Gianni Infantino spent much of the past decade projecting complete control over world football, expanding FIFA competitions, growing revenues and facing down critics with little apparent political cost.
But just weeks after overseeing the successful conclusion of the first 48-team World Cup, the FIFA president finds himself confronting the most serious threat to his leadership since taking office in 2016.
What was intended to be a landmark financial initiative instead became a political disaster.
Infantino's proposal to bring private equity investment into FIFA's commercial operations collapsed within days after fierce resistance from confederations, national federations and senior figures inside FIFA itself.
Although the governing body formally abandoned the project, the fallout has continued to intensify, raising questions about whether the 56-year-old can recover enough support to secure another presidential term.
The proposal, known as FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE), sought to separate the commercial and event management operations of FIFA's biggest tournaments, including the men's and women's World Cups and Club World Cups, into a new commercial company valued at roughly $20 billion.
FIFA would have retained majority ownership while selling a minority stake of about 20% to 21% to private investors, raising an estimated $4.2 billion.
Infantino promoted the project as a way to dramatically increase football development funding. FIFA planned to distribute more than $10 billion to its 211 member associations during the next four-year cycle.
Associations supporting the proposal would have received a one-time payment of $20 million in early 2027, while regular development funding would increase from approximately $8 million to $20 million per cycle.
JPMorgan served as financial adviser, while the proposed lead investor was Thrive Eternal, an investment vehicle linked to Thrive Capital, the firm founded by Joshua Kushner, the younger brother of Jared Kushner, son-in-law of U.S. President Donald Trump.
FIFA presented the proposal as a voluntary consultation designed to accelerate football development, particularly in emerging nations.
Critics, however, argued that the plan had been developed behind closed doors with minimal consultation before being unveiled alongside generous financial incentives that many viewed as an attempt to buy support.
Resistance emerged with unusual speed and unity.
UEFA led the opposition, declaring that the World Cup was "not FIFA's to sell" and threatening to boycott FIFA competitions unless the governing body permanently ruled out private ownership of its flagship tournaments.
CONCACAF, despite having just co-hosted the expanded World Cup, also rejected the proposal. The Asian Football Confederation joined the opposition, while CONMEBOL demanded further explanations instead of endorsing the plan.
The backlash extended well beyond FIFA's member associations.
Carlos Cordeiro, a senior adviser to Infantino, former U.S. football president and former Goldman Sachs executive, resigned in protest, calling the proposal "a bad deal for FIFA's Member Associations, a bad deal for football, and a bad deal for the long-term future of the game."
FIFA Chief Operating Officer Kevin Lamour also publicly criticized the initiative, saying staff members had been kept in the dark during months of planning and describing it as "the project of one person."
The public criticism from senior insiders proved especially damaging because it suggested the opposition was not limited to FIFA's traditional critics.
Much of the controversy centered not only on the proposal itself but also on its broader implications.
Critics questioned why FIFA's most valuable commercial assets should be opened to private investors, while others raised concerns about governance, transparency, investor oversight and the long-term influence outside investors could exert over world football.
The involvement of Joshua Kushner's investment firm intensified political scrutiny because of the Kushner family's ties to Trump.
Infantino's close relationship with the U.S. president had already attracted criticism during the World Cup. His decision to award Trump FIFA's inaugural Peace Prize and the controversy surrounding the suspension of U.S. striker Folarin Balogun's one-match ban had already prompted ethics complaints and concerns among several federations.
Marketing strategist Terrence Burns, who advised successful World Cup host bids, said the issue extended beyond the legitimacy of the investment.
"Josh Kushner's firm has a legitimate track record," Burns said.
"But the association was always going to be read politically."
He added that sponsorship and investment decisions are judged not only by the source of the money but by what that partnership represents publicly.
As pressure mounted, FIFA abandoned the project less than a week after it became public.
Infantino acknowledged the proposal had "created divisions" that were no longer in football's best interests and confirmed the initiative would not move forward.
He insisted FIFA remained committed to uniting the global game and pledged to rebuild relationships with stakeholders while continuing to expand football development around the world.
The withdrawal, however, did little to ease criticism.
UEFA welcomed FIFA's decision but declared that Infantino had lost its confidence as well as the confidence of many within the football community. It described the proposal as an opaque backroom deal and called for a broad review of FIFA's leadership.
England's Football Association aligned itself with UEFA's position, while CONCACAF and other voices also demanded greater accountability.
Instead of ending the controversy, the reversal reinforced the perception among many critics that Infantino had badly misjudged the mood of world football.
The episode revived accusations that FIFA has become increasingly centralized under Infantino.
Former UEFA president Michel Platini, who worked alongside Infantino during his time as UEFA secretary-general, has repeatedly accused his former colleague of concentrating too much power.
"Unfortunately Infantino has become more of an autocrat since the pandemic," Platini told The Guardian earlier this year.
"I think he lost the game. There is less democracy than in Blatter's time."
Platini, who was cleared by Swiss courts after being prosecuted over a FIFA payment that effectively ended his own presidential ambitions, argued that Infantino had changed after taking charge of FIFA.
"He was a good No. 2, but is not a good No. 1," Platini said.
"He worked very well at UEFA but he has one problem: he likes the rich and powerful people, the ones with money."
Until recently, Infantino appeared politically untouchable.
Since succeeding Sepp Blatter in 2016, he has overseen record commercial revenues, expanded both the men's World Cup and Club World Cup, increased development funding and won reelection unopposed in 2019 and 2023.
The successful staging of the first 48-team World Cup seemed to further strengthen his position.
Instead, the failed investor plan exposed frustrations that had been building for years over FIFA's governance, decision-making and relationship with its member associations.
Many observers believe the proposal failed because it was introduced without sufficient consultation, relied heavily on financial incentives to secure support and became entangled in political controversies surrounding its proposed investors.
Infantino remains FIFA president and has vowed to restore unity across the global game.
Whether he succeeds may determine not only his political future but also the direction of FIFA itself.
The next presidential election will take place in Rabat next March, with nominations closing on Nov. 18.
