The financial request builds on September’s letter, which proposed a one-off allocation for the 2027–2030 cycle, in addition to existing FIFA Forward commitments. Their argument was that FIFA could direct more resources towards football without selling stakes linked to its competitions. That proposal questions the financial necessity of FFE, but does not, in itself, establish that any involvement of private capital would have been unjustified. Assessing that requires the revenue, cost, risk and liability assumptions underpinning the project. The disagreement concerns both the economic model and the information that should have reached the body responsible for evaluating it.

The reserves and who decides how they are used

According to ‘The Times’, the new letter adds $36 million for each of the six confederations and $3 million for each regional union. Its authors propose a prudent reserve of $2.3 billion, equivalent to one year of projected recurring expenditure, and calculate that $2.6 billion would remain after the distribution. They also seek simpler access to funding. These are their estimates, rather than an approved allocation. Accounting reserves, liquidity and spending capacity are not interchangeable: substantial net assets do not remove future commitments or guarantee that all funds can be paid out immediately. The institutional question is who checks the calculations, what documentation they use and how they explain the available financial headroom.

Infantino has agreed to examine additional funding without committing to an amount. In his September 28 letter, reviewed by ‘Reuters’, he instructed FIFA to assess the financial models and make any distribution subject to checks and formal approval. “I will not prejudge the amount,” he wrote. He also identified the amount, timing, required reserves and eligibility, reporting and audit conditions as matters for the Council to determine. That position deserves recognition: requiring financial prudence does not amount to rejecting development. But the process must enable the Council to scrutinise the options, rather than simply receive a figure prepared by the administration.

FFE left questions about authority

FFE would have brought FIFA’s commercial and operational activities together in a new company and attracted private investment through the sale of a 20% minority stake. FIFA argued that it would increase resources for its member associations and proceed only with the necessary approval. The project was withdrawn, but its abandonment does not automatically answer questions about its preparation. According to ‘The Times’, the new letter insists that unresolved questions must be addressed by the Council. This exposes the difference between consultation on an already developed proposal and involvement early enough to examine alternatives, assumptions and consequences before commitments are made.

An agreement to distribute more money could settle part of the debate over resources, but it cannot replace that accountability. The official proposals backed last week by UEFA and 54 European associations give the issue concrete form: they separate presidential and management functions, seek Council involvement before commitments are made and protect oversight bodies from interference. They also propose guaranteeing Forward allocations to compliant associations through a transparent framework. The connection between funding and governance lies in those rules: receiving funds as an institutional entitlement subject to known conditions, rather than a concession dependent on political relationships.

The review and Thursday’s decisions

Infantino has also expressed willingness to ask the Council about an independent external assessment and consultation on decision-making. That openness represents a response to the dispute, although it still needs to become an approved mandate. Its usefulness will depend on its scope: examining the overall design of FIFA’s bodies differs from reconstructing how FFE was prepared and what information circulated between them. A review capable of addressing both would need access to documents, independent assessment and a process for translating recommendations into institutional decisions. Approval would be a first step; defining those conditions would determine what it could clarify.

The Council is FIFA’s principal decision-making body between Congresses and comprises 37 members. On Thursday, an approved allocation must be distinguished from a financial recommendation or an instruction to continue the assessment. Whether a review is agreed, who conducts it and what it can examine will also matter. In his September letter, Infantino envisaged presenting a recommendation where sufficient evidence was available, or setting the shortest reasonable timetable for completing the work. Thursday’s meeting will establish what decisions are taken on the distribution and what process is put in place to address the governance questions.

The post FIFA’s $2.1 billion question: can money resolve a crisis of power? appeared first on SportsIN.

Vega says he has secured the support of the five associations needed to submit his candidacy. “I already have that,” he told ‘El País’, without identifying his backers. His claim must be distinguished from documented endorsements and formal acceptance: candidates need five written declarations of support, must demonstrate an active role in football during two of the previous five years, and must pass an eligibility check. The deadline is November 18. The former Switzerland international brings a name into the debate over new leadership, but Europe’s call for a different president does not yet amount to an endorsement of his bid.

