The Sports Guru
Can Gianni Infantino survive the collapse of his World Cup investment plan, or has FIFA’s internal argument moved beyond one president? This article explains why Wednesday’s meeting in Rabat matters, who has broken publicly with the plan and where the pressure around any leadership contest may sit.
FIFA has abandoned the company. The harder question in Rabat is whether it can now distance itself from the president who wanted it.
Gianni Infantino is due to meet senior FIFA staff in Morocco on Wednesday after the withdrawal of plans for FIFA Forward Enterprise, or FFE. The proposed company would have run the commercial and operational aspects of FIFA tournaments, with a proposed sale of a 20 per cent stake to private investors at its most contentious point.
The immediate proposal has gone. Its aftermath has not. Senior figures inside FIFA have issued unusually pointed statements, national associations have withdrawn support, UEFA is considering legal action, and Jordan’s football association has made a grave allegation about the conditions attached to help with money it says it is owed. The meeting therefore carries two overlapping questions: whether Infantino intends to remain in office, and whether FIFA’s senior staff believe the organisation can absorb the damage by treating FFE as an isolated error.
That second question is the more revealing one. A policy can be withdrawn in a weekend. Trust between a president, his staff and the member associations who elect him does not operate on the same timetable.
The retreat solved the proposal, not the argument
FFE first emerged in reports last Tuesday before FIFA confirmed some details. The plan met firm opposition from UEFA, CONCACAF and the Asian Football Confederation. UEFA threatened to boycott FIFA competitions, including the World Cup, until the plan was scrapped; FIFA withdrew it last Saturday.
That sequence matters because it leaves little room to present the decision as a routine reconsideration. The project did not quietly fail to develop. It was abandoned after the three confederations named in the report rejected it, with European football’s governing body threatening consequences that would have gone to the heart of FIFA’s competitions.
UEFA has since said it has lost confidence in Infantino. Associations including England and Wales have formally withdrawn their support, while the Scottish Football Association is understood to be aligned with UEFA’s position. Lawyers acting for UEFA have also ordered Infantino and other FIFA staff to identify, locate and preserve documents relating to FFE as the body actively considers legal action.
None of that establishes what will happen on Wednesday. It does establish that withdrawal did not restore the previous political settlement. FIFA’s president now goes into the meeting with the plan gone and the record of how it was conceived still being contested.
Staff messages make the institutional divide visible
Arsène Wenger’s intervention was brief, though its timing was difficult to miss. FIFA’s chief of global football development said he had not been involved in the proposal and called its withdrawal “absolutely necessary and beyond question”. He added that he believed in an independent FIFA serving football with commitment, transparency and integrity.
Wenger had faced criticism for his silence in the preceding days. His statement did not speculate on Infantino’s future, yet it separated one of FIFA’s best-known senior figures from the plan and made clear that he regarded its withdrawal as unavoidable.
Mattias Grafström’s email to staff went further in describing the institutional atmosphere. FIFA’s secretary general, the organisation’s second most senior figure after Infantino, referred to a “sad and reproachable series of events” that had concluded with the project being permanently abandoned.
He thanked staff for their work during the World Cup while accepting that they had been placed in turmoil that was difficult to comprehend and accept. His promise that staff would be protected from the current political context was followed by a line that reads as reassurance to the institution rather than to any individual: “The institution, its mission and its responsibility towards world football continue.”
That is the tension underneath Wednesday’s gathering. Grafström did not declare a break with the president, and Wenger did not call for one. Still, both statements insist on standards beyond the immediate project. In a body built around the authority of its president, senior staff publicly stressing the endurance of the institution is a meaningful choice of emphasis.
The earlier resignation of Infantino’s senior adviser Carlos Cordeiro adds to that picture. Cordeiro described FFE as a “bad deal for football”. The phrase is short; the significance lies in who said it. The opposition is no longer confined to external critics of FIFA’s direction.
