Since Gianni Infantino's plan to 'sell the FIFA World Cup' scandal first broke, the Confederation of African Football has been conspicuous by its silence.
When Infantino's extraordinary proposal to place FIFA's most valuable competitions inside a new commercial subsidiary, and sell a 20 percent stake to private investors, provoked an international revolt, UEFA responded rapidly and ferociously; talk of boycott, a loss of confidence, endorsements withdrawn.
CONCACAF also pushed back, while even the Asian Football Confederation, historically one of Infantino's most reliable political constituencies, accused FIFA of failing to consult stakeholders and undermining the principles of solidarity and cooperation upon which international football is supposedly built.
CAF, meanwhile, said almost nothing.
On Thursday, the executive committee will finally discuss a proposal that FIFA has already abandoned. By the time Africa formally considers FFE, the debate has already moved on.
Officially, CAF will 'assess' FFE. In reality, the meeting increasingly resembles a vote of confidence in Infantino, and it's difficult to imagine CAF president Patrice Motsepe leading African football in another direction only two weeks after making his support for the president so intensely personal.
"We took a decision, and I personally support Gianni Infantino," Motsepe said in Johannesburg. "He's not just a good friend. He's a loyal friend. He's loyal to Africa.
"I come from a background where when people have been loyal to you, you never stab them in the back. You never do that."
Those words went far beyond an institutional endorsement. Motsepe transformed support for a FIFA president into a question of honour, friendship and personal loyalty.
For CAF now to condemn Infantino with any real force would not merely represent a policy change; by Motsepe's own framing, it would resemble a betrayal.
He has made something of a rod for his own back, although we'll never know whether his unforced endorsement for Infantino in Johannesburg came because he knew what the next week would bring or -- like Wenger, Grafstrom, Lamour and the rest -- he did not.
The alternative, however, risks alienating African football from much of the rest of the international game, while raising further questions about the motivations, incentives and ethics of the continent's governing body.
Initial African interest towards FFE appeared understandable; FIFA claimed that the project could produce billions in new investment and allow each of its 211 member associations to receive $20 million in development funding between 2027 and 2030.
For federations operating without consistent television contracts, commercial revenue or state support, the promise was transformative.
Amaju Pinnick, the former Nigeria Football Federation president, Comoros federation president Said Ali Said Athouman, and other figures around the African game spoke favourably about its potential.
Yet the vocal support has become harder to find as the reality emerged: limited consultation, a severe deadline, questions about valuation, allegations of bribery from Jordan, withheld monies, and the involvement of outside investors.
It was not only the substance of the proposal that damaged Infantino, it was the handling. Senior FIFA figures distanced themselves. Secretary general Mattias Grafstrom condemned the 'reproachable' episode, adviser Carlos Cordeiro resigned, Arsene Wenger belatedly acknowledged that he had learned of the scheme through the media.
Yet as Infantino's traditional coalition fractured, African support began to consolidate. Morocco's federation issued a statement praising his decision to withdraw FFE and emphasising the progress made through FIFA's development programmes.
Djibouti, Niger, Mauritania and the DR Congo -- now headed by Infantino's university friend Veron Mosengo-Omba -- followed, rallying round the embattled president.
The silence has been broken, but only to defend Infantino.
Egypt's position is particularly striking. Only weeks ago, after their dramatic World Cup elimination by Argentina, coach Hossam Hassan alleged that his team had been cheated and that officials may have been influenced by the desire to keep Argentina in the competition.
Egyptian officials demanded action from FIFA. Now the federation is praising Infantino for his 'approach based on dialogue, consultation and respect for diverse viewpoints'.
One question that should confront African football is therefore not simply whether Infantino has been 'loyal to Africa', but what that phrase actually means.
Infantino has increased FIFA development payments, expanded the World Cup to provide Africa with more places, and consistently presented himself as a counterweight to European dominance.
His supporters can portray UEFA's revolt as the reaction of wealthy associations determined to protect their control over football's money and institutions.
