Keypoints:
- CAF remains firmly behind Infantino
- Three confederations demand independent scrutiny
- Rival tournament talks remain preliminary
THE Confederation of African Football’s (CAF) continuing support for Gianni Infantino has exposed a significant fault line in world football as UEFA, the Asian Football Confederation and Concacaf intensify their challenge to FIFA’s leadership following the collapse of the controversial FIFA Forward Enterprise proposal.
The dispute now reaches beyond the abandoned commercial restructuring plan. It has become a wider argument over governance, consultation and control of world football’s most valuable assets, while raising a central African question: why has CAF chosen cooperation with FIFA as three other major confederations openly challenge Infantino’s leadership?
Three confederations challenge FIFA
UEFA, AFC and Concacaf escalated the confrontation on August 10 by issuing a joint open letter sharply criticising FIFA’s handling of FIFA Forward Enterprise, or FFE.
The letter, signed by the presidents and general secretaries of the three confederations, accused FIFA’s leadership of breaking trust through ‘deception’ and described the process surrounding FFE as a serious ‘failure of judgement’.
They also rejected the idea that FIFA should effectively investigate itself and called instead for a fully independent third-party review.
That intervention transformed what had initially looked like primarily European opposition into a much wider institutional challenge spanning Europe, Asia, North America, Central America and the Caribbean.
Bloomberg reported on August 10 that UEFA, AFC and Concacaf had also held preliminary discussions over possible international competitions that could rival FIFA tournaments if the dispute worsens.
Those discussions should, however, be treated cautiously.
The confederations have not publicly confirmed that they are developing rival competitions. Bloomberg based its report on unidentified people familiar with the discussions, while UEFA and Concacaf declined to comment and AFC had not responded before publication.
There is therefore no confirmed breakaway tournament at this stage.
How FIFA Forward Enterprise triggered crisis
The dispute began with FIFA Forward Enterprise, a proposal under which FIFA planned to place significant commercial and event operations into a new subsidiary while allowing private investors to acquire a minority stake.
FIFA said the structure could raise as much as $4.2bn, based on an initial valuation of about $20bn.
The proposed financial benefits for national football associations were substantial.
Under the plan, FIFA Forward allocations to each of its 211 member associations could have risen from $8m to $20m for the 2027–2030 cycle. Associations could also potentially have accessed additional funding for major development projects.
That prospect was particularly significant for football associations with limited domestic commercial revenues.
But UEFA, AFC and Concacaf have stressed that their opposition is not simply about money. Their August 10 letter said they supported responsible distribution of FIFA’s reserves to member associations but objected to the governance, consultation and decision-making process behind FFE.
Concacaf had previously complained that it learnt important details through media reporting rather than through proper consultation.
FIFA eventually withdrew the proposal.
Following discussions in Rabat on August 5, FIFA acknowledged mistakes in how FFE had been communicated and handled and confirmed that the plan was ‘off the table’. It said a review would be presented to the FIFA Council.
For UEFA, AFC and Concacaf, that response has not resolved the governance questions.
CAF chooses cooperation over confrontation
CAF has taken a markedly different approach.
When the controversy first emerged, the African football governing body did not reject FFE. Instead, it said its Executive Committee would assess the proposal and encouraged Africa’s 54 national associations to participate in FIFA’s consultation process.
CAF also emphasised the need to secure greater financial and other resources for football development across the continent.
After FIFA withdrew FFE and acknowledged shortcomings in the process, CAF’s Executive Committee unanimously endorsed the joint update issued by Infantino and FIFA Secretary General Mattias Grafström.
That position fits a much broader pattern.
On April 29, CAF announced that all 54 African member associations had unanimously agreed to support Infantino’s re-election as FIFA president for the 2027–2031 term.
CAF President Patrice Motsepe had earlier described Infantino as a ‘loyal and trustworthy friend and partner’ of African football.
The relationship therefore predates the FFE controversy and reflects years of close institutional cooperation between CAF and FIFA.
Africa has also gained greater representation within the expanded FIFA World Cup structure, with the continent guaranteed nine direct qualification places for the 2026 tournament and a possible tenth through the inter-confederation play-offs.
That broader context helps explain why CAF’s calculations may differ substantially from those of UEFA.
Funding matters, but motive is not proven
Development finance remains an important part of the African context.
For many African associations, FIFA Forward funding supports infrastructure, administration, technical development, women’s football, youth programmes and domestic competitions.
An increase from $8m to $20m per association would therefore carry considerable practical significance.
But that does not establish that CAF is backing Infantino because of money.
There is no public evidence proving that development funding explains CAF’s position, and it would be wrong to present such a conclusion as fact.
The defensible point is narrower: CAF and UEFA operate in radically different financial environments and therefore do not necessarily assess FIFA’s development-financing proposals through the same economic lens.
Europe controls many of the world’s richest leagues, clubs and broadcasting markets. Many African federations remain far more dependent on central development funding.
That difference matters even if it does not determine CAF’s political position.
Africa remains key to Infantino’s support base
The deeper significance of the dispute lies in the political map now forming around FIFA.
UEFA, AFC and Concacaf are demanding an independent investigation and openly challenging the leadership responsible for the FFE process.
CAF, by contrast, continues to advocate reform, development funding and cooperation with FIFA while maintaining its publicly declared support for Infantino.
That places Africa’s 54 FIFA members in an increasingly important position ahead of the 2027 FIFA presidential cycle.
If tensions remain limited to governance disputes, CAF may continue to act as one of Infantino’s strongest institutional support bases.
If the confrontation moves towards competing tournaments or rival structures, the stakes become far greater.
African federations could then face questions over where they align, whether alternative competitions would seek African participation and how any institutional split could affect qualification systems, player release arrangements, commercial rights and development funding.
None of those scenarios is inevitable. The rival-tournament discussions reported by Bloomberg remain preliminary and unconfirmed by the confederations involved.
But the political division itself is already clear.
World football’s widening rift is no longer simply FIFA against UEFA. Three powerful confederations are now demanding independent scrutiny of FIFA’s leadership, while CAF has chosen to remain aligned with Infantino.
For African football, the question is no longer merely whether CAF supports the FIFA president.
It is whether that support will ultimately strengthen Africa’s influence inside world football — or leave the continent exposed if the institutional battle becomes something much larger.
Related stories
