It has been 2½ weeks since The Times of London broke the story that FIFA President Gianni Infantino proposed to spin off the organization's commercial arm and sell a chunk of it to outside investors, led by Josh Kushner, through the creation of the FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE).
It was not well-received. This was true both within FIFA (The chief operating officer and de facto third in command, Kevin Lamour, wrote a stinging statement distancing himself from the plan), among three of the organization's six confederations (UEFA, CONCACAF and the Asian Football Confederation), and among individual member associations. UEFA went so far as to say it would boycott FIFA competitions, starting with the Women's Under 20 World Cup in Poland next month.
Infantino withdrew the proposal on Aug. 1, but by that point Pandora's box had been blown wide open. Now, with FIFA elections scheduled for March 18, his opponents have continued to ratchet up the pressure, hoping to oust him before that date. But there are several factions (including Saudi Arabia) that have yet to speak publicly.
Here's an FAQ looking at some of the questions you may have.
If there are elections in March, why do Infantino's opponents want to try to remove him now? Why don't they rally behind a candidate to stand against him at the ballot box?
First reason: There's plenty of momentum and anti-Infantino sentiment right now. Beyond that, you've heard the saying "a week is a long time in politics," right? Well, that's true in sports politics too. Infantino is a canny operator and there's no guarantee he'd lose in March after he's had time to regroup, campaign and perhaps come up with some sweeteners to garner support.
Also, putting a candidate forward now would give Infantino a target to attack, just as he's under attack. But yeah, if they can't remove him now, they'll find a candidate in time for Nov. 18, the deadline to register as a candidate.
How can they get rid of him now?
He could resign, but that feels unlikely. Infantino has shown himself to be a tough, autocratic leader who doesn't much care what the media or his political opponents say about him. He could also be suspended or banned by the FIFA Ethics Committee. The human rights organization FairSquare filed a complaint about his awarding the FIFA Peace Prize to U.S. President Donald Trump on the basis that it was a political gesture outside the organization's purview, and then the group reported him to the International Olympic Committee (IOC) -- he became a member in 2020 -- for Trump's involvement in this summer's World Cup. But I wouldn't hold my breath. While it is independent, the FIFA Ethics Committee moves at a glacial pace and hasn't even acknowledged receipt of these complaints.
Infantino could face a "vote of no confidence" within FIFA, but that's a rather tortuous process. At least 20% of FIFA members (43 nations) would have to make a formal request for an Extraordinary Congress to hold the vote and from there, it's a simple majority.
I don't think his opponents would have any trouble getting 43 member associations to file the request; the problem is that once it gets filed, the Extraordinary Congress and vote of no confidence are held three months later. So it wouldn't be until November at the earliest and by that point, some FIFA members might pull back and kick the can down the road to the March 2027 elections. If Infantino survives a vote of no confidence, he'll probably win the election in March too.
Why do you say some member associations might do that?
It's one of those things many still don't understand about FIFA politics, and I can't repeat this enough times.
FIFA's membership spans from tiny, impoverished nations that are reliant on the organization's funding to run their football association, to wealthy economic powerhouses that don't need handouts (but gladly take them, for the most part anyway). If you are dependent on FIFA to exist, the last thing you want to do is cross the guy in charge of the organization, whoever it is.
Many FIFA members couldn't care less about whether Kushner acquires a chunk of a new-fangled commercial arm, or that Folarin Balogun's ban was suspended, or that Trump got a FIFA prize. They care about keeping the lights on. They'd rather not be compelled into a vote on Infantino (or anyone else) because, simply put, they want to back the winner. And by the way, that holds true in reverse as well: They don't want to upset the leaders of AFC, UEFA and CONCACAF who are calling for Infantino's head, which means it's easier and smarter for FIFA members to hold off until the March elections.
But if UEFA (55 members), AFC (46) and CONCACAF (35) have 136 votes between their three confederations, isn't that already enough to oust Infantino?
It would be more than enough if everybody voted in their bloc, but not every member of those confederations -- particularly in Asia -- is necessarily aligned with the confederation leadership. In many cases, they get more funding from FIFA than they do from their confederation. So just because, say, UEFA wants Infantino gone doesn't mean every UEFA member will vote in line with UEFA president Aleksander Ceferin when it comes to ousting the sitting FIFA president.
The same applies, by the way, to Africa (where CAF has 54 members) and South America (CONMEBOL has 10), both of which are seen as Infantino strongholds.
So what's happening now? A lot of lobbying?
Exactly. Infantino, of course, is no stranger to jet-setting and he'll want to shore up his base. The opposition is also making its case to voters.
OK, let's role-play. Summarize Infantino's case in a couple of sentences.
"Guys, I just delivered the highest-revenue World Cup in history, I expanded the tournament to 48 nations, I expanded the Women's World Cup, I launched an expanded Club World Cup. In the past decade, I've proven to you that almost all the money that flows into FIFA goes right back out to you, the member associations, so that you can continue spending on developing the sport.
