The relationship between Gianni Infantino and Donald Trump has been one of the more bizarre developments in global sports. We saw the early signs during the Club World Cup, where the two men sat together, exchanged compliments, and seemed determined to broadcast their mutual admiration. Even as the United States was at war, FIFA produced a Peace Prize for Trump after the Nobel Committee went in a different direction. It looked faintly ridiculous, but perhaps not catastrophic.
By the 2026 World Cup, the relationship had fully blossomed. There were kind words, shared appearances, and even joint involvement in trophy ceremonies. Infantino either enjoyed exposing Trump to the magic of international soccer or believed he could use the relationship to move the game forward. Then came the moment when Trump intervened directly in soccer matters, inquiring about the status of a suspended U.S. player — a line no host nation should cross.
Meanwhile, serious issues went unaddressed. A respected referee faced visa problems and was forced to work matches in Canada after being denied entry to the United States. Visitors following their national teams were reminded not to “overstay their welcome.” The Iranian team — representing a nation at war with the U.S. — was treated harshly, barred from remaining in the country after its match. None of this reflected the spirit of a World Cup, and the closeness between Trump and Infantino did nothing to improve matters. Infantino said he must respect the wishes of the host nation, but never acknowledged that a host must also respect the nature of hosting a global tournament. If he was working behind closed doors, there was little evidence of it.
This week, we saw where the relationship may be heading. Under the banner of FIFA Forward, Infantino announced that private equity — including Josh Kushner, brother of Trump’s son‑in‑law — would take ownership stakes in parts of FIFA, with countries given until September 19 to agree. The offer: $20 million upfront, $40 million total. For smaller nations, that is tempting. But the rest of the world is not the United States, and the blowback was immediate. UEFA threatened to boycott upcoming World Cups, unanimously. CONCACAF — the region that includes the U.S. — announced it would vote against the plan. One of Infantino’s most trusted deputies resigned. The message was unmistakable: the World Cup belongs to the world, not to Infantino, Trump, or private equity.
The last World Cup was wildly successful financially. If the goal is to help small and poor federations, there is no need to wait for a new vehicle. That work can begin now. And if this proposal is truly about helping smaller nations, FIFA’s recent behavior does not inspire confidence. The organization did little to advocate for fans from those countries, and the United States has hardly been welcoming to visitors. Suddenly we are told this is all for the benefit of the global south?
Offering money upfront for a vote may be effective in some contexts, but here it was too transparent, too transactional, and too dismissive of the sport’s global character. If FIFA believes its current structure needs reform, it should present a coherent plan, explain how investment could improve governance, and allow a genuine competition among investment groups. That is how institutions earn trust.
Sometimes power and success make leaders unaware of their limits. Europe — and much of the world — just delivered a reminder.