World football is facing a fresh leadership crisis after three FIFA vice-presidents reportedly began preliminary discussions about organising alternative football tournaments in response to a controversial commercial plan pursued by FIFA president Gianni Infantino.
The development follows growing opposition to FIFA’s now-abandoned proposal to sell shares linked to its competitions. The dispute has widened into a broader disagreement over the organisation’s leadership, decision-making process and relationship with the six continental confederations.
In a joint letter, UEFA president Aleksander Čeferin, Asian Football Confederation president Salman bin Ibrahim Al Khalifa and CONCACAF president Victor Montagliani reportedly accused Infantino of breaching trust through what they described as a process involving “deception”. The three men are also FIFA vice-presidents.
The latest dispute intensified after UEFA took a firm stance against FIFA’s proposed share-sale plan. Following FIFA’s announcement, UEFA’s 55 member associations reportedly held an emergency meeting and unanimously agreed to boycott FIFA competitions, including the World Cup.
Faced with strong opposition, FIFA subsequently abandoned the proposal, while Infantino formally apologised over the controversy. UEFA, however, has maintained its position, keeping the possibility of a boycott on the table.
The Asian Football Confederation and CONCACAF have also backed UEFA’s stance, creating an unusual alignment between three major continental bodies. Their combined position has increased the pressure on FIFA’s leadership, particularly with the next presidential election approaching.
According to The Telegraph, officials from UEFA, the AFC and CONCACAF are considering how players could continue competing internationally if the threat of a World Cup boycott were ultimately carried out. One possibility under discussion is the creation of alternative tournaments.
Any such competition remains at a very early stage. There is no confirmed format, schedule or list of participating teams, and the three football leaders are reportedly keeping their options open while the dispute develops.
The same officials have also called for an independent and impartial investigation into the cancelled share-sale process. Their demand represents a direct challenge to the way the initiative was handled and to Infantino’s leadership of FIFA.
The dispute could have significant implications for Infantino’s bid to remain FIFA president. He is preparing to seek re-election at the FIFA Congress scheduled to take place in Morocco next March.
FIFA has 211 member associations, with each member entitled to one vote in the presidential election. A candidate therefore needs at least 106 votes to secure a majority. UEFA controls 55 votes, while the other five confederations collectively account for 156.
The three confederations whose presidents signed the letter—UEFA, AFC and CONCACAF—represent 143 member associations between them. Their combined opposition could therefore become an important factor in the election, although the voting position of individual national associations will ultimately determine the result.
Candidates interested in challenging for the presidency have until 18 November to submit their names. That deadline gives the competing camps several months to build alliances and secure support across the confederations.
Infantino, meanwhile, still has influential backing within world football. Several senior FIFA officials reportedly expressed support for his leadership during a recent meeting in Morocco. The South American Football Confederation (CONMEBOL) and the Confederation of African Football (CAF) have also backed him.
At national level, Argentina, Mexico, Paraguay, Qatar and Kuwait have reportedly pledged their support for Infantino. Their backing illustrates the complicated electoral arithmetic facing his opponents: opposition from UEFA, AFC and CONCACAF would represent a substantial voting bloc, but it would not automatically be enough to remove the incumbent.
The confrontation has therefore evolved beyond the original commercial dispute. It now involves questions of trust, governance, electoral alliances and the future structure of international football. If the boycott threat progresses and alternative competitions move beyond preliminary discussions, the consequences could extend well beyond FIFA’s internal politics and affect the international calendar itself.