"Don't be fooled by these executives from North America, Europe and Asia: They don't care about you. They won't take care of you the way I have and they simply care about their own interests. I have proved that I know how to grow the game and grow the revenue."
Now summarize the opposition case against him.
"It's hard NOT to make record amounts of money when you expand the World Cup to 104 games and hold it in a market of half a billion people with a track record of paying huge ticket prices. We could have done that too and we will if you give our side a chance.
"And by the way, FIFA will generate revenue with or without Infantino in charge. He's no King Midas: Every single FIFA competition other than the Men's World Cup loses money. His autocratic style and the way he cozies up to world leaders -- despite leading an organization that explicitly prohibits the mixing of politics and sports -- is not transparent. It's divisive and ultimately bad for business, too. This behavior is not good governance. He has to go."
What about this talk of expanding the World Cup to 64 teams? If Infantino gets behind the idea, might it help him keep support?
Possibly, but that could also boomerang badly. A 64-team World Cup would only add 20 matches and you'd have to split the pie 64 ways rather than 48. So it's not guaranteed to be a money-spinner at all.
Plus, in some parts of the world, like South America, it would basically destroy the qualifying tournament, which generates a lot of revenue, especially in Brazil and Argentina. (With only 10 teams and an expanded tournament, their qualifiers would be basically meaningless if their allocation went up from six, which is how many advanced to the 2026 World Cup, plus a seventh going into the inter-continental playoff.) This is why some countries there are against it even though CONMEBOL President Alejandro Dominguez is in favor.
Other than persuasion, what else can Infantino's opponents do to apply pressure?
Sources tell ESPN that there's talk of legal action based on alleged violations of transparency under Swiss law (where FIFA is based) or possibly with the Court of Arbitration for Sport, or even the European Court of Justice. But the exact legal actions available are unclear and, in any event, these courts move slowly.
There's also the "nuclear" option of simply withdrawing from FIFA competitions. That would obviously cripple Infantino financially, but it could also be a PR disaster if that tactic was interpreted as the rich strong-arming the poor.
Showing that Infantino's erratic behavior over the past couple of years has hurt FIFA and convincing member associations that the flow of FIFA funds will continue to grow under a different president is probably their best bet. However, the landscape could change quickly. There are two major players who have, largely, remained silent and both could move the needle sharply one way or the other ...
Like who?
Saudi Arabia, for one. They have spent big on the sport domestically, securing the likes of Cristiano Ronaldo and Karim Benzema for the Saudi Pro League, and they've also backed Infantino and FIFA. Saudi Arabia has pumped $1 billion into DAZN, which promptly bought global rights to the 2025 Men's Club World Cup at a time when legacy broadcasters weren't showing much interest.
And the Saudi sovereign wealth fund, PIF (Public Investment Fund) signed major sponsorship deals with various FIFA competitions, including the Men's World Cup. Some critics argued that this was part of a scheme to curry favor with Infantino and become the sole bidder for the 2034 World Cup. Infantino denies this, but either way, now that they're the confirmed hosts in 2034, do Saudi Arabia still need to back him? Might they be tempted to jettison him in favor of someone else?
Who's the other major player?
The world's biggest clubs, like Manchester United, Real Madrid and others. They don't get to vote in FIFA matters, but they hold a lot of power because realistically, if money is going to be a big driver in the elections, you will need a credible plan for how to grow FIFA's revenues. Remember, the only FIFA competition that reliably makes money is the Men's World Cup, and it's hard to see how 2030 will outperform 2026 with smaller stadiums, fewer wealthy fans and smaller economies and sponsorship opportunities.
So, the biggest potential area of growth -- at least in the short term, until the women's game becomes more profitable -- is the Men's Club World Cup.
FIFA say the inaugural edition made a profit of $126M, but bear in mind that the competition was held in the United States, where it's easier to make money, and that the numbers were juiced by the DAZN deal and PIF sponsorships. FIFA also had to pay out more than half their revenue in guaranteed prize money to get the big European clubs to participate. It's their big brands and fanbases that drive the revenue, and the clubs know this.
We've seen the big clubs flex their muscle within UEFA too, where they persuaded the organization to set up a joint venture, UC3, to market and sell their rights to UEFA competitions like the Champions League. Don't be surprised if they cook up something similar for the Club World Cup, men's and women's.
And how would Infantino and his opponents react to that?
I don't think they'd have much choice; if they want it to grow, they need the clubs on board. They can rally their fanbases around the world, they can get their sponsors to pitch in, they can even pressure member associations. Most fans around the world think about club football much more than they do the national team.
It's reasonable to think both Infantino and his opponents are courting the leading clubs behind the scenes. Other than Real Madrid, those clubs have thus far mostly been silent. But when the time is right, they'll speak up.