Power, Greed and Gianni Infantino’s Biggest Miscalculation
“Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall.” — Proverbs 16:18
For nearly a decade, Gianni Infantino has governed FIFA with remarkable confidence. Controversial reforms have become his trademark, yet almost every bold move has eventually survived criticism. Expanded World Cups, revamped tournaments and sweeping commercial changes all faced resistance before ultimately becoming part of football’s new reality.
That history may have convinced the FIFA president that the game would accept almost any reform, provided the football itself remained compelling.
The 2026 FIFA World Cup reinforced that belief. Despite criticism over soaring ticket prices, political controversies, refereeing debates and concerns that commercial interests had eclipsed supporters, the tournament was a financial triumph. Record revenues, massive television audiences and unprecedented sponsorship deals once again proved football’s unmatched commercial power.
Success, however, can breed overconfidence.
What Infantino appears to have underestimated was not football’s willingness to embrace change, but its determination to protect the one competition many regard as untouchable.
The FIFA World Cup is more than a sporting event. It is football’s most treasured institution.
That is why reports of FIFA exploring the sale of a commercial stake in the World Cup triggered an extraordinary backlash.
Unlike previous reforms, this proposal was never viewed as an evolution of the sport. It was perceived as a question of ownership.
For many within football, there is a clear distinction between governing the World Cup and monetising it.
Within days, opposition mounted rapidly. One of Infantino’s closest advisers stepped away, major confederations demanded answers, and FIFA found itself facing something it has rarely experienced during Infantino’s presidency—a united football community drawing a clear red line.
When Support Began to Fade
The most revealing aspect of the controversy was not that the proposal faced criticism. Every major FIFA decision does.
What made this different was who declined to defend it.
The resignation of Carlos Cordeiro was the first indication that this was more than routine football politics. Senior advisers disagree with presidents behind closed doors, but they rarely distance themselves publicly from projects they helped develop.
UEFA openly questioned why a proposal of such significance had reached the table without meaningful consultation.
The Asian Football Confederation echoed those concerns, arguing that the episode exposed weaknesses in FIFA’s decision-making process rather than simply disagreement over commercial strategy.
Reports also suggested that support within other confederations had become noticeably less certain, with some member associations privately expressing concern over FIFA’s direction.
For perhaps the first time in years, Infantino looked politically isolated.
His public response reflected that pressure. In a video statement, he insisted that “nobody is selling football” and accused sections of the media of misrepresenting the proposal.
But that was never the central issue.
The debate was not whether football itself was being sold. It was why selling a stake in its most prestigious competition had become a serious discussion inside FIFA.
Further confusion emerged when FIFA chief operating officer Kevin Lamour acknowledged that the organisation itself had been “deceived” during the process.
Instead of calming concerns, the admission raised a more uncomfortable question: if FIFA had been misled, how had such a proposal advanced so far within its own leadership?
- The Cost of Overreach
- The proposal was never simply about attracting investment.
- It tested something far more valuable—trust.
The World Cup functions because every confederation believes it has a meaningful stake in the tournament’s future, regardless of FIFA’s legal ownership.
Once UEFA publicly challenged the proposal and the AFC followed with unusually direct criticism, the issue evolved from a commercial debate into a governance crisis.
That is dangerous territory for any FIFA president.
Had Infantino attempted to push the proposal through despite widespread opposition, he risked creating the deepest institutional divide modern football has seen.
Europe remains football’s financial powerhouse, home to its biggest clubs, broadcasters and commercial markets. A prolonged confrontation between FIFA and UEFA would have carried consequences far beyond this single proposal.
Infantino appeared to recognise that reality.
The proposal disappeared almost as quickly as it surfaced.
- A Defining Moment
- Gianni Infantino’s legacy remains significant.
He has expanded the World Cup, strengthened FIFA’s finances and overseen unprecedented commercial growth. Supporters argue that these reforms have generated greater opportunities for developing football nations and increased investment across the global game.
But perception matters as much as achievements.
Previous reforms could be defended as efforts to grow football. Selling a commercial stake in the World Cup was viewed differently because it appeared to prioritise the commercial value of the tournament over its symbolism.
That distinction may prove to be the defining moment of Infantino’s presidency.
For the first time since taking office in the aftermath of the Sepp Blatter era, football is no longer asking what Gianni Infantino will change next.
It is beginning to ask how much longer he will remain the man making those decisions.
In football politics, that is often the moment when power begins to fade.
Comments are closed.