October 8: Ahead of next Thursday’s FIFA Council meeting in Zurich, UEFA’s member associations, meeting in Berlin yesterday (Thursday), outlined a set of reform proposals that struck at the very heart of FIFA president Gianni Infantino’s leadership and FIFA’s core governance.
Following Infantino’s attempt to secure the sale of FIFA’s commercial rights to a new private equity-backed company (FIFA Forward Enterprise – FFE), UEFA, along with Concacaf and AFC, have demanded a major change in FIFA’s future governance and leadership.
In Berlin, UEFA’s associations reiterated (with the exception of Azerbaijan) that they have “lost confidence in the current leadership of FIFA,” a UEFA statement said.
“Institutional reform alone will not be enough. FIFA also needs new leadership: a respected and unifying figure, deeply rooted in football, with the vision and experience to lead, the ability to build trust between regions and an unequivocal commitment to development, reform, integrity and independence.”
It is a position UEFA has steadfastly maintained since the FFE scandal broke in early September when it first demanded that Infantino step down with immediate effect. Infantino has since refused to confront his accusers in any official forum, although next week he will chair a meeting of the FIFA Council that has a limited proposal for a governance review on the agenda.
That won’t be enough to satisfy UEFA members who want an overhaul (and removal) of FIFA’s governance and leadership, starting with Infantino.
UEFA’s proposals for FIFA reform include a clear separation of powers between Congress, the Council and the FIFA Bureau (where the heads of the six confederations meet with the FIFA president) and the removal of the FIFA president from all management roles.
The proposal is that the general secretary of FIFA is appointed by the Bureau and that he reports to the Bureau and not only to the president.
It also calls for the Council to become the key strategic body that defines FIFA’s direction, involving all stakeholders and developing the main proposals that will shape FIFA’s future, from the international match calendar to the disbursement of FIFA Forward funds. The Council is currently seen as a bloated committee that is expected to unquestioningly rubber-stamp the proposals and ideas of Infantino and his executive, which it invariably does.
Addressing Infantino’s abuse of power as FIFA president, UEFA’s proposals call for stronger ethics, discipline, audit and compliance functions free from presidential or executive influence.
There is also the expected demand that FIFA’s international match schedule and competition changes be unanimously approved by the Bureau, removing what has become the president’s authority to do whatever he wants with both, regardless of the effect on the regional and national competition ecosystems of confederations and national associations.
UEFA also requires that no FIFA resources can be used for personal or electoral interests. Infantino is currently brazenly using both FIFA staff and FIFA money, including a private jet, to pursue his ambition of global re-election.
Most of what UEFA is asking for is already enshrined in FIFA’s statutes, but has been ignored or overturned by Infantino, who came to power on a promise to reform FIFA in 2016, having been a key member of its Reform Committee in 2015. What is now required, in UEFA’s eyes, is a cast-iron reinforcement of those principles and an oversight that has teeth to enforce them.
At the heart of it all is Infantino’s position and the power he has invested in himself to allow him to act unilaterally on FIFA’s biggest decisions. His dismissal appears non-negotiable and his refusal to leave could mean the final dismantling of FIFA if UEFA follows through on its threat to withdraw from all FIFA competitions.
It is the nuclear option, but UEFA has previously indicated that it would follow.
A FIFA without UEFA would ultimately mean no FIFA competitions of significant international relevance and a FIFA with virtually no money.
More than 800 of the more than 1,200 players from the last World Cup live in European clubs; they are unlikely to put unpaid national duties ahead of highly paid club contracts. The biggest broadcast deals supporting FIFA are European, while the sponsors’ target markets are supported by Europe’s wealth.
More than 50 of FIFA’s nations have a population of less than 1 million, but all have one vote, parity with the world’s largest nations. More than 50 nations with a total population of less than 50 million have 50 votes, compared to men’s and women’s world champions Spain, with a population of 49.8 million, who have one vote.
This imbalance should be worrying for the 50. They have already indicated that their decisions will be made on what is best for them personally (as federations and individuals) rather than what they think is good for the future of football.
It’s also the business-as-usual choice and Infantino’s rule safer for them and their grant money than the nuclear threat of UEFA pulling out of the FIFA competition and taking the best teams, biggest media deals and highest-paid sponsors with them. Hypothetically taking it to the next level – and a proposal has already been put forward for a global, non-FIFA format of the Nations League – how difficult would it be for UEFA to split its four-year cycle to organize a second major international competition and invite the best teams from outside Europe to participate.
Japan, South Korea, Brazil, USA, Mexico, for example, would prefer to play in Spain, England and France or would choose to play in Jamaica, Qatar and New Zealand. It’s hypothetical, but so was the Super League proposal which was built on a far less secure foundation.
UEFA’s reform proposals ensure that grant money will no longer be used as a political tool to keep small nations in voting line. UEFA also proposes to give each national federation an immediate 10 million dollars from the 6 billion FIFA reserves.
His support for Infantino could end up being horribly and wrongly self-defeating, a real danger to his own existence. If UEFA pulls out of FIFA competitions, who will pay for their transport as the big money World Cup becomes meaningless? FIFA could use its reserves for a while, but it would be brief.
Thursday’s FIFA Council meeting has a lot to do with that, it’s just the first stage. UEFA said another meeting of its 55 national associations will be held before November 17, 2026. That is the deadline for nominations for the FIFA presidency.
Full text of UEFA’s proposal below.
Contact the writer of this story at (email protected)
FIFA REFORM PROPOSALS
As approved at Berlin on October 8, 2026
- Institutional governance:
Separation of powers:
Congress, Council, Bureau, President and SG exercise their own powers. No individual can overlook another’s role. Responsibilities and decision-making must be clear and transparent.
An authorized office:
The FIFA Office exercises defined executive powers, ensuring that decisions reflect the overall balance of football.
A strengthened FIFA Council
It sets FIFA’s direction, engages key stakeholders and shapes important proposals before commitments are made.
Commissions adapted to the objective
Committees should be streamlined to ensure clear purpose and added value
A president who directs, does not manage:
The President presides over the Council, represents FIFA at global level and leads without exercising management functions.
A general secretary responsible for:
Appointed and supervised by the Bureau, the GS directs the administration of FIFA under the supervision of the Council.
- Decision making, supervision and accountability
Stronger ethics, discipline, auditing and compliance:
The appointments and work of FIFA’s supervisory bodies are protected from presidential or executive interference.
No unilateral decision on FIFA’s international match schedule and competitions:
Changes to IMC and FIFA competitions, new or existing, require the unanimity of the Bureau.
Right of the member association to present articles to the FIFA Council:
A defined number of MAs may require a matter to be included in the agenda of the FIFA Council.
A clear process for major decisions:
Consultation → Table → Council → Decision. Major proposals must go through each necessary step before making a decision.
- FIFA development and resources
MA-led development support:
Each AM defines its needs with its Confederation. FIFA provides the funding; Confederations support delivery.
FIFA Forward Funding as Protected Master’s Right:
Each compliant AM is entitled to its Forward allocation, through a transparent distribution framework protected from political interference.
FIFA booking policy and release:
A formal and transparent policy governing the level, investment and use of FIFA’s financial reserves, with at least an additional $10 million in funding for each MA, in addition to Forward.
FIFA resources for FIFA purposes:
FIFA resources may not be used for personal or electoral interests.
