FIFA Scored Near the Top on Governance. UEFA’s Revolt Shows What It Misses

FIFA received its strongest formal governance rating to date in June. Less than two months later, UEFA declared that it no longer had confidence in FIFA President Gianni Infantino after FIFA withdrew a proposed private-equity structure for future World Cup profits.

Those facts are not necessarily contradictory. They measure different things: one is a periodic review of governance indicators, while the other is a live institutional dispute over how a major commercial decision was developed, disclosed and approved.

What the ASOIF review found

The Association of Summer Olympic International Federations published its sixth biennial review on June 12, 2026. FIFA was placed in the highest A1 tier, receiving 218 of 240 points—six points more than in 2024 and its highest score in the series.

ASOIF assessed 36 international federations using 60 indicators covering transparency, integrity, democracy, development, sustainability and control mechanisms. FIFA said its result followed a self-assessment that was examined and moderated by the independent sports-governance consultancy I Trust Sport.

That is meaningful evidence about the areas the review measured. It is not a blanket finding that every FIFA decision is transparent, every stakeholder is consulted or the organization is viewed as accountable in real time.

Why UEFA broke with FIFA leadership

The immediate dispute followed FIFA’s withdrawal of the proposed FIFA Forward Enterprise plan. Associated Press reported that FIFA had valued the proposed commercial spinoff at about $20 billion and that it was intended to raise approximately $4.2 billion from private investors, including a New York investment firm associated with Joshua Kushner.

The plan was proposed, not completed. AP reported that it would have placed FIFA’s commercial and tournament operations in a private-investor structure and offered FIFA’s 211 member federations proposed one-time payments of $20 million each, with a mid-September deadline to accept. Those were details of the withdrawn proposal, not payments or a transaction that went ahead.

Opposition grew among confederations before FIFA withdrew the plan. UEFA then said on August 1 that the current FIFA leadership had lost its confidence and called for accountability. The statement was a political and institutional rebuke, not a formal removal vote or completed change in leadership.

From public rupture to possible legal process

The dispute moved beyond public statements on August 3, when AP reported that UEFA was actively considering legal action, arbitration and regulatory complaints connected to the withdrawn plan.

UEFA’s lawyers also issued a document-preservation notice naming 18 FIFA executives, including Infantino, FIFA Chief Financial Officer Thomas Peyer and FIFA’s head of global soccer development, Arsène Wenger. The notice asked that potentially relevant data, documents and electronic messages be retained.

That does not mean litigation has been filed or that any court, arbitrator or regulator has ruled against FIFA. The next meaningful evidence will be formal filings, any FIFA response, disclosure of relevant documents and decisions by UEFA or other confederations to pursue a defined process.

Why the score and the revolt can coexist

Governance assessments typically examine structures, policies, disclosures and control mechanisms at a defined point in time. A confidence crisis can arise from one fast-moving decision, especially when members believe they were not consulted or do not understand who authorized it.

The ASOIF review was published before the private-equity controversy. It therefore should not be treated as a real-time evaluation of the withdrawn plan. A high score can show that an organization meets many formal standards while leaving open questions about how those standards operate during a major commercial dispute.

The Sport Integrity Global Alliance has argued in a separate FIFA disciplinary context that controversies involving major sports bodies should be addressed through clarity, consistency, due process, transparency, independent scrutiny and accountability. SIGA’s statement is specialist advocacy, not an independent adjudication of the FIFA-UEFA dispute. Its broader point is relevant here: integrity depends not only on written rules, but also on whether stakeholders trust the way those rules and oversight mechanisms operate.

What matters next

For fans, sponsors, broadcasters and member federations, the central issue is control over World Cup commercial revenues and the process used to approve major strategic changes. For FIFA, the dispute also comes as the next presidential election approaches. AP reported that the election is scheduled for March, with candidate entries due in November.

The governance score remains one piece of evidence. UEFA’s no-confidence statement, the proposed legal avenues and the preservation notice are another. The outcome will depend less on either headline alone than on whether FIFA and UEFA produce documents, answers and procedures that restore confidence in how global soccer is governed.

Sources

Look for updates to this story

Discover more from Interactive News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.