Blog

Gianni Infantino’s plan to privatise Fifa’s competitions has suffered a decisive setback after Uefa confirmed it will boycott the World Cup and all other Fifa tournaments if the proposals are approved at the vote on 19 September. The move follows a wave of opposition from football’s governing bodies, with the Asian Football Confederation joining Uefa and Concacaf in publicly rejecting the scheme, while Fifa’s own leadership faces internal rebellion.

Uefa’s ultimatum and the unravelling of Infantino’s support

Uefa’s executive committee convened on Thursday and issued a formal resolution: if Infantino’s plan to establish Fifa Forward Enterprise and transfer ownership stakes in the World Cup and other tournaments to external investors is ratified, European football’s governing body will withdraw from all Fifa competitions. The ultimatum marks a dramatic escalation in the standoff, with Uefa president Aleksander Čeferin declaring that the proposals “undermine the integrity of football” and risk turning Fifa into a commercial entity rather than a sporting one.

The Czech Football Association became the latest European federation to abandon its initial backing for Infantino’s plan. David Trunda, the Czech FA president, had been the sole European leader to publicly endorse the privatisation scheme, but after an emergency meeting of his executive, he reversed his position. Trunda’s U-turn leaves Infantino without a single European ally among national associations, while the Asian Football Confederation has now joined Uefa and Concacaf in rejecting the proposals outright. The AFC’s statement on Friday accused Infantino of “degrading the principles of fair governance” and warned that confidence in Fifa’s leadership has been “undermined.”

Internal fractures deepen as Infantino’s advisers defect

The pressure on Infantino is not confined to external federations. Carlos Cordeiro, his long-serving adviser and a senior figure within Fifa, resigned in protest over the privatisation plan, describing it as a “fundamental departure from Fifa’s mission.” The move follows criticism from Fifa’s chief operating officer, who accused Infantino of “deceiving” staff about the scale and implications of the proposals. With the consultation period still ongoing, the defection of a trusted insider underscores the depth of dissent within Fifa’s ranks.

Donald Trump’s intervention has added another layer of political intrigue. Speaking to reporters on Friday, the former US president denied any involvement in the affair, stating he had not spoken to Infantino about the sell-off plans despite their well-documented relationship. The claim is notable given that Josh Kushner, brother of Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, is expected to lead the investor group bidding for stakes in Fifa’s competitions. Trump’s denial suggests the proposal has become a liability even among its supposed political allies.

The vote looms, but Infantino’s path to victory narrows

Fifa has attempted to downplay the crisis, insisting in a statement that “nobody is selling football” and vowing to proceed with its consultation process ahead of the 19 September vote. Yet the growing coalition of opposition—spanning Uefa, Concacaf, the AFC, and now the Czech FA—has made it increasingly unlikely that Infantino will secure the necessary support. The boycott threat from Uefa alone would devastate the commercial and sporting value of the World Cup, while the defection of key advisers and the erosion of trust within Fifa’s own ranks further weaken his position.

The question now is whether Infantino will withdraw the proposals before the vote or attempt to salvage them through last-minute concessions. With Čeferin and other federation leaders refusing to engage in further dialogue until the privatisation plan is scrapped, the Fifa president faces a stark choice: back down or risk presiding over a fractured organisation that has lost the confidence of its members.

What comes next hinges on whether Infantino recognises the scale of the rebellion. The boycott threat from Uefa is not an empty warning; European football generates the vast majority of Fifa’s revenue, and without it, the World Cup would lose its global prestige. Infantino’s advisers have already deserted him, federations have turned against him, and even political allies are distancing themselves. The 19 September vote may yet be postponed or abandoned, but the damage to Infantino’s authority is already done. Football’s governing body now stands at a crossroads—one where the choice is between reform and irrelevance.