Europe calls for a different president

Aleksander Čeferin announced on Thursday in Berlin, Germany, that he would seek a final term as President of the Union of European Football Associations -UEFA-, reversing his intention to step down. All 55 associations asked him to continue, with the election scheduled for April 22, 2027, in Astana, Kazakhstan. He had already ruled out challenging Infantino in August. His decision keeps his future in European football separate from the search for an alternative FIFA president. “There is still important work ahead, and I have therefore accepted their request,” he explained.

The backing for Čeferin and the position on FIFA differ in scope: all 55 associations support his decision to continue, but 54, excluding Azerbaijan, support the reform proposals. UEFA says they have lost confidence in the current leadership and that institutional changes alone are insufficient. It calls for a figure rooted in football who can command confidence across regions. Its proposals separate the presidency from management functions and protect the independence of oversight bodies. That description does not identify Vega: the overlap between his proposals and Europe’s demands cannot replace the explicit endorsements he would need to become its electoral alternative.

Africa backs Infantino

In Cabo Verde, Motsepe outlined a different position during the strategy conference of the Confederation of African Football -CAF-. “There is a unanimous decision by the 54 CAF member associations to unconditionally support Gianni as president of FIFA,” he said, attributing that backing to Infantino’s record of supporting African football. The continent’s associations represent just over a quarter of FIFA’s 211 members. The announcement constitutes a collective political endorsement, although national associations each hold one vote in the election, rather than confederations voting as blocs.

Infantino linked his remarks to the resources allocated to the continent: “With the FIFA Forward programme we have invested one billion dollars in 10 years in Africa, with 124 different projects and many other actions.” He also pledged to seek additional resources and address disagreements through dialogue. Funding is part of Europe’s institutional debate too: UEFA’s proposals call for Forward allocations to be protected from political interference. The positions therefore combine assessments of the support received with demands concerning how development funding is allocated and the decisions behind it.

Who should lead the review?

The position attributed to Shaikh Salman bin Ebrahim Al Khalifa, President of the Asian Football Confederation -AFC-, introduces another difference. According to ‘BBC Sport’, a letter proposes that football institutions should lead the review rather than entrusting it to an external body. The broadcaster contrasts this with an earlier request, co-signed with European and North American leaders, for a fully independent assessment. Official AFC statements in July and August expressed opposition to the lack of consultation over FIFA Forward Enterprise -FFE- and called for transparency. The letter described by the broadcaster proposes a different review process, but does not amount to a collective decision by the confederation or an electoral endorsement of Infantino.

In September, Infantino proposed asking the Council about an independent external assessment and opening discussions on improving decision-making. The October 15 meeting places that debate ahead of the nomination deadline, as associations define their positions on reform and the presidential election. European associations plan another meeting before November 17; the deadline for submitting candidates falls the following day. The electoral calendar sets February 18, 2027, as the deadline for notifying members of accepted candidates, with the election taking place on March 18 in Rabat, Morocco.

The post Vega steps forward as Europe calls for new leadership and Africa backs Infantino appeared first on SportsIN.

Salman has written to Gianni Infantino asking for the issue to be addressed at the FIFA Council meeting on 15 October. His request sets out two options: reach a definitive decision on the distribution of excess reserves or establish a clear timeline and process for review, approval and implementation. Asian support adds a specific demand for deadlines to the initiative spearheaded by Europe and CONCACAF.

An additional $10 million for each association

Ceferin and Montagliani’s proposal calls for at least $10 million for each member association during the 2027–2030 cycle, approximately $2.1 billion in total. This funding would come on top of the amounts already committed through the FIFA Forward Programme and would be allocated to infrastructure and football development. It remains a request awaiting approval, rather than an agreed allocation.

The two officials base their financial argument on their analysis of FIFA’s accounts and budgets. According to their estimates, the organisation would close the 2023–2026 cycle with approximately $6 billion in reserves and could afford the distribution without those reserves falling below around $1.5 billion during the following period. These are the calculations underpinning their argument that there is scope to increase funding for member associations.

