Both sides, in good faith

The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.

The case for

Those calling for Infantino's resignation argue that a football governing body must hold itself to the standards it demands of the game: transparency, accountability and clean governance. They point to the abandoned $4.2 billion stake sale, which even UEFA branded an attempt to sell the sport's "soul", as evidence of a leadership prioritising commercial deal-making over the interests of national federations and fans. Coupled with fresh allegations about a payment to a former colleague, critics such as Klaveness, Figo, Tebas and Carney contend that trust has been eroded to the point where continued leadership is untenable, regardless of FIFA's record World Cup revenues, and that stepping down is the only way to restore confidence in the institution.

The case against

Infantino's defenders would argue that FIFA's finances tell their own story: a record $15 billion in World Cup revenue reflects strong stewardship of the game's commercial growth, funding that flows back into global football development. They would note that the stake sale was ultimately scrapped in response to stakeholder concerns, which they might frame as evidence the governance system works rather than that it has failed, and that FIFA has firmly denied the misconduct allegations as categorically untrue, urging that unproven claims should not be treated as fact. From this perspective, a small group of vocal critics pressing for resignation should not override the mandate given to the president through FIFA's normal democratic processes, particularly while investigations and denials remain unresolved.