Pet dana koji su uzdrmali Infantina i svjetski nogomet: "Izgubili smo povjerenje u njegovo vodstvo"

Gianni Infantino has faced one of the biggest challenges to his leadership since taking charge of world football. After just five days of intense backlash, the private funding initiative for the World Cup and football development has been abandoned, though the consequences for the FIFA president could last far longer. The fallout has already shaken confidence in his authority, with major organizations openly criticizing his governance. The European Football Association (UEFA) directly attacked FIFA’s leadership on Saturday, stating it had “lost trust” in Infantino’s guidance. This was one of the sharpest messages ever directed at the man leading the world governing body. UEFA cited terms such as “lack of transparency,” “secret plans,” and poor management, drawing comparisons to the crisis surrounding the failed European Super League project in 2021, according to BBC reports. A new storm in football has erupted within just a few days. The funding plan, which Infantino championed, did not have a catchy name like the Super League, yet it sparked similar waves of discontent. FIFA confirmed on Saturday that it would withdraw from the proposal, but the damage to the president's reputation has already been done. At the highest level, football is a massive global business involving billions of euros. While player and staff salaries are long beyond the reach of the average fan, this latest crisis has opened questions about whether there are limits football should not cross. One of the main questions around Infantino’s plan concerned the very need for private investment. FIFA officially operates as a non-profit organization but holds financial reserves exceeding two billion dollars. Additionally, it is expected to generate record revenues of around 15 billion dollars from this year’s World Cup. Despite these figures, the plan proposed additional private capital, offering approximately 40 million dollars for development projects to member associations who would participate by a set deadline. Many questioned why such a model was necessary, especially given that some countries did not have urgent needs for the extra funds. The situation was further complicated by the fact that numerous high-ranking officials within FIFA, including vice-presidents, advisors, and board members, were reportedly not involved in the decision-making process or even aware that the plan was being prepared. UEFA issued a strongly worded statement after the withdrawal of the project. It claimed that the current leadership of FIFA has lost not only its trust among UEFA but also among many other members of the football family. They reminded Infantino of his promises made in 2016, when he was first elected as FIFA president. At that time, he spoke of money belonging to national associations and emphasized that it must serve the development of football, not individual interests. UEFA now asserts that those promises have not been fulfilled. Criticism has not come solely from Europe. Sheikh Salman bin Ebrahim Al Khalifa, president of the Asian Football Confederation and one of FIFA’s vice-presidents, also called for greater transparency and inclusion in decision-making processes. He stated that the future of world football must be shaped through consultation, joint dialogue, and respect for existing management rules. The situation has drawn parallels to the 2021 European Super League crisis, where 12 top European clubs attempted to create a closed competition that would rival the Champions League. That project collapsed within 72 hours of fierce criticism from fans, domestic leagues, football associations, and public figures. This time, however, the resistance came not only from fans but also from individuals within football institutions themselves. Particularly notable was the statement from Kevin Lamour, FIFA’s operational director, who described the project as “a one-person project” and confirmed that FIFA’s administration had been misled. Lamour added that the organization had been led astray by the lack of involvement and transparency. His remarks underscored the deepening concerns over how decisions were being made behind closed doors.