It echoes the sentiment he exploited in his divisive speech on the eve of the Qatar World Cup: "For what we Europeans have been doing around the world in the last 3,000 years, we should be apologising for the next 3,000 years before starting to give moral lessons to people."
While the 'western world' recoiled, the sentiment generated support across the global south. In that narrative, Infantino is not the oppressor, he is Africa's defender against an old hierarchy.
Another interpretation is that 'loyalty to Africa' has increasingly become loyalty to administrators who control Africa's votes, rather than its players, coaches, clubs and supporters.
The evidence around the African game should trouble those preparing to offer unconditional support.
Was Infantino 'loyal to Africa' when Somali referee Omar Artan was barred from competing at the World Cup? When Senegalese, Ivorian supporters were refused visas?
A World Cup expansion - including more places for Africa - has been highlighted as an example of Infantino's loyalty, but it also helps give FIFA more tournament inventory to sell, and greater revenue generation to show off to potential investors.
The introduction of the Club World Cup in summer 2025 forced a rescheduling of the Africa Cup of Nations to December-January. This re-opened long-standing club-vs-country rows, concretising one argument then used by FIFA and CAF to reduce the AFCON from every two years to every four years.
The announcement of the decision -- alongside a vaguely defined African Nations League -- with Motsepe sat alongside FIFA's Grafstrom, was muddled, the communication vague, the practical details unresolved.
Here was a dependent CAF. Not the autonomous, defiant entity of Issa Hayatou, but an organisation diminishing its own flagship competition at FIFA's behest.
The prize money has been increased, but we are currently watching a Women's Africa Cup of Nations whose preparation was marked by postponement, uncertainty, weak promotion, late/inaccurate broadcast announcements and swathes of empty seats.
Bigger prize pots cannot be a smokescreen for poor governance, organisation, logistics. The African Football League, launched with enormous rhetoric as the continent's answer to its club-football funding crisis, remains uncertain, potentially discontinued.
CHAN, the tournament created specifically for footballers based in domestic African leagues, has been scrapped because Motsepe described it as a financial drain.
These are precisely the less profitable parts of the African structure that should provoke concern about FIFA's march towards private capital.
Would distant American investors genuinely be motivated by the future of Gambian grassroots football, Eritrean youth development or the women's game in Malawi?
How could capital-seeking private equity be expected to support decisions that would divert money to Seychelles or Eswatini? Is it sustainable that the revenue generated at the pinnacle of the game is disproportionately invested in the areas of the world less likely to bring about a return on that investment?
FFE promised a short-term financial injection, but it did not explain how that money would create sustainable domestic leagues, better governance, independent commercial capacity or locally rooted football ecosystems.
African football does not merely need more pitches announced, but not delivered. It does not merely need bigger grants. It needs transparent accounts showing where those grants went.
FIFA has increased funding, but accountability has not kept pace.
The Guardian reported that only around one fifth of FIFA associations have produced sufficiently detailed financial reporting, while over 60 percent of African federations have faced investigations, audits, charges or at least reported governance controversies over the past decade.
Allegation is not guilt, and the cases vary enormously in severity, but the pattern makes the assumption that increased distributions automatically create development impossible to defend.
Without accountability, without sustainable development, long-term roadmaps, the promised trickle-down may stop at the president's office.
CAF's dependence on Morocco adds another political dimension, that may yet splinter the African support for the FIFA President.
Infantino's emergency retreat on Wednesday took place in Rabat, where FIFA maintains its African regional headquarters and where the personal and political ties between Infantino, Moroccan federation president Fouzi Lekjaa and Motsepe have become increasingly consequential.
Morocco is now simultaneously a host, political broker, and administrative centre of African football. Its investment has benefited the continent, but the concentration of influence makes genuine institutional independence harder to identify.
If Infantino's support in Europe, North America and parts of Asia continues to collapse, CAF's votes could preserve his presidency or determine the identity of his successor. That gives African administrators extraordinary leverage.
Will they demand independent oversight of FIFA development funding, guarantees for women's football, youth competitions, smaller associations and domestic leagues, meaningful consultation before FIFA's commercial assets are again offered to private capital?
Or will they simply reward a 'loyal' friend?