From FIFA Forward Enterprise to the distribution of resources

The demand follows the withdrawal of FIFA Forward Enterprise, the project that proposed bringing private investors into a structure linked to FIFA competitions. The connection between the two issues lies in funding: Ceferin and Montagliani maintain that the organisation has sufficient resources of its own to increase support. That argument calls into question the financial necessity of the transaction that was ultimately abandoned.

Meanwhile, Infantino has proposed asking the Council whether to commission an independent external review of FIFA’s procedures for major strategic decisions. He has also proposed consultations with confederations, member associations and other football stakeholders. The proposed review and the request to distribute reserves bring two related debates to the next Council meeting: how decisions are made and how resources are distributed.

Salman’s support adds institutional weight to the initiative, although this alignment on a specific measure does not establish an electoral alliance. The next step lies with the Council on 15 October, which is being asked for a decision or a clear timeline. The withdrawal of FIFA Forward Enterprise has left an open debate over the use of the money FIFA already holds, and an uncertain future for Gianni Infantino, who now faces “enemies” within his own organisation.

The post Asia joins UEFA and CONCACAF in calling on FIFA to distribute $2.1 billion to member associations appeared first on SportsIN.

The proposal would release around $2.1 billion from reserves, in addition to the commitments under the FFE programme, and comes from within the very leadership Infantino shares with them. In a letter sent to Infantino a few days ago, the two officials propose distributing the funds during the 2027–2030 cycle, earmarked for infrastructure and football development. Their approach takes the discussion beyond the money available and raises the issue of who decides when it is distributed and on what terms.

Reserves call the need for investors into question

Ceferin and Montagliani’s financial argument starts with an estimate: FIFA would end the 2023–2026 cycle with around $6 billion in reserves. According to their analysis, that position would allow increased funding for member associations without turning to external investors. The figure therefore calls into question the rationale behind the abandoned FFE, which proposed offering private investors a stake in the business surrounding its competitions to generate additional resources.

Although the proposal’s authors acknowledge that their calculations are preliminary and that this financial capacity needs to be verified, the move has a political dimension that emerges more clearly in one sentence from the letter: “Development is an institutional responsibility of FIFA, not a matter of individual discretion”. Ceferin and Montagliani argue that member associations should be able to assess the organisation’s proposals independently, without access to funding restricting that freedom. It is a pointed criticism of Infantino and his president-centred management model.

Elections in 2027

The UEFA and CONCACAF presidents have sought backing from their counterparts at the other four confederations to bring the initiative before the FIFA Council on 15 October. That step will be important in gauging the scale of the challenge, as the proposal needs further support.

The failure of FFE has not ended a debate that Ceferin and Montagliani continue to fuel, with Gianni Infantino firmly in their sights. The elections are in March, and a candidate whose identity has yet to be revealed is reportedly set to enter the presidential race. UEFA and CONCACAF, united in this battle, are hinting at their support for an alternative path.

The post Aleksander Ceferin (UEFA) and Victor Montagliani (CONCACAF)’s latest challenge to Gianni Infantino over control of FIFA’s billions appeared first on SportsIN.

The request for documents is directed at Thrive Capital and Joshua Kushner. The requested material concerns FIFA’s proposed commercial structure, which envisaged a permanent stake in World Cup-related commercial rights. Although the project was abandoned, UEFA is continuing its efforts to clarify the decisions made during its development.

The dispute over access to evidence

The latest move focuses on who may intervene in those proceedings. The two US subsidiaries of FIFA are seeking to intervene, and UEFA has asked the court not to allow them to do so. The request forms part of the evidence-gathering process; it does not constitute a judicial ruling on the conduct of the organisation’s officials.

The institutional significance of the case lies in a continental confederation turning to a federal court to access information about decisions taken at the highest levels of FIFA. The disagreement over its commercial strategy therefore has an ongoing judicial dimension, with further progress now dependent on the US court’s decisions.

