Infantino apologises to Fifa Council – but told he’s still not fit to lead
Fifa president Gianni Infantino apologised to the organisation’s council over a proposal to give a private investment firm a share of Fifa’s commercial rights. But Football Association chair Debbie Hewitt said he had not answered key questions or provided requested documents, and argued he was not fit to lead unless he did so. The dispute adds pressure on Infantino ahead of his bid for a third term.
The proposal, called Fifa Forward Enterprise, was scrapped within days of emerging. At a three-and-a-half-hour council meeting in Zurich, members also raised questions about Folarin Balogun’s suspended ban, the Fifa Peace Prize and funding for national associations. Uefa has pursued legal action to obtain the FFE documents, while Infantino is expected to stand for re-election in March; candidates need support from five member associations by 18 November.
- Infantino apologised over a scrapped plan involving Fifa’s commercial rights.
- Debbie Hewitt says key questions and document requests remain unanswered.
- A challenger must secure five association endorsements by 18 November.
New here? Start with this
Fifa is the world governing body for football, with a council made up of representatives from its member associations. It oversees international competitions and distributes funding to national football bodies. Its president leads the organisation and represents it in dealings with governments and commercial partners.
Gianni Infantino became Fifa president in 2016 and is seeking another term. Debbie Hewitt chairs the Football Association, which governs football in England, while Uefa represents European football associations. Disagreements over Fifa’s commercial arrangements and access to its records matter because they concern how the organisation is run and how its decisions are scrutinised.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Infantino’s apology and the decision to scrap Fifa Forward Enterprise could be seen as a response to concerns raised within the organisation, while allowing Fifa to reconsider how best to fund its work. A supporter might argue that leaders should be judged on the proposal’s eventual handling and the organisation’s wider record, and that questions about the documents should be resolved through proper processes before conclusions are drawn about his fitness to lead.
The case against
Hewitt’s position is that a proposal involving a private firm’s share of Fifa’s commercial rights demands full transparency, especially when council members have requested documents and say key questions remain unanswered. Without those answers, members and national associations may reasonably doubt whether Infantino has provided adequate accountability, and whether he should continue leading the organisation.