Italy has chosen to side with UEFA against Infantino. Now a plan is needed

The World Cup euphoria had prompted Gianni Infantino to try and force the issue, to really kick off his one-man show – worthy of his American friend who even wanted him at the UN. Sometimes one needs a friend to suggest calm, reason and composure, especially when the issues are sensitive and involve money. It is clear that Gianni Infantino either does not have such a friend, or he refuses to listen to them, or they are a ‘yes man’ with no personality of their own. The fact is that just a few days after Spain’s victory in the final, the FIFA president began to step up his plans to reshape football in his own image, amidst leaks of news (the 64-team World Cup) and presentations of plans to privatise the World Cup. A plan that does not sit well with UEFA or anyone outside the Swiss president’s inner circle. The message, issued in a statement, was clear: “We will never legitimise this model. No one has the moral authority to sell what they hold in trust for the next generation. Following today’s discussion, no UEFA national team will take part in any FIFA competition whilst these proposals remain on the table.”

Italy, as a member of UEFA, had two options: either to side with Infantino or to side with all the other European federations that had already taken a stand against the head of world football. It has chosen to side with Europe: the Italian Football Federation will not support Gianni Infantino in the FIFA elections in March 2027. Like Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, the Faroe Islands, Germany, England, the other three British nations (Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales) and numerous other European nations. “We will continue to work alongside UEFA and the other European federations to promote a vision of football based on merit, solidarity, sustainability and the central role of the fans. We identify with a model of dialogue, listening and shared responsibility which has, to date, enabled football to grow, innovate and, at the same time, defend its founding principles,” explains the FIGC in a statement.

The decision taken by Giovanni Malagò was one of common sense, almost a foregone conclusion. Yet it provoked an annoyed reaction from the Lega Serie A. “I would have taken a little more time over this decision,” said President Ezio Maria Simonelli. “I expected it to be a collective decision, as this is not a decision by the FIGC, but a decision by the FIGC president. I was informed, but I do not know whether the other members had been informed,” he added. He then emphasised that “I believe I am friends with Infantino: he even did me the courtesy of coming to see me; it was the first time a FIFA president had visited the Lega Serie A headquarters in Milan, and for that reason I am grateful to him”.

To stand with Gianni Infantino or not is a matter of taking sides. UEFA has made its choice. Many others have too. Was Italy supposed to remain neutral amongst those who had not chosen a side? That is difficult when there has been a clear, seemingly irreparable rift. The FIGC president had the task of deciding, and he did so, avoiding the usual Italian routine of saying ‘yes, but…’ and procrastinating endlessly to avoid tackling the issues. An attitude that has cost Italian football three World Cups.

The problem is not the choice itself, but rather starting to build an alternative – in terms of both candidates and a programme – because otherwise, taking a stance based on a break with the past and common sense will have been for nothing. The new FIFA president will be elected in March 2027; there is time, but we need to get to work straight away.