The documents UEFA is seeking could be used in a potential criminal complaint in Switzerland concerning possible criminal mismanagement involving FIFA President Gianni Infantino and other officials. That possibility explains the significance of the Manhattan proceedings, even though the commercial initiative has been dropped.

The post UEFA steps up its legal action over FIFA Forward Enterprise appeared first on SportsIN.

The dispute stems from a deal that Infantino decided to abandon just days after The Times publicly revealed its details. The FIFA president had argued that the aim was to secure new resources to “strengthen member associations, especially in countries where financial support is most needed.” However, UEFA’s lawyers believe the proposed agreement contained elements that justify a criminal investigation, particularly regarding the price offered and the way the operation was allegedly promoted.

The $4.2 billion deal putting UEFA and FIFA at odds

The document prepared by UEFA’s lawyers argues that the $4.2 billion offered by Thrive Capital Management represented a “fraudulently off-market” price. According to the European governing body, the valuation would not have reflected normal market conditions and was allegedly promoted by Infantino for his own benefit. The complaint being prepared by UEFA seeks to determine whether the actions of the FIFA president and other individuals involved in the process could constitute criminal misconduct.

The proposal would have allowed the fund to acquire up to 20% of the business linked to the World Cup, one of FIFA’s main sources of revenue and strategic assets. The possibility of bringing private capital into a structure of this scale raised concerns among several confederations, particularly over the implications for control and the future distribution of the resources generated by the world’s leading national-team competition. After the details were published, Infantino decided not to proceed with the project, but the decision failed to bring the dispute to an end.

Pressure from confederations grows on Infantino

UEFA has maintained a critical stance toward Infantino’s leadership, and its reaction has found support elsewhere in international football. The AFC and Concacaf also opposed the deal and, months ago, sent a joint letter describing the project as “a betrayal of our trust.” The dispute has therefore moved beyond an exclusively European confrontation and now involves some of the major confederations that make up FIFA’s structure.

The pressure could increase in the coming months. Sources familiar with the process indicate that UEFA, AFC and Concacaf may even be considering a vote of no confidence against Infantino ahead of the vote scheduled for March. Meanwhile, the Confederation of African Football (CAF) has taken a different position: its president, Patrice Motsepe, has publicly backed the Swiss official. Different positions remain within world football’s governing body as UEFA moves forward with a complaint that could further escalate the institutional dispute.

The post UEFA prepares criminal complaint against Gianni Infantino appeared first on SportsIN.

“There are two options: one is that he realises that he does not have the support, and I do not mean only the political support of those who vote, but the support of the football community, the fans, players, former players and coaches. And the second is that he goes to the election in March, but in that case I think he will have a candidate against him. I don’t know yet who,” the UEFA president said on The Rest Is Politics: Leading podcast. Ceferin also ruled himself out as a challenger to Infantino, who is seeking another term as FIFA president in March 2027.

Infantino has not faced another candidate since 2016. That year, following the departure of Joseph Blatter, he was elected FIFA president after running against Sheikh Salman bin Ebrahim Al Khalifa, Prince Ali bin Al Hussein and Jerome Champagne. Infantino needed a second round of voting, eventually winning with 115 votes to Salman’s 88. In 2019, now as the incumbent president, he was the sole candidate and was re-elected by acclamation. The same happened in 2023, when he again stood unopposed and secured another term through 2027. That does not appear likely to be the case in the next election.

From the World Cup to a crisis of his own making

Infantino walked straight into trouble, unnecessarily shooting himself in the foot with his FIFA Forward Enterprise project, under which he proposed opening up a stake of around 20% in a company linked to the commercial rights of FIFA competitions, including the World Cup, to private investors. The initiative was eventually withdrawn in early August after triggering strong opposition across international football. UEFA, Concacaf and the AFC have questioned how the proposal was handled, while several European associations have publicly withdrawn their confidence in the FIFA president. The six Nordic associations — Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and the Faroe Islands — went even further this past weekend, calling for his departure and an independent external review of FIFA’s governance.

