Human rights organisation FairSquare has asked FIFA to rule president Gianni Infantino ineligible for re-election, arguing he has completed his three-term limit.
The London-based advocacy group submitted a formal complaint to FIFA governance officials ahead of the presidential election scheduled for 2027.
Under statutes governing FIFA, the world governing body for association football, presidents are restricted to serving a maximum of three terms in office. Infantino was first elected in February 2016 at an Extraordinary Congress convened after former president Sepp Blatter resigned following a major corruption scandal.
However, FIFA subsequently ruled that Infantino's initial period in charge merely completed an existing ongoing term and should not count toward his limit. In 2022, Infantino secured approval to exclude that initial partial period, paving the way for him to seek another four-year term running from 2027 to 2031.
Legal Challenge to FIFA Term Limits
FairSquare submitted its letter to FIFA's Governance, Audit and Compliance Committee, known as the GACC, arguing that the governing body's interpretation breaches its own rules. The Athletic first published details of the filing.
In statements to Reuters, FairSquare director Nicholas McGeehan said the complaint provides clear evidence of a rules violation that sets a dangerous precedent. He stated that the three-term restriction exists specifically to prevent an excessive concentration of executive power within the organization.
McGeehan added that FIFA rules clearly specify three presidential terms as the maximum permitted. He said the governing body cannot bypass a control mechanism on presidential authority by claiming an initial term does not count.
Growing Opposition Across Confederations
The legal challenge comes as Infantino faces mounting political pressure ahead of the next FIFA Congress, where delegates will vote on the presidency on March 18, 2027, in Morocco.
Last week, three major continental governing bodies, UEFA in Europe, the Asian Football Confederation, and Concacaf in North and Central America, requested a review of Infantino's conduct. The confederations raised concerns after FIFA unveiled a proposal to launch a 20 billion dollar subsidiary linked to international competitions, including the World Cup, to attract private investment.
Sources told Reuters that the three continental bodies viewed their joint letter as a potential opportunity for Infantino to step down honorably.
National associations are also speaking out against Infantino's continued tenure. On Monday, Scottish Football Association chief executive Ian Maxwell told the BBC that his federation will not support Infantino's re-election bid.
Despite the growing opposition across Europe, Asia, and North America, the Swiss administrator retains backing from the African and South American football confederations.
Questions Over 2022 World Cup Decision
FairSquare has also raised sharp questions regarding the transparency surrounding the decision taken by FIFA in 2022. The organisation noted that FIFA has never publicly disclosed the legal arguments or justifications used to clear Infantino's initial term from counting toward his limit.
McGeehan told Reuters that the absence of published reasoning was particularly troubling because FIFA announced the decision just two days before the 2022 World Cup final in Qatar. He said the failure to present any supporting justification, combined with the timing right before the final, suggested officials knew there was no valid basis to disregard Infantino's first period in office.
The complaint sent to the compliance committee was prepared in collaboration with Miguel Maduro, the former chairman of FIFA's Independent Governance and Review Committee.
Maduro stated that FIFA must not ignore its own regulatory framework. He emphasized that term limits were a foundational element of the governance reforms introduced in 2016 to restrict centralized authority.
Maduro added that creating an exception for Infantino demonstrates resistance to term limit principles, treating governance rules as obstacles to be bypassed rather than binding standards to be obeyed.
