A collapsed proposal to sell a stake in FIFA’s competitions business has turned into a test of trust in world football’s most powerful office. The fight is now less about one deal than whether FIFA’s governance can be repaired under its current president.
Gianni Infantino should be removed from FIFA leadership after the abandoned plan to sell part of FIFA’s competitions business to private investors turned a governance dispute into a leadership crisis. The article argues for ousting him from FIFA — for putting Gianni Infantino out through FIFA’s front door, in the blunt language of his critics — because the backlash now reaches beyond routine soccer politics.
The demand to “Kick Gianni Infantino out” is no longer just rhetorical outrage. UEFA says it has lost confidence in the FIFA president; Reuters reported Wales withdrew support for his re-election, with England’s Football Association set to follow. FIFA critics say his handling of governance has put his position under threat.
A deal that detonated trust
The immediate flashpoint is a proposal, since abandoned, to sell a significant minority stake in a new entity controlling FIFA’s major competitions, including the World Cup and Club World Cup. According to The Athletic, FIFA had planned to sell one-fifth of that entity to an investor group led by Thrive Eternal for $4.2 billion.
For supporters of the idea, private capital could have been framed as a way to grow the global game, unlock commercial value and fund football development. FIFA under Infantino has often argued that more revenue means more investment outside Europe’s richest markets.
That is not how the proposal landed with many of the sport’s power brokers. UEFA described the process as a “shabby, back room, opaque” deal and said the current FIFA leadership had lost its confidence. The objection was not only financial. It was about who knew, who decided and who stood to shape the future of competitions that belong to the whole football ecosystem.
FIFA reversed course after the backlash. Infantino said in a statement, as quoted by The Athletic, that after listening to views it had become clear the project had created divisions that were no longer in the interest of the original objective. That climbdown stopped the deal. It did not stop the revolt.
Why Infantino is vulnerable now
Infantino has survived criticism before. FIFA presidents are used to pressure, politics and uncomfortable alliances. What makes this episode different is the breadth of the response and the timing.
UEFA’s opposition was unusually direct. The European body said it would work with its associations and other confederations on a plan to ensure a similar proposal could not happen again, adding that “no option should be off the table.” That is governance language with political teeth.
The English FA backed UEFA’s position and called for a full review of FIFA’s leadership and governance, according to The Athletic. The Dutch association said there had been a fundamental breach of trust in Infantino’s leadership. Germany’s federation president accused him of acting arbitrarily and irresponsibly in the interests of football.
Reuters reported that Wales withdrew support for Infantino’s re-election, and England was set to follow. In FIFA politics, public withdrawal of support is not a symbolic footnote. It is a signal to other associations that the president’s re-election path may no longer be frictionless.
The governance charge is bigger
The strongest case against Infantino is not simply that he backed a controversial investment plan. Leaders can float ideas, face opposition and retreat. The deeper charge is that the process reflected a culture of speed, opacity and centralized control.
That matters because FIFA is not a normal corporation. It is the governing body of the world’s most popular sport, with 211 member associations and tournaments that carry national, cultural and commercial weight far beyond a balance sheet.
If a private-investment plan for core competitions can advance far enough to spark threats of boycotts before many stakeholders feel properly consulted, critics argue, the problem is structural. The question becomes whether FIFA’s leadership still treats member associations as owners of the game or as obstacles to be managed.
Lise Klaveness, president of Norway’s football association, said the framework of international football cooperation had been put at risk in pursuit of individual interests rather than the best interests of the game, according to The Athletic. Her warning points to the central danger for Infantino: the controversy has become a referendum on trust.
He still has important allies
Calls to remove Infantino do not mean he is finished. FIFA is a global electorate, and Europe does not speak for the entire game. Infantino has built support by promising a wider distribution of money and influence beyond traditional football powers.
That helps explain why some associations have rallied behind him. The Athletic reported that Qatar’s football association said it fully supports the FIFA president, while Morocco’s federation described his decision to withdraw the proposal as wise and stressed unity.
Those responses matter. Qatar hosted the 2022 World Cup, and Morocco is one of the co-hosts of the 2030 men’s World Cup. Associations with major tournament interests may prefer stability to a leadership war, especially if they believe Infantino has delivered resources or attention to regions long overshadowed by Europe.
That is the counterargument critics must face: removing a FIFA president is not just a moral stance. It is a political campaign across confederations with different priorities, histories and incentives.
The election calendar tightens pressure
Infantino, 56, has led FIFA since 2016. His current term expires in 2027, and he is due to stand for re-election in March, according to The Athletic. Challengers must submit candidacies by November 18.
That deadline changes the stakes. If associations want more than a protest, they need a candidate, a platform and a coalition. Saying Infantino should go is easier than organizing 211 member associations around an alternative.
The absence of an obvious challenger may help him. Paris Saint-Germain president Nasser Al-Khelaifi had been mentioned as a possible contender, but his spokesperson said he had no interest in the FIFA role, according to The Athletic.
That leaves critics with a narrow path. They can pressure FIFA into reforms under Infantino, or they can attempt the harder task of replacing him. The first route risks leaving the same power structure intact. The second requires unity that football’s political blocs rarely sustain for long.
What FIFA must answer
The abandoned stake sale is gone, but the central questions remain. Who authorized the plan? How far did talks with investors advance? Which FIFA bodies were fully briefed? What protections would have existed for competitions carrying the World Cup brand?
Those answers matter even if Infantino survives. FIFA cannot rebuild trust by saying the proposal is dead and moving on. The controversy has exposed a credibility gap between the president’s office and major stakeholders who believe they were asked to accept a fait accompli.
The fair view is that FIFA needs money, growth and global ambition. The skeptical view is that those goals are being used to justify decisions made too privately and too quickly. Both can be true at once, which is why the governance fight has landed with such force.
The clean takeaway is this: Infantino’s problem is no longer one failed deal. It is whether the people and organizations FIFA claims to represent believe he can still be trusted to run the game in the open. If they do not, the call to kick him out of FIFA’s front door will keep getting louder.
Leave a Reply