No national football association can be reliably named as having formally withdrawn its support for Gianni Infantino based on widely reported public information. Criticism of FIFA or disagreement with the president does not, by itself, prove that an association has ended its backing.
This distinction matters because headlines can blur official decisions, public comments, and threats to take action. Here’s what the available record does—and does not—show, how to assess claims about national associations, and what formal withdrawal would look like.
which football associations have withdrawn support for infantino?
No verified list of national football associations that have formally withdrawn support for Infantino is available in the widely reported public record. That does not mean every association agrees with him. It means criticism, disagreement, or a call for change should not be described as a formal withdrawal unless the association itself made that decision clear.
Infantino was elected FIFA president in 2016. At FIFA’s 2023 Congress in Kigali, he was re-elected by acclamation, meaning the delegates confirmed him without a contested ballot. That result showed broad support among the national associations represented at the Congress at that time. It does not prove every association supported every decision, or that its position has remained unchanged since.
Claims about a withdrawal need a date and a source. An association could change its position later, and a new, documented statement would alter the picture. But without an attributable announcement, official resolution, or reliable report of a formal decision, naming a country as having withdrawn support would be speculation.
Why public criticism is not the same as withdrawal
Football associations can criticize FIFA, question a policy, or disagree with Infantino without ending their support for his presidency. They may object to a tournament decision while continuing to take part in FIFA meetings and backing the president—or they may do the reverse. The subject of a criticism matters.
There is also a difference between the national association and people connected to it. A former official, national-team player, coach, fan group, or government minister may make a forceful statement. That statement should not be attributed to the association unless the person has authority to speak for it or the organization formally adopts the position.
Likewise, a threat is not a completed action. A report that an association is considering a boycott, reviewing its relationship with FIFA, or weighing a change in position does not show that the change took effect.
| What happened | What it can establish | Best reading |
|---|---|---|
| An association issues a formal statement ending its backing | A clear organizational position, subject to the statement’s scope | Strong evidence of a withdrawal |
| An authorized body passes and publishes a resolution | A recorded decision by that body | Strong evidence; check whether it concerns Infantino personally or a specific policy |
| An association criticizes a FIFA policy | Disagreement with that policy | Not proof that it withdrew presidential support |
| An official calls for Infantino to resign | The speaker’s stated position | Not automatically the association’s formal position |
| An association threatens a boycott or review | A possible future response | Not proof that the action occurred |
| A commentator or social post names a country | A claim that needs checking | Look for an attributable statement or credible reporting |
What counts as an official withdrawal of support?
There is no single public form that every association must use to describe a change in support. Still, a reliable claim should point to an action that can be attributed to the organization, not just a general atmosphere of discontent.
Evidence might include a statement from the association’s president or governing board, minutes from a meeting, a published resolution, or a clear vote by its authorized members. A credible news report can also establish what happened when it identifies the decision-maker and explains how the position was announced.
Read the wording carefully. “We oppose this decision” means something different from “we no longer support this candidate.” A statement about governance reform might criticize FIFA’s leadership without calling for Infantino’s removal. A withdrawal from a particular FIFA event is also not necessarily a withdrawal of support for the president.
Check who had authority to speak
National associations have different governance structures. A president may speak publicly for an organization, while a major policy change may require a board or congress decision. If a report quotes an individual, check the person’s role and whether the association confirmed the statement.
Check the date and the exact scope
Positions can change. An old endorsement does not settle an association’s current view, and a recent criticism does not erase a past endorsement. Note when the statement was made and whether it addresses Infantino, a FIFA policy, a tournament, or a specific vote.
What the 2023 FIFA Congress result tells us
At the 73rd FIFA Congress in Kigali in March 2023, Infantino was re-elected by acclamation. In plain terms, the Congress confirmed him without a rival candidate being chosen in a contested vote. This is a meaningful record of the formal outcome at that meeting, but it should not be stretched into a claim about every association’s private views or later decisions.
A re-election outcome also has limits as evidence. It does not show that every delegate expressed enthusiasm, that every association supported every FIFA policy, or that no one had reservations. Nor does a public objection after the Congress automatically mean an association has formally changed its position.
