This summer’s World Cup will certainly go down as one of the most memorable, and controversial editions of the competition. From visa issues, to outrageous ticket prices. However the relationship between, FIFA President, Gianni Infantino and, the President of the United States, Donald Trump became the focal point of the tournament.

White House Influence

Gianni Infantino spent much of the run-up to the 2026 World Cup standing next to Donald Trump. The two appeared together at the tournament draw in Washington, at matches throughout the summer, and finally at the trophy presentation in New Jersey, after Spain beat Argentina in the final.

Infantino and Trump are no strangers, meeting for the first time in 2018 during Trump’s first presidential term and multiple times in 2020, most notably at the Abraham Accords signing. At the World Cup draw, in December 2025, Donald Trump was presented with the first “FIFA Peace Prize” supposedly for ending wars and brokering several ceasefires around the world. This is despite Infantino himself stating “It is very clear that politics should stay out of football and football should stay out of politics”

On the pitch

That relationship eventually (and unsurprisingly) spilled into the tournament itself. Trump revealed that he had personally called Infantino about a red card shown to USMNT forward Folarin Balogun during the group stage. The suspension was subsequently overturned, freeing Balogun to play in the next round, which they went on the lose.

This fueled a broader concern that FIFA’s decision-making was being influenced by a head-of-state rather than by FIFA’s own disciplinary process.

Travel bans and restrictions

It was not just the relationship between these two that caused controversy, it was how FIFA allowed politics to overtake football and the “unity” that FIFA preaches. Trump and Infantino’s first meeting related to the World Cup came in November 2025 when they announced the FIFA Pass aimed at providing priority visa interviews to fans with World Cup tickets.

This was intended to ease travel for international fans however citizens from several countries were restricted from travel to the US, despite having purchased World Cup tickets. Contrasted with the previous World Cup in Qatar where travel was not restricted for citizens coming from specific countries.

Iran’s team was forced to base itself in Tijuana, Mexico, due to security risks over the ongoing Israel-Iran conflict, for the group stage despite all three of its opening matches being played in the United States, with the captain describing his team as the “most oppressed in the World Cup”.

Fans from Senegal and Ivory Coast, among other countries placed under partial US entry restrictions, faced similar uncertainty about whether they would be able to attend matches they had already paid for. The presence of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers at stadiums added to the unease, intimidating travelers, even those with legal status who had nothing to worry about.

More than 120 civil society groups issued a travel advisory warning that fans, players, journalists and other visitors traveling for the 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup could be at risk of serious rights violations:

• Inhuman treatment – and even death – while in ICE detention or custody

• Denial of entry and risk of arrest and deportation

• Invasive social media screening and searches of electronic devices

• Violent and unconstitutional immigration enforcement, including racial profiling

• Suppression of speech and protest

Infantino’s failed World Cup plan

For nearly a decade, Gianni Infantino built his FIFA presidency around expansion: more teams and more matches. In 2018, Infantino pushed for new competitions to be created, which posed a long-term risk to continental tournaments like UEFA competitions for clubs and national teams.

In 2021, Infantino proposed playing World Cups every two years instead of four. Both of these plans were dropped due to the backlash they received.

Days after the biggest World Cup ever staged, he tried to go a step further, triggering the most serious leadership crisis of his career.

The proposal, revealed by Martyn Ziegler, called for FIFA to sell roughly a 20 percent stake in a new commercial entity that would oversee its competitions, including future World Cups.

The plan aimed to raise up to $4.2 billion from outside investors, valuing the new venture at around $20 billion. The lead investor was expected to be Thrive Capital, the New York investment firm founded by Joshua Kushner, the brother of Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner – potentially explaining Infantino’s close relationship to Trump in recent years.

FIFA set a deadline of September 19 for its member associations to weigh in, but they were incentivised to support the plan with a $20m payment for each of the member associations. This type of money would have been hugely beneficial to members that do not have the same amount of resources that European members like England or France possess.

The Backlash

However, continental federations stepped in and all UEFA’s 55 member nations had agreed to boycott the next World Cup as well as all other FIFA competitions such as the upcoming Women’s U-20 World Cup to protest the proposal. CONCACAF and the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) also opposed the plan.

Internally, FIFA was also falling apart as Carlos Cordeiro, a senior adviser to Infantino, resigned in protest, saying he could not stand by while FIFA considered selling a stake in the World Cup. Hours later, FIFA’s chief operating officer, Kevin Lamour, told the Associated Press that staff had been kept in the dark throughout the process, calling it the “project of one person” and insisting it could not be allowed to proceed. He has been sacked from his post.

What would Infantino have gained

FIFA has always presented itself as a non-profit organisation, its stated purpose being to funnel World Cup revenue back into the 211 member federations that make up its membership, financing everything from youth development programs to basic operating budgets in countries with little football infrastructure of their own.

As FIFA president, Infantino is paid a base salary of $2.6m and a variable figure of $2.2m, a figure that has itself drawn scrutiny given the organization’s non-profit status. Infantino was set to receive a salary of around $30 million, plus bonuses, to lead the newly created commercial entity that would have taken over FIFA’s competitions, including the next World Cup.

This means that a percentage of revenue and profits would have made its way into these private investors’ pockets as well as Infantino’s instead of 100% of it going back into the organisation and its 211 member associations.

FIFA, meanwhile, has not offered a detailed statement of how compensation under the new entity would have compared with the president’s current salary structure, or how it would have worked alongside its non-profit obligations.

Member federations pushing for accountability have specifically pointed to a lack of transparency around who stood to benefit financially from a plan that was marketed publicly as a way to generate more resources for football’s global development.

When Infantino withdrew the proposal, UEFA did not stand down, declaring that it had lost confidence in FIFA’s current leadership altogether, with president Aleksander Čeferin saying no option should be off the table in holding those responsible to account.

CONCACAF criticised what it described as poor governance and leadership, whilst British Prime Minister Andy Burnham went further, declaring Infantino unfit to lead the organization and for “FIFA to undertake an urgent review of its governance”.

UEFA’s response escalated from statements to legal threats. Lawyers for the confederation informed FIFA it was actively considering legal action, related to the plan, and warned that any potential evidence connected to it should not be destroyed.

Where do we go from here?

Several national federations that had previously submitted letters of support for Infantino’s re-election bid began withdrawing them. This is ahead of a candidate declaration deadline set four months before the election in March 2027. The Football Association of Wales were the first to reverse course and oppose his re-election bid, with other federations, such as the English FA, following suit and withdrawing their support for Infantino.

Infantino could be removed as FIFA President if an emergency congress is called by 20% of its 211 members, where a vote of no confidence would be held.

On the other hand, it is important to note that Infantino still has allies such as the Qatari FA; its president Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa bin Ahmed Al Thani, affirming his support for Infantino despite the failed proposal: “While the proposal had merit, we applaud the wisdom behind prioritising unity among Member Associations. The Qatar Football Association fully supports President Infantino’s efforts to continue growing and strengthening the game globally.”

Similarly, the federations of Lebanon, Morocco, Sudan, Egypt and Mauritania each signed a joint statement in support of his leadership and potentially his re-election for the 2027-31 term.