The 2026 FIFA World Cup remained an uncomfortable entanglement of the best of football on the pitch and the very worst of its administration off it, to the bitter end.
In sixteen cities across Canada, Mexico and the USA, the expansion in teams and games paired with an abnormally brilliant collective contribution from the sport’s true stars led to consistency of drama and enjoyment rarely seen at a World Cup, and certainly not in the 21st century.
But the behaviour of FIFA and in particular its president Gianni Infantino saw an already shameless organisation plumb new depths of its lowly integrity – so much so that even Infantino’s disgraced predecessor Sepp Blatter found his moral compass, posting on X on July 6: ‘football must never become a playground for political power.’
The power in question referred to Donald Trump’s three direct calls to FIFA to see USA striker Folarin Balogun’s red card punishment suspended, allowing him to play their knockout fixture against Belgium. In time, the ‘Balogun affair’ will likely remain most firmly in the world’s memory when recalling this World Cup; it could also shift the tectonic plates at FIFA in an election year, according to The Times’ Martyn Ziegler.
‘I think the whole Balogun affair has been hugely damaging for Infantino, and people who would normally have been his supporters in the past, have basically now felt enough is enough’, Ziegler told Box2Box.
‘I think there’s always been a concern amongst those who are interested in it that Infantino might try and change the statutes so that 2031 isn’t his final term and he stays on for another four years, which takes him into the Saudi World Cup in 2034.
‘But I think there’s a feeling now that because of what’s happened with Balogun, his position is now so weak that if he tried to do that, there would be a sort of massive rebellion.’
FIFA’s 77th congress will be held in Rabat, Morocco in March 2027, and over 200 FIFA members have endorsed his re-election for what would be his third, and should-be final term.
But if he’s damaged his reputation to the point that he’s jeopardised his ability to see through future plans – on July 12, he confirmed the expansion to a 64 team tournament in 2030 would again be looked at – then in his quieter moments, he may eventually wonder if it was all worth it.
The gaudy inflation of the Club World Cup and the trophy of which remained in Trump’s office; the manufactured and much-derided peace prize; half time of Sunday’s final lasting a rule-breaking 27 minutes. The drinks breaks, the spineless lack of actual support shown for referee Omar Artan. All of this, as Ziegler states, only for Infantino to be ‘crucified’ by the US president over Balogun’s red card.
‘Infantino spent so much time and effort creating a peace prize for Trump and lauding him at every opportunity, going to all these summits with him – and then basically Trump lands him in it, by saying ‘oh, clever me, I intervened.’ He absolutely crucified Infantino.
‘Even though Infantino’s claiming it’s all down to FIFA’s independent committee, they’ve nothing to do with it. Frankly, speak to most people, including very senior figures in football and within FIFA themselves, and they don’t think that’s plausible.’
Having now witnessed the first 48 team World Cup, the concept of a 64 team edition is one gaining momentum among at least some general fans. The performances of Cabo Verde, DR Congo and (to a lesser extent) Curucao were demonstrations of the growth still on offer in the game when paired with opportunity. There was also the awkwardness of the third-placed qualification mechanism, and for the first time a seeded knockout draw.
None of that speaks to why Infantino is interested in further expansion, for it was foreseeable prior to the tournament that those factors would erode the sleekness of the 32 team format. Motivation aside, could it actually happen?
‘Having said a few months ago – not publicly, but to other members of the football community – that the 64 team World Cup wasn’t going to happen, Infantino’s now sort of revived it. I think that’s probably him going on the attack to try and get some of his power back, thinking he’ll get Africa and South America on side,’ said Ziegler.
‘But we’ve already had (AFC president) Sheikh Salman against it, Aleksander Ceferin (UEFA) against it. Victor Montagliani from CONCACAF is against it. So, is he really going to go to war over that? I don’t know.
‘So I think, yes, he will have this final term, but his big ambitions around [also] expanding the Club World Cup or even holding that every two years instead of every four, I think that’s going to be very, very difficult for him to get through now, because of the opposition building up against him.’
If this is to be his last cycle, where to for FIFA beyond Infantino? The Swiss-Italian has held an iron-grip on the presidency for a decade, re-elected unopposed in 2019 & ‘23, but unless he can alter the term limits of FIFA’s statutes (in place since 2016), he won’t proceed beyond 2031. He’s technically already exceeded FIFA’s current maximum of three four-year terms, but stated his first three years after taking over from Sepp Blatter did not count, as he was fulfilling Blatter’s term.
Any change of presidency would be seismic; only three other men have sat atop FIFA in the past 65 years. Stanley Rous (who held the presidency until he was 79 years old), Joao Havelange (82) and Sepp Blatter (79) all departed as elderly men; in contrast, Infantino (61 in 2031) feels young to be yesterday’s man.
‘I think there are three people most likely [to succeed Infantino]. Patrice Motsepe from Africa (CAF), I think he’s been looked at as someone who would want to do it and might actually have Infantino’s backing.
‘There’s Montagliani; I think people in Central and North America are keen for him to push. And I think Sheikh Salman’s… not seen as someone always making big noise in FIFA politics, but he came very close to beating Infantino in his original election back in 2016. So he might be eyeing it, as well.’