Dissident officials are exploring an emergency meeting that could trigger a confidence vote, deepening the crisis created by the collapse of the president’s controversial World Cup investment plan
Gianni Infantino is confronting the most serious internal challenge of his decade-long FIFA presidency as members of the organisation’s governing council seek support for an extraordinary meeting that could develop into an attempt to remove him from office.
The rebellion follows the collapse of Infantino’s proposal to place FIFA’s most valuable commercial assets—including rights connected to the men’s and women’s World Cups—inside a new company valued at approximately $20 billion. The plan envisaged raising about $4.2 billion by selling a 20 percent stake to private investors, but it was abandoned on July 31 after fierce opposition from football confederations and national associations.
According to people familiar with the discussions, dissident FIFA Council members are attempting to secure the 19 votes required to convene an extraordinary council meeting. The 37-member body is FIFA’s principal strategic and supervisory authority between meetings of the full Congress.
Such a gathering would not automatically end Infantino’s presidency. It could, however, provide a formal platform for council members to demand an independent investigation, challenge his authority or begin organising a wider vote of no confidence.
A separate route would require at least 43 of FIFA’s 211 national associations—20 percent of the membership—to request an extraordinary Congress. That meeting could then become the setting for a direct challenge to Infantino’s leadership.
The immediate dispute concerns more than the financial terms of the abandoned venture. Opponents say the proposal was developed without sufficient consultation and could have transferred a share of football’s future income and decision-making influence to private investors.
UEFA has publicly withdrawn its confidence in Infantino’s leadership, accusing FIFA of opaque governance and demanding greater accountability. Concacaf has called for a comprehensive reckoning, while the Asian Football Confederation also opposed the investment project before it was withdrawn.
The scale of the resistance is politically significant. Infantino has historically maintained power by combining support from smaller national associations with strong relationships across Africa, Asia, the Middle East and the Americas. A coordinated challenge involving Europe, North and Central America and influential Asian representatives would threaten that coalition.
His opponents have not yet demonstrated that they possess enough votes to remove him. The Confederation of African Football, South American governing body Conmebol and the Qatar Football Association are reported to remain supportive, making the position of undecided Asian council members particularly important.
The crisis has also spread into FIFA’s senior management. Carlos Cordeiro, a close adviser to Infantino and former president of the United States Soccer Federation, resigned in protest, describing the proposed stake sale as damaging to football’s long-term interests.
FIFA chief operating officer Kevin Lamour separately said employees had been misled about the initiative and described it as a project driven personally by Infantino rather than through a transparent institutional process. His intervention exposed an unusual level of open dissent inside an organisation whose senior leadership has generally presented a united public front.
Critics questioned why FIFA needed outside investment when it possessed substantial financial reserves and expected billions of dollars in revenue from an expanding calendar of international competitions. They also feared that selling part of the World Cup’s future earnings would limit the funds available to national associations and football-development programmes.
Infantino’s supporters argue that the proposal was intended to increase the commercial value of FIFA competitions and generate additional money for the global game. They maintain that the decision to abandon it demonstrated his willingness to respond to member concerns rather than evidence of unaccountable leadership.
That defence has done little to calm the dispute. For opponents, the plan forms part of a broader pattern in which major strategic initiatives have been introduced from the top with limited consultation. Earlier proposals involving external investment and a biennial World Cup also encountered substantial resistance and were ultimately abandoned.
Questions have additionally been raised about FIFA’s political neutrality and Infantino’s close relationships with powerful heads of government. The Norwegian Football Association has reportedly sought an independent review and complained to the International Olympic Committee over concerns that FIFA’s conduct may have crossed the boundary between sporting administration and political influence.
The timing of the revolt is especially dangerous for Infantino. Candidates for the next FIFA presidential election must receive the required nominations by November 18, creating a limited window for opposition groups to identify and unite behind a challenger.
Infantino is believed to have collected written endorsements from more than 200 national associations, but those declarations are not irrevocable. A sustained governance crisis—or a formal council revolt—could persuade some federations to withdraw their support before the nomination deadline.
Several possible candidates are already being discussed within international football, although none has formally launched a campaign. Any credible challenger would need to build support beyond Europe and present the contest as a global governance issue rather than a renewed struggle between FIFA and UEFA.
Concacaf president Victor Montagliani is among the figures whose name has surfaced in speculation, alongside senior officials from Europe and FIFA’s central administration. The success of any candidacy would depend on forming an alliance capable of attracting federations that have benefited financially from Infantino’s expansion of FIFA development payments.
Since taking office in 2016 after the corruption scandal that ended Sepp Blatter’s presidency, Infantino has overseen a major expansion of FIFA’s competitions and revenues. The men’s World Cup has grown from 32 to 48 teams, the Club World Cup has been enlarged and national associations have received increased development funding.
Those policies have helped him maintain broad support, particularly among smaller football nations that possess the same vote as the sport’s largest powers at a FIFA Congress.
The current rebellion will test whether that financial and political network remains intact. Council members may hesitate to initiate a confrontation unless they are confident that dissatisfaction extends far beyond Europe and its traditional allies.
Infantino could also seek to contain the crisis by commissioning an independent review, replacing senior advisers or offering council members greater oversight of major commercial decisions. Such concessions might preserve his presidency while weakening his freedom to govern FIFA through a highly centralised leadership structure.
The alternative is an escalating confrontation that could dominate world football after the 2026 World Cup. A council meeting, an extraordinary Congress or the emergence of a credible election opponent would turn internal criticism into a direct battle over control of the organisation.
For the moment, Infantino remains in office and retains significant institutional support. Yet the abandonment of the investment plan has not ended the controversy that surrounded it.
Instead, it has transformed a dispute over the commercial future of the World Cup into a more fundamental question: whether FIFA’s members still trust Gianni Infantino to lead them.
