There is no official list of football associations that oppose Gianni Infantino personally. Several football bodies, including UEFA and the Norwegian Football Federation, have publicly challenged FIFA policies or leadership decisions during his presidency.
That distinction matters: an association can reject a proposal without opposing the FIFA president, and criticism from an official does not always amount to a formal position by the whole organization. Here’s what the main disputes show, which associations have spoken up, and how to tell policy disagreement from personal opposition.
which football associations are against infantino?
No football association has been formally identified by FIFA as being against Gianni Infantino. There is no reliable, official roster of federations that oppose him personally. What exists is public disagreement over particular FIFA policies, governance, human rights issues, and the president’s leadership.
The clearest organized institutional opposition has often come from confederations, especially UEFA in Europe and CONMEBOL in South America, when they have disputed proposals supported by FIFA leadership. Individual national associations have also criticized FIFA decisions. Those facts show opposition to specific actions; they do not automatically prove a campaign to remove Infantino or reject his presidency.
Infantino became FIFA president in 2016 and was re-elected in 2019 and 2023. At the 2023 election, he was re-elected unopposed after no rival candidate was presented. That outcome does not mean every association agreed with his decisions, but it does make claims of a formal, organized challenge to his presidency harder to support.
Which football bodies have publicly challenged FIFA policies?
The best-known disputes concern plans to stage the men’s World Cup more often, how FIFA handles governance and human rights concerns, and restrictions around political messages at tournaments. The table separates documented institutional positions from criticism that is sometimes overstated online.
| Association or body | Public dispute | What the evidence supports | Best interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|
| UEFA | Opposed the proposed biennial men’s World Cup plan. | UEFA publicly argued against changing the tournament cycle and raised concerns about the impact on players and the international calendar. | Strong opposition to a policy, not proof UEFA sought to remove Infantino. |
| CONMEBOL | Also opposed the biennial World Cup proposal. | The South American confederation publicly rejected the plan, aligning with UEFA on this issue. | Institutional disagreement with FIFA’s proposal. |
| Norwegian Football Federation (NFF) | Its president raised concerns about FIFA governance and human rights. | NFF president Lise Klaveness voiced criticism at the 2022 FIFA Congress in the context of Qatar and FIFA’s responsibilities. | Documented criticism from an association leader; not a formal bid to oust Infantino. |
| European national associations involved in the OneLove armband dispute | Several teams planned to wear a multicolored armband at the 2022 World Cup. | Teams abandoned the plan after FIFA warned of possible sporting sanctions. | A clash over expression and tournament rules, not a declared anti-Infantino alliance. |
Why UEFA and CONMEBOL opposed a biennial World Cup
In 2021, FIFA examined a proposal to hold the men’s World Cup every two years rather than every four. Infantino supported further discussion of a more frequent tournament, while FIFA commissioned a feasibility review. UEFA and CONMEBOL publicly opposed the idea.
Their concerns included a crowded international schedule, added strain on players, and the effect on existing competitions. They also argued that a World Cup held more often could change the value and character of the tournament. These are substantive disagreements about football’s calendar and commercial structure.
It is accurate to say that UEFA and CONMEBOL pushed back against FIFA’s World Cup plan. It is not accurate to turn that position into a blanket claim that every member association in those confederations was personally against Infantino. Confederations represent groups of national associations, but internal views can differ, and opposition to one proposal does not establish opposition on every issue.
The plan did not become the new men’s World Cup schedule. The tournament continued on a four-year cycle. That outcome illustrates why the debate should be described as resistance to a proposal rather than as evidence of an ongoing campaign against the president.
What the Norwegian Football Federation criticized
At the FIFA Congress in Doha in March 2022, Norwegian Football Federation president Lise Klaveness delivered a public address that criticized FIFA’s handling of governance and human rights concerns. She discussed the Qatar World Cup and the responsibilities FIFA had toward workers and people affected by the tournament.
Her remarks were significant because they were made at FIFA’s own congress and came from the head of a national association. They are strong evidence that the NFF’s president publicly challenged FIFA leadership on important issues. Still, the most careful description is that she criticized FIFA’s actions and standards—not that the Norwegian federation had officially declared a campaign against Infantino personally.
This distinction is useful when reading headlines. A federation president may speak for an organization in an official setting, but a specific speech does not necessarily mean the association has adopted a formal resolution calling for a president’s resignation. Look for an explicit statement, vote, or campaign before making that stronger claim.