Jordan’s accusation raises the stakes in Asia
The sharpest allegation came from Prince Ali Bin Al Hussein, president of the Jordanian Football Association. He said on X that his association would not endorse Infantino after alleging that FIFA sought his support by promising to help recover money owed to the JFA.
Prince Ali identified several pressures on Jordan around this summer’s World Cup: difficulties for Jordanian fans seeking entry to the United States, ticket prices he called exorbitant, and tax costs linked to the association being based in the US rather than Canada or Mexico for the finals. He also said Jordan was awaiting prize money from last year’s FIFA-organised Arab Cup while FIFA spoke about billions held in reserve.
His central allegation concerned an approach made during the World Cup. Prince Ali said FIFA had refused to help on these and other issues for months, until it was verbally communicated that endorsing Infantino would help the association. He characterised the situation as blackmail, an accusation FIFA is reported to face rather than an established finding.
The political importance of that dispute is plain even without assuming its outcome. Sky Sports reports that Asia is seen as the key continent in any presidential contest that may yet be forced. Europe and nations from North America, Central America and the Caribbean are expected to want Infantino out, while Africa, South America and Oceania are expected to back him.
Those expectations are not a vote count, and no contest has been confirmed. They do explain why a public refusal from Jordan carries weight beyond one association. Infantino’s ability to claim broad support cannot be measured solely by Europe’s opposition if the support of Asian national associations is central to his prospects.
Rabat is a test of authority, not a coronation
Sky Sports News’ Kaveh Solhekol described Wednesday’s meeting as likely to be tense and said its outcome was unknown. He raised the possibility of resignation, as well as the possibility that Infantino could decide to fight on by arguing that he retains significant support, particularly in South America, Africa and Asia.
That framing is useful because it resists a premature verdict. The pressure on Infantino is substantial: the FFE project has been permanently abandoned, UEFA says it has lost confidence, several associations have withdrawn support, and senior figures have criticised the episode or the proposal itself. It is still not the same thing as a confirmed resignation or a settled succession.
Former FIFA president Sepp Blatter has backed Lise Klaveness, president of the Norway Football Federation, to replace Infantino and said it was time for a woman to lead FIFA. Klaveness has held the NFF role for four years and was previously a lawyer and international footballer. The NFF was among only a handful of FIFA’s 211 member associations that did not send letters supporting Infantino’s re-election bid in March 2027.
Blatter’s support does not make Klaveness a declared successor. Nor does it erase his own history: he was FIFA president from 1998 until resigning in a corruption scandal in 2015, and was cleared of personal corruption charges by a Swiss tribunal last August. It does, however, show how swiftly a conversation about an investment vehicle has become a conversation about who could lead FIFA next.
What FIFA has to prove after FFE
The useful distinction is between a plan and a governing method. FFE’s proposed sale of a 20 per cent stake was the visible issue. The response since then has focused on process, confidence, documents and political support. Those are not technical objections that disappear because a company is no longer being created.
For FIFA staff, Grafström’s message offers a protective line between their work and the political turmoil surrounding it. For associations, UEFA’s request to preserve documents signals that the withdrawal has not ended scrutiny. For Infantino, the immediate task is to show that he still has enough confidence within FIFA and among its member associations to govern after the project’s collapse.
Wednesday may not settle every one of those questions. It should make clearer whether the organisation sees FFE as a contained failure or as the moment when private criticism became too public to manage.
Frequently Asked Questions
FFE was a proposed company intended to run the commercial and operational aspects of FIFA’s tournaments. The plan included an idea to sell a 20 per cent stake to private investors.
Senior staff were asked to attend a crisis meeting in Rabat after FIFA withdrew the FFE plan and pressure on Infantino increased.
The archived report says the outcome of the meeting is unknown. It raises resignation as a possibility, not as a confirmed event.
The report says UEFA, CONCACAF and the Asian Football Confederation firmly rejected the plan. UEFA also threatened to boycott FIFA competitions until it was scrapped.
Research: This article uses the archived evidence supplied for this story. Story inspiration: Sky Sports' original report.