Gianni Infantino’s grip on the Fifa presidency is fraying as regional football’s governing bodies unite in opposition to his plan to sell stakes in the World Cup to private investors. The proposal, branded the Fifa Forward Enterprise (FFE), has triggered a backlash so intense that Uefa’s 55 member associations have vowed to boycott Fifa tournaments—including the next World Cup—until the scheme is scrapped. Football Supporters Europe amplified the revolt with a social media campaign under the hashtag #InfantinOUT, while Concacaf and the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) joined the chorus of dissent, demanding an “urgent review of its governance” at Fifa. With the next presidential election just two years away, the pressure is reaching a breaking point.

Why Infantino’s World Cup sell-off has become a red line

The FFE plan would allow private investors to purchase minority stakes in future World Cups, a move Infantino insists does not amount to “selling football.” Yet the proposal has exposed deep fractures in Fifa’s leadership. Uefa’s member associations have gone further than mere criticism: they have pledged to withhold participation in all Fifa competitions until the plan is withdrawn, a stance that escalates into a full boycott of the next World Cup if necessary. The AFC’s call for an “urgent review of its governance” underscores the breadth of the revolt, spanning Europe, North America, and Asia.

Infantino’s response—claiming the consultation process was “disrupted by incorrect media reports”—has done little to quell the unrest. The tactic echoes the defensive posture of political figures facing scrutiny, further alienating allies who once tolerated his leadership. With Uefa’s president Alexander Ceferin, a long-standing critic, now considering a third term to counter Infantino, the stage is set for a high-stakes confrontation within football’s corridors of power.

Six names in the frame to challenge Infantino

The list of potential challengers is growing, but only a handful possess the credibility and institutional backing to mount a serious bid. Alexander Ceferin tops the list, despite his initial reluctance to seek re-election. The Slovenian lawyer, who has led Uefa since 2016, had ruled out a third term but is now open to standing if no alternative emerges. His absence from the World Cup 2026 final—after Uefa condemned what it called a “red line” breach involving Folarin Balogun’s red card suspension—has burnished his reputation as a principled opponent of Infantino’s methods.

Nasser Al-Khelaifi, president of Paris Saint-Germain, is another figure under consideration, though his candidacy remains speculative. As a high-profile club owner with influence across European football, Al-Khelaifi could leverage his network to rally support. Other names circulating include former Fifa council members and regional leaders, though none have yet declared their intentions. The absence of a clear frontrunner reflects the fractured nature of the opposition, where personal ambition must now compete with the urgency of halting Infantino’s agenda.

The tactical dilemma: unity or fragmentation?

The opposition’s strength lies in its breadth, but its weakness is fragmentation. Uefa’s threat to boycott tournaments is a powerful lever, yet it risks isolating the European bloc if other regions hesitate to follow suit. The AFC’s demand for governance reform signals broader discontent, but without coordinated action, Infantino may weather the storm by exploiting divisions. Ceferin’s potential candidacy could unify Europe, but his reluctance to lead the charge complicates matters. Meanwhile, Infantino’s refusal to back down suggests he views the rebellion as a temporary hurdle rather than an existential threat.

For the challengers, the path forward is narrow. They must either present a united front under a single candidate or risk splitting the vote, handing Infantino a second term by default. The clock is ticking: with the election looming in March 2027, the opposition has less than two years to mobilise, organise, and overcome the inertia of Fifa’s entrenched power structures.

The coming months will determine whether Infantino’s presidency collapses under the weight of its own missteps or whether football’s governing elite will accept the FFE plan as an irreversible cost of doing business. One thing is certain: the era of unchecked authority at Fifa is over. The question now is who will seize the moment—and whether they can unite a movement that has, until now, been defined by resistance rather than resolve.

Gianni Infantino’s push to reshape football’s financial landscape suffered another setback on Friday after Carlos Cordeiro, a senior adviser to the Fifa president and former U.S. Soccer president, resigned in protest at the governing body’s plans to sell minority stakes in competitions to private investors. The move came hours after the Asian Football Confederation became the third confederation to publicly oppose the proposals, joining Uefa and Concacaf in a rare show of unity that now threatens to derail Infantino’s initiative before it reaches a vote.

