I never thought it would truly happen. At least, not until this week, when events suggested for the first time that even the most protected figures may not be beyond reach.
Gianni Infantino is under mounting pressure. He has faced intense scrutiny for nearly six weeks, following reports about a secretive proposal to sell shared global assets that he was appointed to safeguard, with claims that he could also benefit personally from the arrangement.
During that period, there has been optimistic discussion about his growing unpopularity, weakening support and the possibility of a rival candidate in next March’s presidential election. Yet established authority is difficult to dislodge, particularly when it has become deeply embedded. Infantino has already handed significant influence over the sport to powerful interests more than once, most recently by cultivating a close relationship with Donald Trump.
Allow another month to pass and Infantino may once again appear behind a brightly lit podium, delivering familiar promises about unity, fairness, solidarity and economic growth. His message remains unmistakable: others will not force him out; he intends to outlast them.
This week, however, brought a noticeable change. Infantino was never likely to be removed by critical opinion columns or public condemnation from former players such as Mikaël Silvestre.
Institutional power is different. Two significant developments have now followed the threat of legal action from Uefa. The case may not be expected to secure a decisive courtroom victory, but it could still prove to be a highly effective strategic move, forcing Infantino into a position with few safe options.
The first development was a statement from Josh Kushner after he was identified as a potential participant in the discovery process in Florida. Kushner provided the financial backing associated with the troubled Fifa Forward proposal. Remarkably, the person approached for funding and political access is also the brother of the US president’s son-in-law.
Kushner said he would not have participated in Fifa’s proposal if he had understood the complete situation. He also expressed regret. Although his comments sounded restrained, they appeared to create distance between him and the project while signalling a withdrawal from Infantino’s protective circle.
Kushner has also appointed prominent attorney Alex Spiro, who previously represented Elon Musk and Alec Baldwin in major legal disputes. That choice indicates a serious defensive strategy. Fifa’s more anxious counter-filing follows a similar pattern: it describes the allegations as a smear campaign while making clear that the organisation urgently intends to prevent discovery.
That is the central issue. Nobody aligned with Infantino appears to want discovery to proceed. The process would require relevant material to be disclosed, ranging from internal documents and memoranda to emails sent from personal devices.
As Infantino is likely aware, such disclosure can cause serious concern among powerful people. Becoming a source of difficulty for anyone connected to Trump is particularly risky. Behind the aggressive public statements, there is now a sense that Infantino’s support is thinning and that the protection surrounding him may be disappearing.
Even Trump’s initial support for Infantino may have been overstated. The president posted a message of reassurance on Truth Social in early August, but his wording seemed conditional. He warned that removing Infantino would be harmful, yet he has offered little public support since then.
There is now a faint impression that Trump may be stepping away. The previously warm relationship between the two men was highly visible, with Infantino regularly appearing beside a powerful patron who seemed willing to welcome him into elite political circles.
Such relationships are always fragile. Trump may invite someone inside, remember their name and greet them enthusiastically, but once that person loses relevance, the connection can vanish. Loyalty has little place in a political system focused primarily on winners and losers rather than consistent principles.
When someone loses influence, or merely appears likely to lose it, negative consequences often follow. A previously published list of Trump’s opponents included people who later faced criminal charges, exile, revoked security clearances or investigations into alleged mortgage fraud. Several were once among his most prominent allies.
Michael Cohen was once one of Trump’s most dedicated supporters and publicly claimed that he would take a bullet for him. After legal problems and a bitter split, Cohen was imprisoned, disbarred and pushed out of Trump’s circle. Former US attorney general Jeff Sessions was among the first senior figures to describe Trumpism as a movement. He later left politics and became the target of repeated personal attacks from Trump. The pattern is clear: support lasts while someone remains useful, but proximity to power can quickly become dangerous.
The court’s decision on whether to permit discovery could be decisive. Uefa has accused Fifa and Infantino of criminal mismanagement, with the main dispute involving claims that World Cup rights or assets were sold below their proper value. Infantino also reportedly stood to receive substantial personal compensation from the transaction, although such arrangements may not be unusual within the industry.
The legal effort is designed to examine the available records and determine what they contain. Uefa is seeking discovery from Fifa, Thrive Capital, and Trump donor and business adviser Greg Maffei. Each may possess documents from the period when Infantino gained extraordinary access to political power. The unanswered question is whether those records contain damaging information and whether exposing it would create even greater risks.
It remains uncertain how the situation will develop. Infantino is doing what he can to reinforce support, travelling through friendly territories and meeting influential officials. Saudi Arabia has offered cautious backing, while a Fifa congress is scheduled for November. Even so, it is unclear whether voting will ultimately determine the outcome. The abrupt falls of Sepp Blatter and Michel Platini show how unexpected financial allegations can transform football politics.
For the moment, the dispute will continue. Legal challenges frequently fail, settle or gradually disappear, but Uefa only needs to maintain pressure and demonstrate that the underlying decisions will be examined closely. If that pressure continues, further evidence could emerge from an unexpected source. For now, the position is firm: no concession is being offered.
What do you feel about this post?
Like
Love
Happy
Haha
Sad
