, the FIFA president would face no legal obligation to resign, making the move primarily a political mechanism designed to increase pressure.
Another route would be the convening of an extraordinary FIFA Congress, which requires a request from at least 43 member associations. In that scenario, a motion of no confidence would need a simple majority—106 votes from FIFA's 211 members—to succeed. While Infantino's opponents hope to capitalize on the momentum created by the failed investment proposal, it remains unclear how many associations would ultimately be willing to vote against the incumbent president.
One of Infantino's strongest advantages is the absence of a clear consensus challenger. Unlike previous election cycles, no candidate has yet emerged with broad support across all six confederations. Nevertheless, Concacaf president Victor Montagliani has been mentioned more frequently than any other potential contender. The former president of Canada Soccer is one of the most influential figures in North American football and played a key role in the organization of the 2026 World Cup.
Alongside him, Asian Football Confederation president Sheikh Salman bin Ebrahim Al Khalifa has also been identified as a possible candidate. A long-time critic of several Infantino policies, he enjoys close relationships with numerous football associations across Asia and Africa. Some analysts believe that if the opposition can unite behind either Montagliani or Sheikh Salman, the prospects of leadership change at FIFA would increase significantly.
For now, Infantino's political future appears more dependent than ever on shifting alliances among FIFA's member associations. Although he continues to enjoy the support of a substantial portion of the global football community, the wave of criticism, internal divisions and the collapse of several key initiatives suggest that his position is no longer as secure as it once seemed.
The central question now is whether the current pressure will ultimately lead to a change at the summit of world football, or whether Infantino—just as he did in the uncontested presidential elections of 2019 and 2023—will once again emerge from the crisis unscathed. The answer is likely to become clearer over the coming months as attention turns toward FIFA's 2027 presidential election, a contest that could prove to be one of the defining moments in the modern governance of the global game.