Guardian Editorial Says Infantino Should Leave FIFA After World Cup Stake Storm

What happened:

Watch the highlights:

The Guardian’s editorial board has called for FIFA president Gianni Infantino to leave his post, arguing that his attempt to move past the storm over a proposed World Cup stake sale adds insult to injury. The editorial says the leaked plan involved selling a stake in the World Cup to the brother of Donald Trump’s son-in-law.

This is an opinion article, not a formal FIFA decision or a vote of no confidence. Its importance is that it captures how sharply the conversation around Infantino has moved. The Guardian argues that his authority is draining away quickly after years in which he had already faced criticism for a monetising approach that, in the paper’s view, often came at a sporting cost.

Why it matters:

The World Cup is not just another property in the football calendar. It is the tournament that gives FIFA its power, its money and much of its legitimacy. A plan to sell a stake in it, even if not completed, touches the central question of who the competition is for. The Guardian’s position is that the controversy is serious enough to make Infantino’s continued leadership untenable.

For tournament followers, the key distinction is between confirmed governance pressure and confirmed removal. The editorial demands that Infantino should go, but it does not mean FIFA has begun a removal process or that member associations have taken a binding position. The consequence today is reputational pressure; the consequence tomorrow depends on whether that pressure moves inside FIFA’s political structure.

Tournament impact:

Any governance crisis at FIFA can affect the environment around the World Cup even before it affects the tournament format itself. Sponsors, broadcasters, host nations and member associations all operate around confidence in the event’s stewardship. If the president’s authority weakens, future decisions on commercial models, tournament expansion, rights structures and host relationships may face tougher questioning.

The editorial also matters because it links this episode to a longer pattern. It does not treat the leaked plan as a one-off mistake. It presents it as the sudden acceleration of a gradual loss of credibility under a leadership style focused heavily on monetisation. That framing will shape how subsequent FIFA announcements are received.

What to watch:

The decisive question is whether calls for Infantino to leave remain in the media sphere or are echoed by football institutions. Watch for statements from national associations, confederation figures, sponsors or governance bodies. Silence would help Infantino ride out the episode; coordinated criticism would make the story harder to contain.

Confidence:

Confirmed by the Guardian source: its editorial board says Infantino should go, criticises his handling of the World Cup stake controversy, and says the leaked plan involved the brother of Donald Trump’s son-in-law. Still needing follow-up: FIFA’s detailed response, the plan’s full terms, and whether any formal challenge to Infantino’s leadership emerges.