What can halt Fifa’s authoritarian turn under Infantino? Change from the outside | Jules Boykoff
Fifa's president, Gianni Infantino, has proposed privatising the World Cup with $20bn in private capital from JP Morgan and Thrive Capital, a move the article argues exemplifies an increasingly authoritarian style of leadership that mirrors tactics used by Donald Trump, including rewarding loyal football associations and sidelining dissenters. The piece contends that this matters because Fifa, nominally a democratic body serving "the people's game", is instead concentrating power, avoiding scrutiny and stifling internal consultation, raising the prospect that only external oversight from governments and NGOs can check its direction.
The article cites Infantino's role in awarding Trump a Fifa peace prize and reversing a red card against a US player as evidence of a broader pattern of favouritism, and notes that many within Fifa learned of the privatisation plan through the media rather than proper consultation. Although Fifa's statutes cap presidents at three terms, Infantino, first elected in 2016, has signalled he could seek re-election in 2027. Regional bodies including Uefa, the AFC and Concacaf have publicly criticised him, with Europe threatening a boycott, yet Mexico, Qatar, several Asian associations and the 54-member Confederation of African Football have voiced support, leaving him needing just 106 votes to survive a re-election bid next March.
- Infantino proposed a $20bn privatisation of the World Cup with JP Morgan and Thrive Capital
- Critics say Fifa under Infantino has become increasingly authoritarian and unaccountable
- Despite rebukes from Uefa, AFC and Concacaf, Infantino remains re-election frontrunner
New here? Start with this
Fifa is football's global governing body, responsible for organising the World Cup and overseeing the sport worldwide. It is led by president Gianni Infantino, in post since 2016, who has proposed selling a private stake in the World Cup worth $20bn to investors including JP Morgan and Thrive Capital. Fifa's own rules say a president can serve only three terms, but Infantino has indicated he may seek re-election when his current term ends in 2027.
Fifa is made up of national and regional football associations from around the world, grouped into bodies such as Uefa (Europe), the AFC (Asia) and Concacaf (North and Central America and the Caribbean), each of which gets a vote on major decisions and leadership elections. Some of these regional bodies have criticised Infantino's approach, including the prospect of a boycott by European associations, while others, including football associations in Mexico, Qatar and parts of Asia and Africa, have backed him.
This matters because Fifa presents itself as a democratic organisation acting in the interests of football fans and players everywhere, so how decisions like the World Cup privatisation plan are made, and how much say member associations have in them, affects the sport's governance far beyond any one tournament.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Those sympathetic to Infantino's approach would argue that Fifa is a sprawling, 211-member organisation that has historically been prone to paralysis, and that decisive, centralised leadership is needed to secure the investment and global partnerships football requires to grow. On this view, bringing in $20bn of private capital from major financial institutions is a pragmatic way to fund the World Cup and grassroots development without over-relying on member subscriptions, and cultivating strong relationships with powerful figures, including political leaders, is simply sensible diplomacy that helps secure hosting logistics, security cooperation and commercial backing. The broad support Infantino retains across Africa, Asia, Qatar and Mexico suggests many member associations see tangible benefits from his leadership and do not share the view that it is illegitimate or authoritarian.
The case against
Critics would argue that Fifa's own statutes commit it to democratic, transparent governance, and that major decisions such as privatising the World Cup should not be announced to member associations via the media rather than through proper consultation. They would see the pattern of rewarding loyal associations, sidelining critics, and gestures such as the peace prize and the red-card reversal as evidence that personal loyalty is being prioritised over institutional accountability. There is also concern that a leader manoeuvring towards a fourth term despite constitutional term limits, while facing public objections from Uefa, the AFC and Concacaf, shows that internal checks within Fifa are no longer sufficient, making external scrutiny from governments, sponsors and civil society organisations an important safeguard for the integrity of the sport.