The campaign centres on an appearance at a Board of Peace meeting, where Infantino reportedly wore a red cap marked “45-47” and “USA”. FairSquare argues that the symbolism conflicts with ’s requirement to remain politically neutral.
The allegation is not an established ruling. The report says maintains that it operates in line with its democratic and governance principles, leaving the eligibility challenge dependent on how ’s own authorities interpret those rules.
The dispute is also tied to a proposed $20bn private-investment plan for the World Cup. The report says the proposal involves JP Morgan and Thrive Capital, with the stated aim of increasing investment in football worldwide.
Critics reportedly fear that private equity could gain too much influence over the sport’s leading competition. Concerns have also emerged over the proposed distribution system, under which national associations supporting the plan would receive more funding than those opposing it.
That would make the investment package more than a commercial decision. It could become a test of loyalty inside , particularly if member associations believe their future funding depends on backing the leadership.
Despite the controversy, Infantino’s re-election prospects appear strong. The report says the Confederation of African Football, representing 54 member associations, has unanimously reaffirmed its support, while backing has also been indicated by Mexico, Qatar and several Asian associations.
A candidate reportedly needs 106 votes to win. Opposition from UEFA, the Asian Football Confederation and Concacaf has not yet produced a clear challenger, although UEFA has raised the possibility of boycotting international competitions.
The March vote will show whether criticism can become an organised electoral challenge. Until then, Infantino’s strongest advantage remains the same: substantial bloc support, despite mounting questions over neutrality, money and ’s direction.