Ceferin, sensing an opportunity, described the private investment project as more serious than the European Super League of 2021 because, in his view, it directly affected the ownership and commercial exploitation of the world’s leading competitions. He also said that he has had no contact with Infantino since the crisis erupted.

Infantino, meanwhile, has once again placed the distribution of resources among FIFA’s 211 member associations and the need to reduce the economic gap between football’s major powers and countries with fewer financial resources at the heart of his message. This has been one of the pillars of his presidency since 2016 and remains an essential factor in understanding his political strength outside Europe.

The election has already begun

In an organisation such as FIFA, a presidential election does not begin when a candidacy is formally registered. Long before that come discussions between national associations, regional meetings, efforts to secure support and public positioning by the leaders of the six confederations. There is still no official alternative candidacy, but there is already movement behind the scenes.

FIFA’s statutes establish that a presidential candidate must have the support of at least five member associations and submit their candidacy at least four months before the Congress. Based on the date set for Rabat, the field should therefore be defined by mid-November.

The post Gianni Infantino faces a different election after shooting himself in the foot appeared first on SportsIN.

The European position against Infantino has hardened as the FIFA presidential election scheduled for March approaches. UEFA has the backing of Concacaf and the Asian Football Confederation in its opposition to FFE and has even kept open the possibility of boycotting FIFA competitions, while negotiating with Concacaf to establish a joint Nations League. Meanwhile, Ceferin maintains that if Infantino decides to run again, he will face an opposing candidate, although no candidacy has yet been confirmed and the UEFA president himself has ruled out competing for the position.

Ceferin compares Infantino’s project with the Super League

The comparison with the 2021 Super League reflects the scale Ceferin attributes to the project promoted by FIFA. Unlike that attempt, which involved some of Europe’s leading clubs seeking to create a competition outside traditional structures, the UEFA president considers FFE an even greater risk because it involved turning football-related assets into stakes that could be commercially sold. “Football would literally be sold,” Ceferin said when explaining why he believes the two episodes represent different threats to the sport’s current model.

The FFE program was ultimately shelved in early August after facing widespread opposition within international football. Ceferin said the plan is “dead” and presented its rejection as a way of preventing another attempt to transform the ownership and management of the sport. The controversy, however, did not end with the closure of the program. During August, reports also emerged that Infantino had explored the possibility of promoting a Super League under the FIFA brand, a prospect Ceferin considers unlikely in the short term, although he acknowledges it could be revisited much further down the line.

The FIFA election opens a new political front

The confrontation also directly affects Infantino’s future at the helm of FIFA. Ceferin said that the organization’s president has not contacted him since the FFE controversy began and outlined two possible scenarios: Infantino could recognize that he has lost support within the football community, or he could decide to run in the March election and face another candidate. The UEFA president did not identify who could challenge him, although Victor Montagliani, president of Concacaf, has emerged as one possible alternative.

The opposition is not limited to UEFA. The six Nordic football federations said they had lost confidence in Infantino and called for guarantees that FIFA would never again open its competitions or governance structure to private ownership. They also requested an independent review of the FFE program after the Norwegian Football Federation became the first member association to directly call for the FIFA president’s resignation. Ceferin, for his part, has ruled out running as a candidate and intends to remain at the helm of UEFA, where he is expected to seek a fourth term unopposed.

The post Aleksander Ceferin takes aim at Infantino over his failed World Cup plan appeared first on SportsIN.

The message is not limited to one incident or one player. UEFA argues that a sending-off must carry a minimum automatic suspension and that this consequence cannot become a flexible decision, especially during a World Cup and after other players have served similar punishments. If the rules are not applied equally to everyone, the competition loses credibility.

A sanction with a political reading

The context makes the case even more delicate. Donald Trump admitted that he had called Gianni Infantino to ask for the sanction to be reviewed. FIFA later defended the independence of its disciplinary bodies, but the episode left a strange feeling because, in the supposedly biggest World Cup in history, the regulations once again became mixed with political power and institutional influence.

