Gianni Infantino appears set to remain president of FIFA, but the football world is bracing for ongoing internal conflicts over the extent of his authority within the organization. What initially seemed poised to be a change in leadership following fallout from Infantino’s abandoned private-investment plan has instead evolved into a struggle over governance and control.

The dispute, triggered by Infantino’s controversial proposal to sell a 20% stake in FIFA’s commercial rights—including World Cup-related assets—to private investors, fractured the unity of global football. After strong opposition from UEFA, the Asian Football Confederation, CONCACAF, and other stakeholders, the initiative was dropped in July. Despite this, tensions remain high over how FIFA should be governed moving forward.

Senior football officials suggest that Infantino’s opponents may have missed their chance to force him out during the peak of the crisis. Instead, the battle now centers on limiting the power the FIFA president wields. One possible outcome is a governance compromise that allows Infantino to retain his position while relinquishing some executive control. Another scenario involves a prolonged “hot-cold war,” with clubs, confederations, player representatives, and national associations continuously challenging FIFA over competitions, financial arrangements, and the international calendar.

In a recent letter to the FIFA Council and all 211 member associations, Infantino called for an independent external review of FIFA’s governance framework and proposed broad consultations with confederations and other stakeholders. He emphasized his continued commitment to leading the organization but stopped short of offering substantial concessions.

These proposals received a lukewarm reception, with UEFA President Aleksander Ceferin voicing skepticism. In a public address, Ceferin highlighted the loss of trust caused by the private-investment project and underscored the need for unity, transparency, and governance that benefits the wider football community. Although Ceferin did not explicitly name Infantino, his remarks made clear his reservations about the former president’s direction.

Given the complexity of interests within FIFA, a compromise might involve creating new governing structures or bodies designed to dilute presidential powers. This would mark a partial reversal of reforms implemented after former FIFA President Sepp Blatter’s departure, which initially sought to reduce centralized authority.

Without a meaningful settlement, the relationship between FIFA and other football stakeholders could deteriorate into ongoing disputes. Clubs might contest revenue from the Club World Cup, player representatives could dispute international match calendars, and national associations might resist certain initiatives. These conflicts may hinder efforts to expand or restructure FIFA competitions but are unlikely to result in outright institutional breakdown.

Infantino’s prospects for reelection in March 2027 appear to have strengthened, with opportunities ahead for him to consolidate support among smaller associations. Proposals endorsed by Ceferin and CONCACAF President Victor Montagliani to distribute significant funding to all member associations could influence political dynamics within FIFA, as financial incentives carry considerable weight among federations reliant on FIFA financial support.

While the possibility of an enduring cold war within world football remains real, some officials believe that, with time, many oppositional factions could soften their stance, favoring stability over continuous confrontation. The coming months will be critical in shaping the future balance of power within FIFA and the governance of global soccer.