Why women’s football is first casualty of Fifa plans
European football’s 55 member associations have voted to boycott all Fifa competitions unless president Gianni Infantino abandons plans to allow private investors to buy minority stakes in a new commercial subsidiary running major tournaments. Former England defender Anita Asante and former FA women’s football director Baroness Sue Campbell warn that women’s competitions could be affected first, potentially disrupting international opportunities for players and qualification schedules.
The boycott’s first test is the Under-20 Women’s World Cup in Poland, due to begin on 5 September, although the Polish FA says it has received no withdrawal notices. England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales have Women’s World Cup qualifiers in October, while an Under-17 Women’s World Cup is planned in Morocco that month; Concacaf has rejected the proposal and the AFC has expressed solidarity with European and Concacaf counterparts. Fifa says it is not “selling football” and argues that reporting has disrupted consultation, while a senior adviser to Infantino resigned, calling the proposal harmful to football’s future.
- Uefa’s boycott could first disrupt women’s international tournaments.
- September’s Under-20 Women’s World Cup is the immediate test.
- Fifa insists private investment would remain minority and non-controlling.
New here? Start with this
Fifa is the governing body for international football and organises tournaments such as the Women’s World Cup. Its president, Gianni Infantino, has proposed setting up a commercial subsidiary to run major competitions, with private investors allowed to buy minority stakes.
Europe’s 55 national football associations represent countries including England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Their threat to boycott Fifa competitions comes amid disagreement over the proposal; associations elsewhere have also raised concerns, while Fifa says it is consulting on the plans.
Women’s competitions may be especially exposed because they offer players international opportunities and help determine qualification for major tournaments. A boycott could therefore affect both players’ schedules and the route teams take to qualify.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of the boycott argue that allowing private investors into a company controlling major tournaments could give commercial interests too much influence over football’s future. A united refusal to take part may be the strongest way for associations to demand transparency and safeguards, even if women’s competitions face disruption first.
The case against
Opponents of the boycott argue that withdrawing from competitions risks harming players who have little say in the dispute, particularly women whose international opportunities and qualification schedules may be more vulnerable. They may see continued participation and consultation as a better way to challenge the proposal while protecting tournaments and players’ development.