Who pays for football: the failed FIFA deal has exposed a rift between wealthy Europe and the developing world

In eight days, world football went through a secretly prepared $20 billion deal, a leak to The Times, a boycott threat from 55 European federations, the withdrawal of the project and an apology.

The result of the week turned out to be the opposite of what was expected: Gianni Infantino not only kept his post, but also received public support from federations in four confederations — including two whose governing bodies had criticized him. The dispute, meanwhile, went beyond the fate of a single official: it is about who pays for world football and who has the right to decide its future.

Eight days and three signatures

The chronology of the recovery reads perfectly through a single surname — that of FIFA Secretary General Mattias Grafström.

On Monday he sends FIFA staff an internal memo in which he calls what is happening a "sad and reprehensible series of events" — a phrase the press read as distancing himself from the president.

On Wednesday his signature appears under a joint letter with Infantino to the FIFA Council and the 211 associations: an apology for the mistakes, a commitment not to repeat them and a separate line stating that the secretary general and the board members present "confirm their full support for the FIFA president."

Then FIFA declares that it "will no longer tolerate any attacks on its integrity, good governance and due process and will take all necessary measures to protect its name and reputation."

In a couple of days — from defense to counteroffensive.

The formula of the apology is legally carefully constructed. FIFA admits that "the process should have been conducted differently," and at the same time records: "although mistakes were made, everything that was done was done in full compliance with FIFA's regulatory framework." An apology for the procedure without an admission of a breach of the rules. Given that UEFA's lawyers have already demanded that all documents on FFE be preserved, and the confederation itself is "actively considering litigation, arbitration and/or complaints to regulatory bodies," such wording is not a slip of the tongue but a prepared legal position.

What was proposed

FIFA Forward Enterprise was supposed to combine FIFA's commercial rights and the operational staging of tournaments in a separate company valued at $20 billion. Up to 20 percent of its capital — up to $4.2 billion — was to be sold to outside investors led by Thrive Eternal, founded by Josh Kushner. The funds received went to the associations: payments under the FIFA Forward program were rising from $8 million per four-year cycle to $20 million, plus a one-time $20 million for infrastructure. That is up to $40 million per federation.

Crucially: the money came not out of someone's pocket, but from the sale of a stake in FIFA's own future revenues. European federations were offered exactly the same $40 million as everyone else. There was no redistribution from rich to poor in the scheme — there was the raising of capital against future revenues with a perpetual transfer of a minority stake to an investor. FIFA retained football governance, the international calendar and all regulatory decisions entirely for itself; this was spelled out in the original release.

The mistake turned out to be not the concept, but the way it was promoted. The project was prepared in secret from the confederations and FIFA Council, and the associations were given until September 19 to decide. It was precisely the closed nature of the procedure that united such different sides against it — and it was precisely for that that Infantino apologized.

What has been done over ten years

The resilience of Infantino's position is explained not by current funding alone.

The expansion of the World Cup from 32 to 48 teams changed the geography of the tournament more than any FIFA decision in half a century. Africa saw growth from 5 direct slots to 9. Asia — from 4 direct plus places in the intercontinental playoff to 8 guaranteed, that is, it effectively doubled its representation. Europe added from 13 to 16, but its share of the tournament shrank from 40.6 to 33.3 percent. At the 2026 World Cup, Cape Verde and Curaçao made their debuts — countries that under the previous format had practically no chance; Jordan and Uzbekistan played in the group stage.

The FIFA Forward program has grown many times over, investment in women's football has increased manifold, the number of tournaments under FIFA's aegis has expanded, and the World Cup in the United States, Canada and Mexico became the most commercially successful in history.

This is the substance of the argument being voiced from Rabat, Cairo, Buenos Aires and Mexico City: over ten years the resources and representation of world football have shifted toward those who previously received the least from the system. In this logic, FFE was a continuation of the same line, accelerated by outside capital.

The price of refusal

This is where the real line of the dispute runs. Europe turned down $40 million that Africa and Asia were practically obliged to accept.

The English Football Association lives off Premier League revenues, the German one off the Bundesliga, and UEFA distributes among its members Champions League proceeds measured in billions of euros. Eight million dollars from FIFA over four years is a rounding error for these structures. For the football federations of Niger, Mauritania or the DR Congo, those same eight million are a significant part of the annual budget, on which fields are built, coaches are trained and youth national teams are maintained.

Independence from FIFA money is in itself a form of privilege. It allowed the Europeans (and, incidentally, the North Americans) to take a principled stance that poor federations could not afford financially. UEFA's unanimity on July 30 cost its members nothing.

But an explanation through dependence alone is incomplete, and Thursday's events showed this. Argentina and Mexico are not poor federations. Both have strong domestic championships, their own commercial markets and a minimal share of FIFA funds in their budgets. Their support for Infantino is not explained by money. That means the split runs not simply along the line of "rich versus poor," but along the line of "Europe (or rather even the West) versus the rest of the world," and the support for FIFA's current leadership has two sources: funding for those who especially need it, and expanded representation for all those who previously remained on the periphery of tournaments.

Mexico did not march in step — or why a confederation's statement is not the position of its members

On August 6 the Mexican Football Federation issued a statement under the headline "The FMF supports the call for institutionality made by FIFA President Gianni Infantino."

The federation stated that it is convinced that football is a fundamental value, and that its best defense rests on institutionality and respect for the governance and procedures that ensure it. Then follows the key wording: "Therefore, the FMF will not recognize or endorse any process convened in circumvention of that institutionality." At the end — direct support for "the leadership of President Infantino in further advancing the development of football through institutional strengthening."