What the OneLove armband dispute does—and does not—show
Before the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, several European national teams planned to have their captains wear OneLove armbands. The message was intended to support inclusion and oppose discrimination. FIFA warned that players could face sporting penalties for wearing unapproved armbands, and the teams did not proceed with the plan.
The episode showed a sharp disagreement between participating associations and FIFA over expression at a tournament. It also drew criticism of FIFA’s approach to political and social messages. But the teams’ decision to withdraw the armbands after the warning does not, by itself, show that their associations opposed Infantino’s presidency.
A common mistake is treating every public dispute with FIFA as a personal revolt. National teams and their associations can object to a rule, protest a decision, or criticize a tournament policy while continuing to participate in FIFA competitions and accepting the wider governing structure.
Why a vote or election result can be misleading
FIFA presidents are elected by national member associations, with each member association holding a vote under FIFA’s electoral rules. An election result can indicate the level of organized support at that moment, but it does not reveal every federation’s private view or disagreement on individual policies.
Infantino’s 2023 re-election was unopposed. That means no other candidate qualified to contest the presidency in that election; it does not prove that every association endorsed every decision made during his tenure. Conversely, criticism from a federation does not mean it voted against him or wants a different president.
To establish a formal position on a president, look for direct evidence such as an association statement, a proposed challenger, a documented vote, or an explicit call for resignation. Without that, descriptions such as “opposed to FIFA’s policy” or “critical of FIFA leadership” are more precise than “against Infantino.”
How to judge claims about associations opposing Infantino
Use a simple evidence check before repeating a claim. It helps separate confirmed positions from speculation, particularly when a headline uses “against” to describe a broad group.
- Identify who made the statement. Was it a national association, a confederation, a team captain, a government official, or an individual? These are not interchangeable.
- Find the exact subject of the criticism. A statement about the World Cup calendar, Qatar, or armband rules is evidence about that issue. It is not automatically a statement about the president’s legitimacy.
- Check whether the position was formal. An official resolution or published association statement is stronger evidence of an organizational stance than a personal comment by one official.
- Look for a direct challenge to the presidency. A named candidate, an explicit call for resignation, or a recorded electoral action supports a claim of opposition to the president more clearly than general criticism does.
- Check the date and context. Associations can change their positions, and a dispute from one tournament or election does not necessarily describe their current relationship with FIFA.
These steps also help distinguish a confederation’s public position from the views of every member within it. A regional body can oppose a FIFA proposal even when some national associations support it, stay neutral, or focus on different concerns.
Why associations disagree with FIFA leadership
Disputes can arise for practical reasons as well as political ones. A decision about tournament frequency affects club calendars, national-team windows, player recovery, and the commercial plans of leagues and broadcasters. Associations may therefore object because they believe a proposal shifts costs or risks onto their teams.
Governance and accountability are another source of tension. Associations may ask who was consulted, how decisions were reached, and whether FIFA is applying its rules consistently. Human rights and freedom of expression can also become central when a tournament’s host country or FIFA’s competition rules draw scrutiny.
Those concerns can overlap, but they should not be collapsed into one explanation. UEFA’s objection to a World Cup schedule proposal, for example, is not identical to the Norwegian federation president’s criticism over governance and human rights. Naming the issue makes the article, headline, or discussion more accurate.
So, which associations are clearly against Infantino personally?
Based on the public record described above, it is more accurate to say that some football bodies have opposed FIFA policies and that some association leaders have criticized FIFA leadership. UEFA and CONMEBOL are prominent examples of bodies that opposed the biennial World Cup proposal. The Norwegian Football Federation’s president was a prominent critic of FIFA’s governance and human rights handling.
Those examples do not establish an official list of national associations that oppose Infantino personally. Nor do they show a unified effort to remove him. If a report claims that a named association is against him, check whether it cites a direct statement or formal action aimed at his presidency, rather than a disagreement with a FIFA decision.
The most accurate short answer is therefore: there has been visible opposition to some Infantino-backed policies, but public evidence does not support a definitive list of associations formally against him as president.
There is no verified, official list of football associations that oppose Gianni Infantino personally. UEFA and CONMEBOL opposed the biennial World Cup proposal, while the Norwegian federation’s president publicly criticized FIFA’s governance and human rights record.
When you see a claim that an association is against Infantino, check for a formal statement or action directed at his presidency. If the evidence concerns one policy or tournament rule, describe it as disagreement on that issue instead.