Gianni Infantino has become one of the most divisive figures in world football.
Since becoming FIFA president in 2016, he has overseen a period of major expansion, record revenues and increased investment in football development around the world. Supporters argue that he has made FIFA more global and given smaller football nations a stronger voice. Critics, however, accuse him of concentrating power, prioritising commercial interests and allowing politics to become too closely linked with the running of the sport.
They were infuriated when FIFA created a special Peace Prize, which was then handed to US President Donald Trump, a man whose second period in office has been marked by heavy involvement in armed conflicts abroad. And they were incensed when at Trump’s behest, US striker Folarin Balogun’s suspension after picking up a red card was lifted so he could play in their next match with Belgium.
Commercial decisions have also placed FIFA under scrutiny. The expansion of tournaments, including the enlarged Club World Cup, has been promoted by Infantino as a way of creating more opportunities, increasing investment and giving clubs and nations from outside Europe’s traditional elite a greater platform. However, critics argue that the constant expansion of competitions has contributed to fixture congestion and increased pressure on players.
Ticket pricing has become another major point of frustration. Supporters have accused FIFA of moving further towards a corporate model in which attending major tournaments is increasingly expensive and less accessible for ordinary fans. Critics argue that football’s global growth should not come at the expense of the supporters who built the game’s culture.
Questions about governance and transparency have followed Infantino throughout his presidency. Opponents claim that FIFA has become too centralised around the president’s office and that decision-making lacks sufficient accountability. His supporters respond that his leadership has brought financial stability, expanded FIFA programmes and redirected more money towards national associations around the world.
Yet the criticism from Europe alone is unlikely to threaten his position.
The reason is FIFA’s electoral system. The FIFA president is elected by 211 member associations, with each country receiving one vote. UEFA, representing European football, has 55 members. Europe remains the most powerful football continent commercially and culturally, but it does not have enough votes to decide a FIFA election on its own.
Since taking office, Infantino has carefully built support among federations in Africa, Asia, North and Central America, South America and Oceania. His administration has increased funding for member associations and expanded opportunities for nations that have historically had less influence in global football. For many of those federations, Infantino represents a redistribution of power away from the traditional European establishment.
That is the central reason why calls for change from Europe have had limited impact. UEFA may dominate club football, television markets and the world’s biggest leagues, but FIFA elections are decided by a much wider political alliance.
Infantino remains a figure who inspires both loyalty and opposition. To his supporters, he is a reformer who has made football more inclusive and financially stronger. To his critics, he represents a FIFA that has become too commercial, too political and too distant from ordinary supporters.
But in FIFA politics, influence is not the same as votes. And for now, the numbers remain on Gianni Infantino’s side.
Despite the calls from Europe, Gianni Infantino is going nowhere.