For a current claim, the useful question is not simply, “Did the association support him before?” Ask whether it made a later, identifiable decision to withdraw that support. Without that second piece of evidence, the older Congress result and newer criticism cannot be combined into a proven withdrawal.
How to check a claim about a named country
If a headline or social post names an association, use this quick verification process before repeating the claim:
- Find the original source. Look for a statement on the association’s own website or verified channel, a published resolution, or a full interview with the relevant official. A screenshot without a link is difficult to verify.
- Identify the speaker or decision-maker. Confirm that the person represents the association and has authority to announce its position. A supporter, politician, or former official may not speak for the governing body.
- Read the full statement. Check whether it objects to Infantino personally, criticizes a FIFA policy, or describes a possible future step. Headlines sometimes compress these different meanings into one dramatic phrase.
- Check whether the action happened. Words such as “considering,” “may,” and “threatens” describe possibilities, not a completed withdrawal. Look for confirmation that an authorized body adopted the position.
- Compare reliable reporting. See whether reputable outlets independently describe the same decision and identify their sources. Multiple articles repeating one unsourced post do not create independent confirmation.
- Keep the claim specific. If an association withdrew support for a particular policy or event, describe that action accurately. Do not broaden it into a claim that the association withdrew support for the president.
This process is useful because political disputes in football often involve more than one issue. An association may oppose a FIFA decision while keeping its membership, participating in competitions, and maintaining its position on the president.
Why associations may criticize FIFA without breaking ranks
National associations rely on FIFA for international competition structures, governance processes, and the rules that organize much of the global game. They can seek changes through meetings, votes, public statements, or negotiations. Continuing to work within FIFA does not necessarily signal approval of every decision; it may be the route an association chooses to influence one.
Associations can also have distinct interests. A dispute about national-team scheduling, tournament access, finances, governance, or player welfare may prompt public criticism. That issue-specific stance does not automatically amount to opposition to Infantino’s presidency.
Finally, public disagreement can serve several purposes: expressing a genuine objection, seeking a policy change, or making a position visible to members and supporters. Whatever the motive, the wording still matters. A reader should report the documented action rather than infer a broader political break.
Common mistakes in reports about withdrawn support
- Turning criticism into a formal decision: An objection to a FIFA ruling is not enough to establish a change in presidential backing.
- Confusing an individual with an organization: A senior figure’s remarks matter, but check whether the association adopted them.
- Treating a threat as a completed boycott: A proposed action may never be approved or carried out.
- Using “support” without defining it: The word can refer to an election, a policy, FIFA membership, or participation in a competition. Those are not interchangeable.
- Relying on an old list: An association’s former position may not describe its current one. Verify the date and look for later statements.
- Assuming silence means agreement: No public criticism does not prove enthusiastic support. It also does not establish withdrawal.
A useful rule: report the narrowest claim the evidence supports. If the source says an association criticized a FIFA decision, use those words. Save “withdrew support” for a documented position that actually says or demonstrates that.
What is known—and what remains unproven
The firm point is that Infantino’s 2023 re-election at the FIFA Congress was confirmed by acclamation. The available broadly reported record does not establish a verified group of national football associations that later issued formal withdrawals of support for him. That is different from claiming there has been no criticism or disagreement.
Because the question can refer to a newly reported development, a specific association should only be named when a current, reliable source documents its action. If a report provides no original statement, no authorized decision-maker, and no clear distinction between policy criticism and presidential backing, treat its headline cautiously.
For readers checking a breaking claim, the association’s official announcement is the most direct evidence. Reputable independent reporting can help confirm its meaning and context. Together, those sources can show whether a formal change occurred, who approved it, and exactly what support was withdrawn.
Based on the widely reported public record, no national association can be confidently identified as having formally withdrawn support for Infantino. The key distinction is between criticism of a FIFA decision and a documented organizational change in support for the president.
Before sharing a claim, check the association’s own statement, who authorized it, and what the wording actually covers. That is the practical way to answer which football associations have withdrawn support for infantino without confusing a dispute or threat with a completed decision.