Why the Asian confederation’s stance matters

The AFC’s statement, released on Thursday, declared the confederation “stands in solidarity” with Uefa and Concacaf in opposing the Fifa president’s plan. The wording was deliberate: it signalled that Asia, home to 46 of Fifa’s 211 member associations, would not break ranks with the two blocs whose combined 90 votes already dwarf the 106 required for approval. Should all member associations follow their confederation’s line, the proposal would face defeat by a margin of at least 136 votes to 75, based on the voting weights of the three opposing confederations.

The AFC’s intervention also exposed what it called “fundamental weaknesses” in Fifa’s consultation process, arguing that the governing body had once again set the “direction of travel” for a major initiative without meaningful input from stakeholders. The criticism echoed concerns raised by Uefa, which has accused Infantino of bypassing established governance structures. With the Fifa Council itself reportedly sidelined—its members reportedly informed of the proposals only after key decisions were made—the episode underscores a growing perception that the Zurich-based body is prioritising top-down reforms over collective decision-making. The AFC’s statement explicitly criticised Fifa for leaving “confederations, member associations and even Fifa’s own governing bodies… feeling sidelined,” a charge that resonates across football’s governance landscape.

What Cordeiro’s resignation signals

Cordeiro, a former U.S. Soccer president and long-time Infantino ally whose advisory role included overseeing Fifa’s reform projects, quit hours after the AFC’s statement, calling the proposals “a bad deal for football” that would “mortgage football’s future.” His departure is the most visible crack in Infantino’s inner circle since the controversy erupted, and it raises questions about the sustainability of the president’s strategy. Cordeiro’s role as a senior adviser gave his opposition particular weight, suggesting that dissent within Fifa’s ranks is spreading beyond the usual institutional critics. His resignation also carries symbolic weight given his history with Infantino; the two worked closely during Cordeiro’s tenure as U.S. Soccer president, when Infantino served as Fifa general secretary.

The timing of his exit—amid a coordinated pushback from three confederations—also hints at a broader realignment within world football’s power structures. Uefa’s 55 votes, Concacaf’s 35, and the AFC’s 46 now form a bloc large enough to block the plan outright. Infantino has previously indicated that a straight majority of 106 votes would suffice, but the arithmetic now suggests that threshold is unattainable without a dramatic shift in allegiances. The opposition bloc’s combined voting power represents 64% of Fifa’s total membership, leaving Infantino with little room for manoeuvre unless he can secure defections from smaller confederations or individual member associations.

The road ahead for Fifa’s reform agenda

Fifa has insisted that “nobody is selling football,” framing the proposals as a means to unlock new revenue streams for the global game while maintaining control of competitions. Yet the backlash has centred on the lack of transparency and the perceived risk to the World Cup’s universal character. The AFC’s statement was unequivocal: “The Fifa World Cup derives its strength from the participation of all confederations and the world’s leading football nations. Any proposal that risks undermining that unity must be reconsidered.” The criticism reflects broader concerns that Infantino’s plans could erode the principle of shared governance, a cornerstone of Fifa’s structure since the 2016 reforms.

For Infantino, the immediate challenge is to salvage momentum without alienating the confederations whose support he needs. The next step will likely involve a revised consultation process, though the damage to trust may already be done. The episode also raises longer-term questions about the balance of power within Fifa, where the traditional dominance of Europe and South America is being challenged by a more assertive Asia and North America. The AFC’s statement explicitly warned that any proposal “must be reconsidered,” a phrasing that leaves little room for cosmetic adjustments.

If the proposals do reach a vote, the outcome now looks increasingly binary: either Infantino secures a compromise that addresses the confederations’ concerns—such as limiting the scope of private investment or granting greater oversight to member associations—or the plan collapses under the weight of opposition. Either way, the episode has exposed the limits of top-down reform in a sport where unity is both a principle and a political necessity.

