欧足联（UEFA）对FIFA主席因蒂诺发出最后通牒，要求其辞职或接受不信任投票。[1]这一行动源于因蒂诺提出的有争议的商业计划遭到广泛反对后被迫撤回。[1][2]根据UEFA的声明，其55个成员国全部支持不信任投票，[1]这意味着拥有投票权的成员国数量已远超触发投票程序所需的43个。[1]
因蒂诺被迫撤回的计划涉及创建FIFA Forward Enterprise商业实体以运营世界杯，[2]涉及金额达200亿美元。[2]UEFA指控该计划违反透明度原则，[1]而因蒂诺在2016年竞选FIFA主席时曾承诺"必须透明"。[1]亚足联（AFC）和CONCACAF等其他地区足球协会也表示了反对。[2]其中UEFA、CONCACAF和AFC的136票足以超过阻止该提案所需的106票。[2]
该计划引发了国际政界的关注。英国首相安迪·伯纳姆和美国总统唐纳德·特朗普对这一计划表示了质疑或未被咨询。[1]FIFA内部也出现了异议，资深顾问卡洛斯·科德罗将该提案称为"对足球的坏交易"，[2]而首席运营官凯文·拉莫尔表示FIFA管理层被"欺骗"。[2]
据报道，FIFA银行账户中现有超过50亿美元的储备。[1]这一事件为2027年的FIFA主席选举埋下了伏笔。[2]
FIFA President Gianni Infantino faces a critical threat from European football authorities after he was forced to withdraw a controversial plan to commercialize World Cup broadcasting rights. UEFA, representing 55 member nations, has announced it will vote to remove Infantino from office unless he resigns, marking an unprecedented challenge to his leadership [1]. The ultimatum stems from widespread opposition to a proposed FIFA Forward Enterprise structure that would have generated $20 billion through private investment to operate World Cup commercial operations [2].
The disputed proposal drew fierce criticism from multiple continental football confederations for lacking transparency and undermining the public interest in football [2]. UEFA claims all 55 of its member states would support the no-confidence motion, with only 43 votes required to trigger the formal removal process [1]. The combined voting power of UEFA, CONCACAF, and the Asian Football Confederation totals 136 votes—well exceeding the 106 votes needed to block such initiatives [2]. The plan's withdrawal has also prompted internal defections within FIFA itself; senior adviser Carlos Cordeiro described it as "a bad deal for football," while Chief Operating Officer Kevin Lamour indicated the FIFA management team had been "deceived" [2].
The controversy raises questions about Infantino's future as FIFA president, with his next reelection scheduled for 2027 [2]. Other regional football leaders have emerged as potential alternatives to lead the organization [2]. This confrontation represents a significant fracture in global football governance, as leading nations demand greater accountability in how the sport's most prestigious tournament is managed commercially.
