Norway has taken one of the strongest positions yet in the growing dispute over the leadership of FIFA. On 7 August 2026, the Norwegian Football Federation (NFF) formally called on FIFA president Gianni Infantino to resign, arguing that he no longer has the institutional trust needed to lead world football. The decision, announced by NFF president Lise Klaveness, places Norway at the centre of an increasingly serious governance crisis inside FIFA.
This article was created in collaboration with Betsjekk.com: the best resource to compare bookmakers in Norway.
The Norwegian position is significant not because Norway alone can remove the FIFA president—it cannot—but because the dispute has expanded from criticism by individual national associations into a broader confrontation involving UEFA, the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) and CONCACAF.
At the heart of the conflict is a failed proposal to bring private investment into FIFA’s commercial rights, but the disagreement goes much deeper. For Norway, the issue concerns transparency, decision-making and whether FIFA’s president has accumulated too much power.
Why has Norway called for Infantino’s resignation?
The NFF says its loss of confidence in Infantino is the result of a pattern of governance problems, rather than one isolated incident.
In its 7 August statement, the Norwegian federation said that important decisions had increasingly been made without sufficient anchoring in FIFA’s own governing bodies, transparency about the processes involved, or the appropriate distance from political leaders and outside interests. NFF president Lise Klaveness said that, once institutional trust disappears, the leadership itself has to be reconsidered.
Norway’s criticism therefore goes beyond whether it agrees with particular FIFA policies. The federation argues that the way decisions are made is itself becoming a problem.
This is consistent with Klaveness’s previous approach to FIFA. Norway has frequently pushed questions of governance, human rights and accountability to the centre of international football politics.
The immediate trigger: FIFA Forward Enterprise
The latest crisis erupted in July when FIFA proposed creating a new commercial subsidiary called FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE).
According to FIFA’s own description, the proposed company would consolidate FIFA’s commercial and event operations, including commercial rights connected to broadcasting, sponsorship, ticketing and licensing. FIFA said the objective was to unlock additional commercial value and increase funding available for football development.
The financial numbers were substantial.
FIFA said FFE would initially be valued at US$20 billion and could raise as much as US$4.2 billion by selling minority, non-controlling interests to external investors. FIFA also proposed increasing development funding for each of its 211 member associations from the currently budgeted US$8 million for the 2027–2030 cycle to US$20 million.
The scale of the proposal immediately raised questions about whether FIFA’s most valuable commercial assets should effectively be partially monetised for outside investors.
FIFA defended the plan as a way of generating more money for football development. Infantino described it as an opportunity rather than an obligation and stressed that the proposal would require approval from a majority of FIFA’s 211 member associations and the FIFA Council.
But the proposal quickly became politically toxic.
Why did the proposal cause such a backlash?
The central complaint from critics was not simply the potential involvement of private capital. It was the process.
UEFA, AFC and CONCACAF subsequently criticised FIFA’s handling of the proposal, arguing that it had been developed without adequate consultation and transparency. The three confederations called for an independent review and accused the FIFA leadership of damaging trust.
Norway had already made its position clear. On 30 July, the NFF backed UEFA’s collective stance and warned that European associations could withdraw from FIFA competitions if the proposal continued. Klaveness argued that a project capable of changing the fundamental structure of international football could not be developed secretly and then presented as essentially a finished decision.
The pressure worked. On 31 July, Infantino announced that FFE would not proceed, saying that the project had created divisions that were no longer compatible with its intended purpose of uniting and developing football.
But abandoning the proposal did not resolve the underlying conflict.
Norway says the problem is bigger than FFE
This is an important distinction when assessing Norway’s call for resignation.
The NFF did not say that Infantino should resign simply because the FFE proposal failed. Instead, the federation argues that the proposal was the latest example of a longer-running governance problem.
Norway has also raised questions about FIFA’s decision to establish its own peace prize and award it to U.S. President Donald Trump. The NFF’s ethics committee has pointed out that FIFA created the award in November 2025 without it being considered by the FIFA Council, while Trump received the inaugural prize in December.
Infantino still has substantial support
It would be misleading to describe the current situation as if Infantino has already lost control of FIFA.
He remains president and has significant support among FIFA member associations. FIFA itself has strongly rejected attempts to remove him outside its established procedures, stating that he was democratically elected and continues to hold the mandate of the member associations.
Infantino was first elected in February 2016 and was re-elected in 2019 and 2023. He announced in May 2026 that he would seek another term in 2027. FIFA has 211 member associations, each with a vote in Congress.
That structure matters enormously.
Norway can publicly demand his resignation, but it cannot remove him unilaterally.
