Gianni Infantino’s attempt to secure another term as FIFA president has become a widening dispute over governance, after a proposed sale of World Cup stakes to private investors was abandoned. Multiple outlets reported that a number of European associations have withdrawn or withheld their backing, while Mexico, Argentina and the Confederation of African Football (CAF) have publicly supported the incumbent.
The divide follows anger over the level of consultation around the proposed World Cup arrangement. UEFA has maintained its threat to boycott FIFA competitions, arguing that ending the proposal alone does not settle concerns about decision-making at world football’s governing body. FIFPro has also criticised Infantino’s conduct, increasing the pressure beyond confederations and national associations.
European withdrawals gather momentum
Finland was reported to have been the first association to formally reverse its previous position. England, Wales, Serbia, Sweden, Croatia, Albania and Greece have since been identified among the associations that have sent FIFA notice that they no longer back Infantino’s 2027 re-election bid.
Those decisions are not all framed in identical terms, but the common theme is a loss of confidence following the attempted commercial deal. Wales cited broader concerns spanning leadership, procedure and stakeholder relations. Sweden’s position followed a review of FIFA’s direction and management, while Croatia linked its reassessment to developments around the 2026 World Cup and subsequent internal discussions.
England’s Football Association reportedly remained unconvinced by an apology circulated by Infantino. Its concerns centre on the absence of an acceptable process and governance framework for a proposal with potentially major consequences for football’s flagship tournament.
That distinction matters. The issue is no longer simply disagreement over one transaction. For several associations, the withdrawn endorsements signal that the process has become a test of whether FIFA’s president can retain institutional trust before the next election.
Opposition extends beyond formal letters
Not every body opposed to Infantino began from the same position. Germany and Denmark had not provided endorsements for a new term before the World Cup proposal emerged, so neither had support to withdraw. Both nevertheless sit within the wider bloc questioning his leadership.
Norway has gone further politically, even if a formal withdrawal letter was not confirmed in the reporting. Its federation president, Lise Klaveness, called for Infantino to resign, while the Dutch federation said it no longer had confidence in his leadership. Romania has paused discussion of support pending further clarification after rejecting the proposed sale.
Jordan is the only non-UEFA national association reported as publicly opposing Infantino so far. Its federation president, Prince Ali bin Hussein, made serious allegations against FIFA; those claims were reported as allegations rather than independently established findings.
At confederation level, the resistance is wider than Europe. Concacaf rejected the proposal and criticised what it regarded as unilateral conduct. The Asian Football Confederation also objected to the lack of consultation and called for an urgent governance review. Concacaf president Victor Montagliani has been discussed in reports as a possible challenger, though no candidacy was confirmed in the material available.
Mexico, Argentina and CAF provide a counterweight
The emerging challenge has not produced a united global front. Reports on Wednesday indicated that Mexico and Argentina had joined CAF in reaffirming their support for Infantino. Their backing is significant because it shows that the controversy has not automatically shifted every major football constituency away from the FIFA president.
The split also exposes a difference between public confidence and formal election arithmetic. European opposition has substantial symbolic force, particularly when it includes UEFA and several prominent national associations. But FIFA’s presidency is decided through its global membership, not through European approval alone. Support from CAF, alongside endorsements from Mexico and Argentina, offers Infantino an important counterweight as the dispute moves from criticism into coalition-building.
There are also varying levels of commitment across the map. Some associations have formally rescinded earlier endorsements. Others never endorsed him, have suspended consideration of support, or have made political statements without confirming a procedural step. Treating all of those positions as identical would overstate the immediate electoral impact.
A governance argument now shapes the campaign
The abandoned World Cup plan may have removed the immediate trigger, but it has not resolved the wider confrontation. UEFA’s continued boycott position indicates that opponents want safeguards against a repeat of such proposals, rather than only a reversal of this particular initiative.
For Infantino, the task is therefore larger than retaining declared supporters. He must address complaints about consultation and accountability sufficiently to prevent further undecided or previously neutral associations from moving into the opposition column. For critics, converting expressions of concern into a coherent alternative will be equally important.
With national associations, confederations and player representatives now taking distinct positions, the FIFA presidential contest is increasingly defined by competing views of how world football should be governed. The next developments will depend not just on fresh endorsements, but on whether either side can turn public statements into a durable international alliance.