FIFPRO called it a "profound abuse of presidential power." Croatia pulled their backing. England and Albania did the same. And yet Gianni Infantino still has Mexico, Argentina, and most of Africa in his corner. The FIFA presidency isn't collapsing — but it's no longer a sure thing either.
The crisis stems from a now-abandoned proposal to sell off commercial rights to the World Cup, which triggered a rare, multi-confederation revolt. CONCACAF called for a "comprehensive reckoning" with Infantino's leadership. UEFA went further, committing to a boycott of FIFA competitions. Asia's confederation stood in solidarity with both.
The split running through world football
What makes this genuinely messy is that the rebellion isn't clean. Mexico, who co-hosted the recently concluded World Cup, broke ranks with their own CONCACAF confederation to back Infantino publicly. The Mexican Football Federation made clear they won't recognise any process to remove him that falls outside a full vote of all 211 FIFA members. That's not a minor asterisk — that's a direct rebuke of the confederation running their own region.
Argentina's AFA took a similar line. Their letter to Infantino acknowledged errors had been made around the proposal but framed the path forward as continued cooperation under FIFA leadership ahead of March's Congress. Diplomatic, careful, and ultimately a yes vote.
South America's CONMEBOL were more pointed — warning against "repeated unilateral actions taken without resorting to dialogue" — but stopped well short of calling for Infantino's head. Africa's CAF backed him unanimously.
So the map looks something like this: Europe and Asia pushing back hard, South America divided but not insurgent, Africa and key individual nations holding firm. Infantino's March reelection bid, which looked ceremonial two months ago, now carries genuine uncertainty.
No challenger, no clean resolution
The problem for anyone hoping this ends with a new FIFA president: no credible candidate has emerged to run against Infantino. That matters enormously. Institutional anger without an alternative tends to dissipate. UEFA's boycott threat is the sharpest weapon available, but a World Cup without European nations is a financial catastrophe nobody actually wants.
FIFA has apologised for the process failures around the commercial rights proposal and pledged a review. Whether that's enough to satisfy the confederations demanding accountability — or just enough to run out the clock to March — is the question that will define the next seven months of football politics.
FIFPRO's language was the starkest of all: not a governance failure, but an abuse of presidential power. That framing doesn't go away with an apology.
