Gianni Infantino angers Concacaf nations after hijacking Caribbean Football Union meeting
Gianni Infantino has angered several Concacaf member associations after attending and effectively taking over a Caribbean Football Union meeting in the Dominican Republic, despite reportedly being asked not to come by Concacaf president Victor Montagliani. Infantino used the event to announce delayed Fifa-funded development projects and seek support for his re-election, deepening tensions within football’s governing bodies.
Montagliani said Infantino’s presence would overshadow a regional under-14 tournament held alongside the meeting, but the Fifa president arrived with senior officials and a large entourage. Sources said Fifa representatives lobbied individual Caribbean associations, while most of Concacaf’s 41 members are thought to support an alliance with Uefa and the Asian Football Confederation calling for Infantino’s resignation over the World Cup sell-off controversy. Mexico, Grenada, and St Kitts and Nevis have publicly backed Infantino, and Concacaf and Uefa are also discussing a possible joint Nations League from 2028.
- Infantino’s CFU appearance reportedly defied Concacaf’s request.
- He announced funding while lobbying Caribbean nations for votes.
- Most Concacaf members reportedly support calls for his resignation.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters could argue that a Fifa president has a legitimate responsibility to explain how Fifa development funding will benefit smaller football associations, particularly in the Caribbean where investment can be transformative. Announcing projects directly to CFU members may improve transparency, give associations a clearer sense of Fifa’s priorities, and demonstrate active engagement rather than distant administration. They may also contend that seeking support for re-election is a normal part of democratic sporting governance, provided no rules were broken or funds were made conditional on votes.
The case against
Critics could argue that using a regional meeting, especially after being asked not to attend, undermines the independence and trust that international football governance requires. Publicly highlighting Fifa-funded projects while courting election votes can create a strong appearance that development money is being used as political leverage, even if no explicit bargain is offered. They may say that smaller associations deserve a campaign process in which they can assess candidates freely, without feeling that access to resources depends on supporting the incumbent.