What comes next will hinge on whether Fifa can rebuild trust—or whether the confederations, emboldened by their show of strength, will demand a more fundamental rethink of how the game is governed. The coming weeks will determine whether Infantino’s vision survives in any recognisable form, or whether the backlash forces a retreat to the negotiating table on terms set by football’s traditional power blocs.

Charley Hull’s Women’s Open campaign at Royal Lytham and St Annes has been reignited by a decisive birdie at the par-five sixth, a moment that shifted the momentum in her favour during a pivotal second round. The English golfer struck a 7-iron to within six feet of the hole at the sixth, a hole where birdie opportunities are rare on a course that demands precision over power. That conversion, coming immediately after a bogey at the fifth, steadied her rhythm and reminded the field that she remains a genuine contender in the title race. Hull described the putt as “lucky,” a modest assessment that underplays its significance—it was the spark that turned a flat start into a competitive round of 69, a score that kept her within striking distance of the leaders.

A single stroke changes the narrative

The turnaround at the sixth was not just tactical but psychological. Before that moment, Hull had bogeyed the par-four fifth, a setback that could have derailed her round entirely. Instead, the birdie at the par-five restored her confidence and set up a finish of 69, leaving her five strokes behind overnight leader Lilia Vu, a deficit that is eminently bridgeable in women’s golf where leaderboards fluctuate with every round. The sixth hole at Royal Lytham is a deceptive stretch of the course, a par-five that tempts aggression but punishes misjudgement with its bunkered approach and undulating greens. Hull’s ability to navigate its risks with a birdie demonstrated the kind of precision that separates contenders from the chasing pack, while her recovery from the bogey at the fifth underscored the mental resilience required at championship level.

Hull’s round of 69 was built on a foundation of controlled aggression, with three birdies—including the pivotal sixth—and just two bogeys. Her approach play was particularly telling: she hit 12 of 14 greens in regulation, a figure that would have been higher had she not been forced to lay up on the par-five 13th. The English golfer’s ability to grind out a score when her ball-striking wasn’t at its peak suggests she is peaking at the right time, a crucial trait in a major championship where consistency is king.

Why the sixth hole matters

Royal Lytham’s sixth is a hole that rewards patience and punishes haste. The 529-yard par-five doglegs left around a cluster of pot bunkers, with the green protected by a front bunker that demands an exacting lay-up or a bold second shot over the trouble. Hull’s decision to go for the green with a 7-iron was a calculated risk, one that paid off when her ball landed softly on the dancefloor and rolled to within six feet. That birdie was not just a scoring stroke; it was a statement of intent, a reminder that Hull possesses the shot-making ability to compete with the best when conditions turn against her.

The psychological impact of the sixth cannot be overstated. Coming on the heels of a bogey, the birdie shifted the narrative from one of frustration to one of opportunity. It allowed Hull to play the final 13 holes with renewed belief, a mindset that translated into steady pars and a crucial birdie at the 15th. That resilience is what separates good players from major contenders, and Hull’s performance at the sixth suggests she is ready to capitalise when others falter.

What comes next

With the second round concluded, Hull will now turn her attention to the final two days, where consistency—not just flashes of brilliance—will determine her fate. The challenge ahead is clear: avoid costly mistakes while maintaining the aggression that produced the sixth-hole birdie. If she can replicate that focus, the title remains within reach, particularly with the AIG Women’s Open still wide open after a testing opening round.

For now, Hull’s “lucky” putt has done more than just salvage a round; it has reminded the field that her challenge is far from over. The Women’s Open is entering its most intense phase, and the English golfer has just issued a timely reminder of her ambitions. With the cut line likely to be around level par, Hull’s 69 keeps her firmly in contention, and her revival at the sixth signals that she is ready to pounce when the moment arrives.