Luis Figo Calls for Gianni Infantino to Resign: “He Should Go. Now” After World Cup Sell-Off Scandal
Portugal legend Luis Figo has delivered one of the most scathing public attacks yet on FIFA president Gianni Infantino, demanding his immediate resignation in a blistering opinion piece that has intensified the crisis surrounding world football’s governing body.
In an article published by the Daily Mail on August 5, 2026, the former Ballon d’Or winner and UEFA adviser pulled no punches. “I could write 10,000 words on the problems at FIFA. But the solution needs only three: Infantino must go,” Figo wrote. He described the FIFA president’s recent conduct as “the lowest, most deceitful and cravenly self-interested behaviour I have ever witnessed.”
Figo, who enjoyed a glittering 20-year career with Sporting Lisbon, Barcelona, Real Madrid and Inter Milan while winning 127 caps for Portugal, framed his criticism around Infantino’s now-abandoned plan to open the World Cup and other major tournaments to private investment. The Portuguese icon said the episode revealed a leader more interested in personal enrichment than the sport’s future.
The plan, unveiled in late July 2026, involved creating a new commercial subsidiary called FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE). This entity would have taken control of the commercial and operational rights to FIFA’s flagship events, including the men’s and women’s World Cups and the Club World Cup. FIFA intended to sell a minority stake of around 20-21 percent to outside investors at an initial valuation of approximately $20 billion, aiming to raise up to $4.2 billion.
The leading investor group was expected to be headed by Thrive Eternal, a vehicle linked to American investor Joshua Kushner, brother of Jared Kushner and connected through family ties to former US President Donald Trump. FIFA argued the funds would massively boost development money for its 211 member associations, offering an immediate one-off payment of $20 million per association plus increased ongoing grants that could more than double previous levels.
Critics, including UEFA, condemned the proposal as an attempt to sell the “soul and governance of football.” They argued it lacked transparency, risked permanent loss of control over the World Cup, and prioritised private equity returns over the long-term interests of the game. After fierce backlash from confederations, national associations and fans, Infantino announced the plan would not proceed, stating it had “created divisions” no longer in the project’s interest.
Figo rejected the idea that the scheme was ever a sound proposition. He questioned why it had not been openly presented to member associations when they gathered before the 2026 World Cup final. “If it was such a good idea, why not tell your members when you had them all in a room before the World Cup Final?” he asked. “If it was such a robust plan, why not tell your members the risks as well as what you describe as the benefits? If the scheme was a no-brainer, why not be honest about the fact that it was going to give you a $30m-a-year job at the end of it?”
He went further, arguing the plan was neither bold nor honest. Private equity, he noted, seeks “crippling returns.” Once shares were sold, ownership of the World Cup would be gone forever, disinheriting future generations of football leadership. Figo claimed that after handing “the head of the World Cup on a platter to your mates in DC,” Infantino stood to gain a post-presidency role worth five times his current salary. FIFA’s existing $5 billion in reserves, he pointed out, could have funded equivalent investment without outside involvement. Those reserves, Figo insisted, should instead support grassroots priorities: building pitches and training coaches so every child can fall in love with the game.
Figo placed the episode in a wider pattern of what he called a “litany of abuses” during Infantino’s tenure. These included suspending and reversing disciplinary decisions and breaking the laws of the game over a half-time show, all in the service of pleasing friends. He also referenced comments by Jordan FA president Prince Ali about “mob-like behaviour” at FIFA, including alleged obstruction of national association work and funding to secure political support and nominations.
“None of this comes as a surprise,” Figo wrote. He compared the failed investment plan to the Super League project, which collapsed after media exposure of its “devious twists and turns.” The difference this time, he suggested, was that the damage to FIFA’s leadership credibility ran deeper.
The Portuguese star’s intervention carries particular weight. Figo had briefly considered a run for the FIFA presidency himself in 2015 before withdrawing and later backing Infantino. He has served as a UEFA football adviser since 2017 and works closely with UEFA president Aleksander Čeferin. His decision to speak out publicly signals a significant shift in elite player and administrative opinion.
Figo’s call arrives amid a cascade of pressure. Infantino’s senior adviser Carlos Cordeiro resigned in protest. FIFA’s chief of global football development, Arsène Wenger, publicly distanced himself, stating he had learned of the plan through the media and had not been involved. Wenger affirmed his belief in “a FIFA independent that serves our sport with commitment, transparency and integrity.” UEFA has reportedly explored the prospect of legal action. Several national associations, including those of England and Wales, have withdrawn support for Infantino. The president held crisis talks with senior FIFA officials in Morocco as the controversy intensified.
Not all voices have turned against him. Some African administrators have expressed continued support, reflecting the continent’s greater reliance on FIFA development funding. Infantino remains determined to fight on. He is expected to seek re-election, with the next presidential vote scheduled for early 2027. Whether the recent turmoil has fatally undermined his position remains unclear, but the loss of confidence among senior staff, key advisers and high-profile figures like Figo has left his authority severely damaged.
Figo concluded his piece with a stark assessment of the moment. “Infantino has debased the office of FIFA President that he promised to elevate. He has lied, deceived and tried to feather his own nest at the expense of the game he is supposed to serve. He has lost the support of his senior staff, his closest advisers, the vast majority of people who devote their lives to this sport and even, it would seem, the FIFA Peace Prize winner. It is too late to save his dignity but it is not too late to save football. He should go. Now.”
The episode has forced football to confront fundamental questions about governance, transparency and the balance between commercial growth and sporting integrity. For many within the game, Figo’s intervention crystallises a growing belief that meaningful change at the top of FIFA can no longer wait. Whether Infantino heeds the calls or digs in for another term will shape the organisation’s direction for years to come.
About The Author
