FIFA President Infantino Faces Resignation Calls Over Undisclosed £1.3m Payment

FIFA president Gianni Infantino is facing growing pressure to resign following reports that he received an additional $1.76 million (£1.3 million) in 2024 from a company established to organise the 2026 FIFA World Cup, with the payment absent from FIFA’s published annual remuneration figures.

The disclosure, reported by British newspaper The Times and subsequently covered by Sky Sports and other media outlets, has raised questions about transparency and compliance with FIFA’s governance rules. US tax filings reportedly show that FWC2026 US Inc., the entity established to organize the 2026 World Cup, paid Infantino the additional sum.

According to FIFA’s 2024 annual report, Infantino received 4.274 million Swiss francs, equivalent to approximately £3.88 million, in salary and other disclosed remuneration during the year. The additional payment from FWC2026 US Inc. was not included in those publicly reported figures.

The controversy centres on FIFA’s commitment to disclose the compensation of its senior officials. Article 43, paragraph 13 of the organization’s statutes states that the individual compensation of the FIFA president, members of the FIFA Council and the secretary-general must be made public.

The reported omission has prompted questions about whether Infantino’s full compensation was disclosed in accordance with the organization’s own transparency requirements.

Miguel Maduro, a former chairman of FIFA’s governance committee, has called for an independent investigation into the payments. He argued that compensation received from companies linked to FIFA should also be disclosed if it falls within the organization’s remuneration disclosure requirements.

However, FIFA has denied wrongdoing, maintaining that the president’s remuneration and contractual benefits are determined by its compensation subcommittee.

In its response, FIFA said it contributes to social charges, pension funds and other contractual employee benefits for the president, and that these benefits are reported to US authorities in line with applicable reporting requirements.

The organisation has not publicly explained, in the reports cited, why the additional payment did not appear in its published 2024 remuneration figures.

The controversy has also drawn attention to the structure of the 2026 World Cup organising arrangements, particularly the relationship between FIFA and FWC2026 US Inc. The reported payment raises questions about how compensation involving FIFA-linked entities is authorised, recorded and disclosed.

The issue comes amid broader criticism of Infantino’s leadership, including a separate controversy over a proposal to sell stakes in FIFA tournaments to private investors. The proposal reportedly generated concern within the organization and added to tensions over the management of the world governing body.

Infantino, who became FIFA president in 2016 and was re-elected in 2023, has indicated that he intends to seek another term in March 2027. He has not announced plans to resign, according to reports published on October 13, 2026.

The latest revelations have intensified scrutiny of FIFA’s financial transparency and governance standards. However, the reported omission of the payment does not, by itself, establish that a crime was committed or that FIFA’s statutes were definitively breached.

The central questions remain whether the additional compensation should have been disclosed in FIFA’s annual report, whether the relevant rules were followed, and whether an independent investigation will establish any breach of the organization’s governance requirements.

Trump’s FIFA Appeal Over Balogun Red Card Sparks UEFA Backlash, Raises Questions Over World Cup Integrity

 

A decision by FIFA to overturn the one-match suspension of United States striker Folarin Balogun after intervention by U.S. President Donald Trump has ignited one of the biggest controversies of the 2026 FIFA World Cup, prompting a strong rebuke from UEFA and raising fresh concerns about the integrity of football’s disciplinary process.

Trump publicly confirmed that he contacted FIFA President Gianni Infantino to request a review of Balogun’s red card after the striker was sent off during the United States’ victory over Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Speaking to reporters, Trump questioned FIFA’s disciplinary rules.

“Balogun is our best player. He got a red card. I didn’t know what that meant, but then I heard that it means you cannot play in the next game. That’s very unfair. How do you penalize him for a game that hasn’t been played yet? I asked for a review by FIFA.”

Under FIFA regulations, a player shown a straight red card is ordinarily suspended for the team’s next match. However, in a highly unusual move, FIFA suspended the enforcement of Balogun’s one-match ban for a one-year probationary period, making him eligible to face Belgium in the Round of 16. FIFA said the decision was made under Article 27 of its Disciplinary Code.  

The decision immediately triggered criticism from across European football.

In a strongly worded statement, UEFA said FIFA had “crossed a red line” by suspending the automatic sanction during an ongoing World Cup.

The European governing body argued that football depends on the consistent application of its rules and warned that making exceptions in the middle of a tournament risks undermining the credibility of the competition. UEFA also cautioned that the decision could create a precedent, potentially leading other teams and players to seek similar treatment in future disciplinary cases.  

Belgium’s football federation also challenged Balogun’s eligibility, maintaining that automatic suspensions for red cards should apply equally to every player competing in the tournament.  

The controversy has shifted attention away from on-field performances and towards the relationship between politics and football governance.

While Trump insisted he merely requested a review rather than directing FIFA to change its decision, critics have questioned whether direct intervention by a sitting U.S. president in an active disciplinary matter could create the perception of political influence over the world’s biggest football tournament.  

FIFA, for its part, has maintained that its independent judicial bodies reached the decision autonomously under the provisions of its disciplinary regulations.  

What it means for the World Cup

The Balogun case could become a defining moment of the 2026 World Cup.

If FIFA’s decision stands, it may establish a precedent for future disciplinary reviews involving automatic suspensions, particularly where exceptional circumstances are argued. That prospect has alarmed football officials who fear inconsistent enforcement of the rules could lead to more appeals and increased scrutiny of FIFA’s disciplinary independence.  

The episode has also intensified debate over whether political figures should have any role—direct or indirect—in matters traditionally handled by football’s governing institutions.

For the United States, Balogun’s availability provides a major boost, with the striker among the team’s leading performers at the tournament. For FIFA, however, the decision has placed its governance and commitment to equal application of the rules under unprecedented scrutiny.  

Whether the controversy fades or becomes a lasting talking point may depend not only on the United States’ progress in the tournament but also on how FIFA handles similar disciplinary cases in the future.