The question hanging over world football is no longer whether under siege Fifa President Gianni Infantino’s critics are angry.
It is whether they intend to use the instrument their anger has put within reach and, whether having reached for it, they could finish what it would start.
That instrument is Article 25(4) of Fifa’s statutes. It allows 43 of the sport's 211 member associations, 20 per cent of the total, to compel the convening of an Extraordinary Congress. The only forum with the power to dismiss a sitting president. Uefa, the European confederation, controls 55 votes on its own.
In principle, then, the bloc that has already declared it has lost confidence in Infantino could force the question without a single signature from any other continent. That possibility has changed the character of the dispute.
A quarrel over a secretive plan to sell a stake in the World Cup's commercial rights, the sort of thing an incumbent might once have absorbed and survived, now sits beside a procedure capable of ending Infantino's presidency before the election scheduled for March 2027 in Rabat, Morocco.
National associations have begun formally rescinding the written endorsements they gave him for that contest. Uefa has put Fifa on legal notice. Concacaf, the confederation for North and Central America and the Caribbean, has called for what it described as a comprehensive reckoning with his presidency. None of that removes him. All of it establishes that the means to try now exist.
Infantino has given no indication that he intends to resign, and the procedure his opponents are weighing is slow. But it is not open to interpretation. Once 43 or more associations sign and submit a formal request, Fifa is obliged to hold an Extraordinary Congress within three months of receiving it, and to announce the date and location two months before the delegates gather.
Fifa president Gianni Infantino gives a speech during the 36th AFC Annual Congress at Vancouver Convention Centre, Canada on April 28, 2026
Photo credit: Jennifer Gauthier | Reuters
Removing him would then require a simple majority, 106 of the 211 votes cast by secret ballot. That final provision is the one his opponents are counting on, and the one his allies have reason to fear. Two clocks are now running, and they are easily confused.
The election in Rabat is a scheduled contest with a fixed point of entry. Nominations must be formally submitted by 18 November.
The Extraordinary Congress is not a contest but a mechanism. It is available at any time, and it does not require that a challenger exist. One route asks the associations to choose somebody else. The other asks them only to say no. The timing is tighter than it appears.
Because the statutes start the three-month clock the moment a valid request is received, a submission filed this month would oblige Fifa to gather its members before the nomination window for Rabat had even closed, a vote on whether Infantino should remain, held before the field of those hoping to replace him was formally known.
The catalyst was an initiative called Fifa Forward Enterprise, a commercial entity that would have been spun out of the federation to run its headline tournaments, the men's and women's World Cups among them. Under the proposal, private investors would have acquired a 20 per cent stake in World Cup commercial rights for a reported $4.2 billion.
Member associations were offered one-off payments of $20 million to signal their agreement by the middle of September. Among the investment firms reported to have been lined up was one run by Joshua Kushner. The reaction was immediate and, for Fifa, disorienting.
Critics seized less on the valuation than on the premise beneath it that the commercial rights to the World Cup, an asset built over nearly a century by the same national associations now being asked to approve its partial sale, could pass into private hands on terms most of them had never seen.
Infantino shelved the project, a reversal that would have been difficult to imagine weeks earlier. Fifa’s chief of global football development Arsène Wenger on Tuesday said Infantino’s surprising U-turn was “absolutely necessary and beyond question”.
Former Arsenal manager Wenger did not indicate any intention to follow Infantino's senior adviser Carlos Cordeiro in quitting the organisation, but made clear he was opposed to the FFE plan, saying he believed in Fifa serving the game with “commitment, transparency, and integrity”.
“The recent events at Fifa deserve some clarity from my side,” Wenger said in a statement.
“I was not involved in this strategic plan and first became aware of the project through media reports. The decision to withdraw the project was absolutely necessary and beyond question, because I firmly believe in an independent Fifa that serves our game with commitment, transparency, and integrity.”