The significance of this document goes beyond a single signature. Mexico belongs to CONCACAF — the confederation that last week demanded "a comprehensive reckoning with this presidency." This is the first instance in the current crisis in which a federation has publicly diverged from the position of its own confederation, and it was done not by a rank-and-file association, but by a co-host of the World Cup that has just concluded.

The Argentine Football Association went in the other direction from its confederation — forward. The CONMEBOL Council did not name Infantino even once in its statement; the AFA addressed him personally. The association expressed support for "the work done over the last 10 years," naming as its pillars the development of football throughout the world and institutional soundness on the basis of a clear, stable and transparent model of governance.

On the withdrawn project the AFA spoke with restraint, acknowledging the administration's decision to withdraw an initiative that "from the outset generated far more uncertainty than certainty within the football family," and separately noting "the acknowledgment of the mistakes made in this process and the apology expressed in the sincere message to the 211 member federations." The conclusion is formulated directly: "the path is to continue working under his leadership, in order to keep developing better and even more inclusive football."

Both documents demonstrate what until now had remained a supposition: a confederation's statement does not equal the position of its members. Confederations speak on behalf of dozens of associations, but each of them makes decisions independently — and, as Mexico has shown, may decide otherwise.

The positions of the other confederations

The Executive Committee of the Confederation of African Football unanimously approved the joint address by Infantino and Grafström and in a separate point "unanimously reaffirmed its support for the FIFA president and thanked him for his support of African football over many years." CAF President Patrice Motsepe: "For us in Africa, adherence to the principles of governance, due process and transparency is critically important and non-negotiable, since it is precisely such practice and such conduct that we expect from our governments, businesses and other institutions."

Letters of support were sent by five influential African officials: CAF Vice President Fouzi Lekjaa, FIFA Council members Hany Abo Rida, Hamidou Djibrilla and Ahmed Yahya, as well as the head of the DR Congo federation, Véron Mosengo-Omba. Reuters drew attention to the similarity of their wording, from which it follows that the position was worked out in coordination.

The CONMEBOL Council welcomed the withdrawal of the project, expressed concern about "repeated unilateral actions" and stated that it "will not support any actions or procedures that ignore institutional mechanisms or depart from them." In practice this means a refusal to support the convening of an extraordinary Congress, that is, the closing of the procedural path to removing the president.

UEFA remains in its previous position. The confederation stated that it has lost confidence in Infantino's presidency, called FFE a "shabby, backroom, opaque deal" and announced that the conditions for lifting the boycott have not been met: the proposal has been withdrawn, but no binding guarantees that this will not happen again have been given.

Jordan and open accusations against FIFA

However, not all countries outside Europe have sided with Infantino. There are exceptions as well. Thus the president of the Jordan Football Association, Prince Ali bin Al Hussein, a former FIFA vice president, accused him of blackmail. According to Prince Ali, FIFA for months refused to help the association on a number of issues — from visa refusals for fans who had bought tickets to prize money for reaching the Arab Cup final that had gone unpaid since December — until he was told verbally during the World Cup that support for Infantino "would help our association a lot."

FIFA has not commented on these claims. Prince Ali is a longtime opponent of the current leadership: he ran for the FIFA presidency in 2015 against Sepp Blatter, and then in the extraordinary election of 2016 convened after Blatter's resignation, where he lost to Infantino.

The boycott: statement and practice

A separate question is the reality of the European boycott. The statement about non-participation was made by the confederation — UEFA; not one of the 55 federations has so far individually confirmed that it is ready to skip a specific tournament. Those that have spoken publicly — Wales, England, Sweden, Finland, Serbia — withdrew their support for Infantino's re-election, and that is a fundamentally different action: it has no sporting consequences and is reversible at any moment.

The mandate given on July 30 was tied to the proposal remaining in force. The proposal was withdrawn on August 1, and the decision to extend the boycott was taken by the UEFA administration on its own, based on its own assessment of the second condition — "binding guarantees," for which no objective criterion of fulfillment exists. No repeat vote of the 55 federations was held under the changed circumstances.

The test is close at hand and quite specific. On September 5 the Under-20 Women's World Cup is hosted by Poland — a UEFA member. On October 9 and 13 the playoff matches of Women's World Cup qualifying take place: sixteen games involving England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland. In October Morocco hosts the Under-17 Women's World Cup.

Let us note that the Association of Football Federations of Azerbaijan, one of UEFA's 55 members, has also not publicly stated its position.

What next?

The balance of forces at the end of the week looks like this. CAF (54 associations) — for Infantino. CONMEBOL (10) — for preserving procedure, which in practice means the same thing. UEFA (55) — has lost confidence and is maintaining the boycott. CONCACAF (35) — demands a review, but Mexico has publicly retreated from that position. The AFC (47) rejected the project, but after its withdrawal made no general statement. Oceania is silent.

To convene an extraordinary Congress, formal written requests from 43 associations are needed; to win an election, 106 votes out of 211. Candidacies are put forward until November 18, and the election will take place in March 2027 at the FIFA Congress in Morocco. Among the possible contenders named are Paris Saint-Germain President Nasser Al-Khelaifi, CONCACAF President Victor Montagliani and AFC head Sheikh Salman bin Ibrahim Al Khalifa.

A week ago it seemed that the seat beneath Infantino was wobbling. Today his opponents have neither the votes for an extraordinary Congress, nor a single candidate, nor support outside Europe — and now it has turned out that there is no unity even within the confederations that supported them.

However, it will not be the confederations that vote, but the 211 federations, each of which has its own answer to the question of what additional millions of dollars and a place at the World Cup mean for it.