Infantino ally says most federations still back Fifa president as row over private investment g

An ally breaks ranks only on the process

Véron Mosengo-Omba, one of Gianni Infantino’s closest associates, has offered a strikingly loyal defence of the Fifa president at a moment when pressure around the organisation is intensifying. In comments reported by The Guardian Football in the linked report, Mosengo-Omba said he would be prepared to “take a bullet” for Infantino and argued that the Fifa chief still enjoys deep backing inside the organisation’s congress. Read the original Guardian Football report here: Mosengo-Omba’s comments on Infantino and Fifa’s internal power struggle.

That support matters because the campaign against Infantino is no longer limited to complaints about one policy decision. Uefa, Concacaf and the Asian Football Confederation have been escalating their efforts to oust him after publishing an open letter that called for leadership that serves football rather than seeking to command it. The letter signalled that opposition to the Fifa president had moved from private frustration into a public challenge.

Mosengo-Omba’s intervention is notable because it comes from someone with a long institutional history inside Fifa. He served as the governing body’s chief member associations officer until 2021 and now leads the Congolese Football Federation, Fecofa. He was elected unopposed as president of the federation in May. He also has a personal connection to Infantino, with the two having known each other since university in Switzerland.

Support claims and a challenge to the revolt

Mosengo-Omba told the Guardian that most national federations remained on Infantino’s side and that the wider congress would confirm that if asked directly. His message cuts against the public pressure being applied by several powerful regional confederations, which have tried to build momentum around an emergency Fifa congress and a possible vote of no confidence.

Even so, the arithmetic remains difficult for Infantino’s opponents. As reported by The Guardian, Uefa has been seeking support from other confederations to force such a meeting, but there are serious doubts they can reach the required threshold of 106 members out of Fifa’s 211 to remove him. That number matters because it is the formal barrier to unseating a president who, for now, appears able to rely on broad institutional loyalty even while facing an organised political challenge.

Fifa itself has not presented the situation as a simple dispute over policy. The organisation accused Infantino’s critics of mounting a concerted and ongoing effort to undermine both Fifa and its president. That language shows how bitter the confrontation has become and how quickly the argument has moved beyond the specifics of one commercial proposal.

The failed plan that triggered the backlash

At the centre of the dispute is Infantino’s Fifa Forward Enterprise scheme, designed in partnership with the US bank JP Morgan. The plan aimed to raise hundreds of millions of dollars by selling 21% of the World Cup’s commercial rights to investors. In return, Fifa said the idea could have led to an increase in distribution of more than $10bn, money that would then have been shared back across Fifa’s 211 member associations.

The proposal proved deeply controversial. Mosengo-Omba said he opposed the way it was handled, while also insisting that the basic idea had merit. His concern was not simply financial engineering. He said the risk was that private companies could end up organising the World Cup, and he described that as the point at which Infantino had made a mistake.

The fallout has already reached senior staff. Kevin Lamour, Fifa’s chief operating officer, was dismissed on Monday after criticising the aborted plan. That firing underlines how the debate over the scheme has become entwined with questions of internal discipline and loyalty inside football’s world governing body.

Why the controversy still has life

Mosengo-Omba’s remarks suggest that opposition to Infantino’s commercial instincts may not translate into a clean break with his presidency. He made clear that he did not sign a letter of support for Infantino because he disagreed with the way the project was advanced, but he still defended the president’s overall position. In his view, the problem was execution, not necessarily ambition.

He also drew a comparison with other football competitions and their commercial models, arguing that Uefa itself sells the Champions League and the Euros through independent companies. On that basis, he said Infantino had proposed something similar before withdrawing it. This comparison is central to Mosengo-Omba’s argument that the uproar is less about principle than about how the World Cup plan was framed and managed.

At the same time, his comments indicate that the debate is far from over. He said he was considering whether to put forward another version of the idea, one that would allow each confederation to buy a stake in the World Cup and raise additional revenue for its members. He said such an approach could be introduced at a future congress.

What could come next for Fifa and its members

Mosengo-Omba’s own motivations also help explain why the issue may return. He said he needed money to develop football in the Congo and argued that revenue from a revised scheme could make a significant difference. In his view, a deal of that kind could bring his federation around $20m a year, a sum he said would have a major impact in his country, where people have little.

That is what makes this row larger than a personal defence of Infantino. It is also a fight over how football’s money should be raised, who should control it and how far the sport should move towards private capital. For Infantino’s allies, the answer is that the president remains secure and that critics have overstated the depth of rebellion. For his opponents, the recent open letter and the push for an emergency congress show that pressure is building.

For now, the balance of power appears unchanged, but the dispute over the Fifa Forward Enterprise plan has exposed fault lines that are unlikely to disappear quickly. If Mosengo-Omba’s comments are any guide, the argument may next reappear not as a defence of the withdrawn proposal, but as a new version of the same idea wrapped in a different structure and presented at a future congress.