Winner of the Laureus Lifetime Achievement award, former Arsenal football team manager Arsene Wenger poses after receiving his award during the 2019 Laureus World Sports Awards ceremony at the Sporting Monte-Carlo complex in Monaco on February 18, 2019.
Photo credit: File | Valery Hache | AFP
The confederations have made clear that withdrawal is not enough, because what is at issue is no longer only the deal but the manner in which it was pursued. Uefa's language has been unusually blunt for an organisation that ordinarily prefers to settle its quarrels with Fifa in private.
It called the arrangement shabby, backroom and opaque, said it had completely lost confidence in Infantino, formally put Fifa on notice and began pursuing legal action. It also warned Fifa staff not to destroy documents relating to the plan. That last instruction is the most consequential. A preservation demand signals an expectation of litigation and of discovery, and it converts a political quarrel into a documentary one.
It raises the prospect that how the proposal was assembled, and who inside Fifa knew of it, will eventually be established on a record the president cannot manage.
The withdrawals of support have followed in coordinated sequence. The English Football Association has formalised the details of rescinding its backing, saying a rigorous and complete overhaul of Fifa's leadership is now essential.
Serbia, Sweden and Finland have each cancelled their written endorsements, declaring that new trust and a new approach are required to restore credibility to international football.
Those letters matter more than their language suggests. Written endorsements are the instrument by which a Fifa election is settled before it is held; enough of them, filed early, deter challengers and turn a vote into a formality. Infantino was widely expected to be returned unopposed. The recall campaign is an attempt to dismantle the paper record on which that expectation rested.
Opposition outside Europe has been narrower, but it is not trivial. The AFC, Asia's governing body, opposed the privatisation plan, and Concacaf's call for a reckoning went further than any statement from an allied confederation in years. Victor Montagliani, the Concacaf president and a Fifa vice-president, is reported to be seriously considering a campaign against Infantino.
Should he run, Montagliani would begin as the closest thing to a consensus candidate. Analysts at BBC Sport have described him as well positioned precisely because he is not European: a Montagliani candidacy would let associations that want Infantino gone vote for change without appearing to hand Fifa to Uefa, a perception that has undone reform efforts before.
He has an administrative record to point to, too, having delivered the 2026 World Cup across three host nations. Other names circulate. Nasser Al-Khelaifi, the president of Paris St-Germain and chairman of the European Club Association, has been courted by several European federations, Poland and Belgium among them, which regard him as the heaviest political operator available to them.
Lise Klaveness, the president of the Norwegian Football Federation, was among the first officials to resist the sell-off, and would campaign explicitly on transparency and the restoration of a moral compass at Fifa. She would also be seeking to become the organisation's first female president, an institutional obstacle in a body that has never come close to electing one.
Fifa's general secretary, Mattias Grafström, who has run day-to-day operations since 2019, is regarded as the internal alternative: a continuity candidate who could be advanced quickly were Infantino forced to step down without warning. Whichever route his opponents take, the arithmetic is unforgiving, because 106 votes must come from somewhere.
The membership is spread unevenly across six confederations. Uefa holds 55 votes and CAF, the African body, 54. The AFC controls 47 and Concacaf 35. Oceania's OFC has 11, Conmebol, the South American confederation, 10.
Europe and North America, the two blocs most openly hostile to the president, command 90 votes between them. That is enough to force a congress several times over, and not enough to win one. Any successful move against Infantino runs through Africa or Asia.
Which explains what the president is doing with the time he has. Rather than negotiate with Uefa, he is reported to be lobbying his traditional bases of support, which are Africa, Conmebol and certain Asian nations for public statements of solidarity.
CAF's 54 votes make Africa the pivot of the entire contest: no challenger can assemble a majority without it, and Infantino cannot survive if it moves.
What he cannot control is the character of the ballot. Endorsement letters are public documents: signed, filed and, as the past weeks have shown, retractable.
A secret ballot at an Extraordinary Congress asks nothing of an association in public at all. That is the distance Infantino must now measure, between the number of associations still willing to say they support him, and the number who would vote to keep him when no one can see how they voted.