On a personal level, Aleksander Čeferin, UEFA president, has already spoken out on several occasions about international conflicts: he defended the idea that Russia could not return to European competitions while the war in Ukraine was still ongoing, and UEFA launched an explicit message in 2025 against the killing of civilians and children in Gaza. Infantino, by contrast, has maintained a much closer relationship with Trump, who appears to hold the key to stopping these conflicts but does not use it.

This UEFA reaction is another episode in the tense relationship between the two biggest football bodies in the world. Nyon and Zurich have spent years clashing over the international calendar, the expansion of the World Cup, the new Club World Cup, the distribution of money and FIFA’s ability to make global decisions that directly affect the European ecosystem.

The Club World Cup

The Club World Cup is the main battleground. FIFA wants to turn it into a top-level global competition, with more teams, more matches and greater commercial value. UEFA, however, sees the world governing body moving directly into a space that Europe had controlled until now: club football.

The Champions League remains the main product of European football, but FIFA no longer wants to limit itself to the national-team World Cup. It also wants a major global club competition. The problem is that both ambitions collide over the same players, the same dates and the same markets. The risk is saturation.

The calendar, another power issue

The complaint filed by FIFPRO Europe, European Leagues and LaLiga against FIFA before the European Commission shows that the debate is no longer only sporting. The question is whether FIFA can act as regulator, organiser and commercial beneficiary of the competitions it promotes itself.

The paradox is that UEFA has also expanded its own tournaments, while worrying that, if FIFA gains more and more competitive space, Europe will lose room to organise its own product. And if the calendar continues to grow, players will remain trapped in an increasingly demanding structure. The Balogun case has become a new trigger for friction between the two institutions based in Switzerland.

The post UEFA and FIFA are not arguing over a red card, but over who controls football appeared first on SportsIN.

The economic scale behind this battle explains the aggressiveness of the new measures. Audiovisual rights sustain a large part of the European football ecosystem: they fund clubs, academies, youth competitions, and even development programs across different federations. Every illegal stream represents millions of euros lost from a system that depends directly on television audiences. In this context, UEFA is no longer just trying to shut down websites; it is now working to dismantle entire networks before illegal broadcasts reach the public.

A New Global Anti-Piracy Architecture

The turning point came in October 2025, when UEFA became the first sports organization to join the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE), the world’s leading anti-piracy coalition led by the Motion Picture Association. Through this partnership, the European governing body gained access to real-time intelligence, specialized monitoring, and international coordination to act particularly on matchdays, when illegal traffic reaches its highest levels.

The strategy no longer relies solely on lawyers and internal departments. It now involves technology companies, audiovisual platforms, internet service providers, and law enforcement agencies working together to detect illegal operations at their source. Behind this transformation lies an uncomfortable reality for the industry: piracy has ceased to be a marginal phenomenon and has become a parallel economy capable of generating billions of visits every year. Even in online communities and public forums, many fans admit they continue to rely on illegal streams due to the high costs and fragmentation of official platforms.

The Legal Battle and the Global Reach of New Blocking Orders

The most significant action so far took place in February 2026, when the Delhi High Court issued a dynamic blocking order against 79 domains linked to illegal broadcasts of the Champions League. According to UEFA, these websites generated nearly 2 billion annual visits, illustrating the true scale of the problem. The ruling not only allowed existing websites to be blocked, but also authorized the automatic shutdown of new domains that appear during the season without the need to return to court repeatedly.

The reach of these measures extends beyond national borders. UEFA has begun collaborating with regional organizations such as the Coalition Against Piracy of the Asia Video Industry Association and coordinated blocking systems in Germany, expanding an international network designed to act almost in real time. The concern is no longer limited to protecting sports broadcasts, but to combating criminal structures that monetize illegal content on a global scale. UEFA insists that piracy is not a victimless activity, as it directly undermines the revenues that sustain professional football and the development of the sport at every level.

The post UEFA Intensifies Its Fight Against Piracy with Global Blocking Orders and Police Operations appeared first on SportsIN.