Armed with Arab support: Infantino battles isolation at decisive Zurich meeting | Goal.com

Published on 14 Oct 2026 | Reading time: 3 minutes

Gianni Infantino faces the most dangerous test of his reign at the summit of world football on Thursday, when the FIFA president sits down with his opponents at a decisive FIFA Council meeting in Zurich. It is his first appearance before them since the spectacular collapse of his controversial plan to sell a stake in the governing body's major tournaments, chief among them the World Cup.

He walks into that room knowing his seat is no longer safe. Calls for his departure have escalated from three of football's largest confederations, an unprecedented split that threatens to overturn the balance of power in the game.

The crisis has exposed a deep crack in FIFA's wall. Leading the rebellion are UEFA president Aleksander Ceferin, Asian Football Confederation president Sheikh Salman bin Ibrahim Al Khalifa and CONCACAF president Victor Montagliani.

All three agreed on a united position that "the time has come for change at the top of FIFA", demanding Infantino's immediate resignation. Their representatives are expected at the FIFA Council meeting to confront him face to face.

Timing makes the confrontation even more awkward. Infantino is preparing to contest re-election in March 2027 in the Moroccan capital Rabat, and the deadline for submitting nomination papers expires on 18 November.

Opposition has already started to stir. Ramon Vega, the former Switzerland and Tottenham defender, announced last week that he intends to stand for the post, though he has yet to confirm he has the backing of five national associations, the condition required to enter the race officially.

Infantino is not surrendering. He is fighting a fierce battle to rally support and stay on, and he got a warm welcome and enthusiastic applause when he met the leaders of African football last week in Cape Verde. He is also counting on the South American bloc in Rabat.

Sharp criticism from the Asian Football Confederation leadership has not cost him everything within that confederation. He has secured the support of a weighty bloc inside it, chief among them a group of Arab nations who have announced their backing for him.

Sources familiar with the matter told "Reuters" that Infantino's opponents know how slim the chances are of finding a strong alternative to him at present. They are determined to pursue a new strategy instead: isolate him gradually and strip back his wide-ranging powers.

Expect the council's agenda to stretch well beyond the controversial external funding agreement and into far more sensitive files, most notably:

- FIFA's huge financial reserves and the mechanism for distributing them among the 211 member associations.

- The governance framework and disciplinary procedures within the organisation.

- The ongoing controversy over the "peace prize" that FIFA controversially awarded to US President Donald Trump last year.

Under Infantino's external funding proposal, the associations would have received 20 million dollars in development funding, with the possibility of a further 20 million. UEFA and CONCACAF hit back by demanding FIFA pay 10 million dollars directly to each of its 211 associations.

Emanuel Medeiros, founder and chief executive of the Sport Integrity Global Alliance (SIGA), said of the defining moment: "The eyes of the world are upon them. The football world expects to see a council that seizes this unique opportunity to conduct a genuinely independent, comprehensive and transparent governance review. We certainly hope to see new momentum and a new dynamic."

Miguel Maduro sounded far less hopeful. The lawyer and politician, who chaired FIFA's governance committee in 2016 before Infantino removed him, said: "I would be surprised if Thursday's meeting produced anything meaningful."

He went on: "They may announce the formation of a task force or even an independent review, but the credibility of either of these processes would be very limited in light of FIFA's record. Such a process, if it is not genuinely independent and enforceable, may be nothing more than a formality aimed solely at easing public pressure."

Read the original news