By AUGUSTUS ISICHEI

Infantino’s Fourth-Term Ambition Faces Legal & Governance Challenge at FIFA

Former Governance Chairman Questions Presidential Eligibility

FIFA President Gianni Infantino faces a fresh challenge to his ambition to secure another term in 2027, following a warning from former governance committee chairman Miguel Maduro that the organisation’s statutes do not permit him to contest a fourth term.

Maduro, a Portuguese lawyer who previously headed FIFA’s governance committee, argues that the organisation’s rules impose an absolute three-term limit on its president.

Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, he cited Article 33, Paragraph 2 of the FIFA statutes, which states that no individual may serve as president for more than three terms.

In his interpretation, Infantino has already reached that limit after winning three presidential elections. Therefore, Maduro believes the incumbent cannot lawfully seek another mandate.

The intervention comes just two weeks before FIFA’s deadline for submitting candidacies for the March 2027 presidential election.

Initial Mandate at Centre of Eligibility Dispute

At the heart of the controversy is Infantino’s first period in office, which began in 2016 after Sepp Blatter resigned as FIFA president.

Although Infantino subsequently won re-election, he maintained that his initial tenure should not count towards the three-term limit because he had completed an interrupted mandate rather than served a full four-year term.

FIFA’s Council endorsed that position in December 2022, unanimously confirming that the 2016–2019 period would not count as a presidential term.

However, FairSquare, a human rights organisation challenging the interpretation, argues that the decision lacks sufficient transparency. It has also criticised FIFA for failing to publish the legal reasoning behind the Council’s position.

Maduro shares the organisation’s objections. According to him, the statutes do not distinguish between a full four-year mandate and a shorter period in office.

He insists that the provision simply limits a president to three terms, without specifying that only complete terms should count.

FairSquare Mobilises Football Associations

As the election deadline draws closer, FairSquare has stepped up its campaign by writing to FIFA’s member associations and asking them to declare Infantino ineligible.

The organisation said it had contacted 52 associations. Nevertheless, none had responded to its appeal at the time of the report.

FairSquare’s director and co-founder, Nicholas McGeehan, said the organisation would meet Norwegian football officials on Wednesday to discuss the matter.

Norway’s Football Association has previously backed FairSquare’s formal complaint against Infantino over an alleged violation of FIFA’s political neutrality rules.

Consequently, McGeehan expressed hope that the Norwegian association would take a leading role again. He also urged other national associations to demonstrate greater independence instead of leaving difficult governance questions to Norwegian officials.

Strong Electoral Support Complicates the Challenge

Nevertheless, the campaign against Infantino faces a significant political obstacle. His prospects of securing another term have improved following an endorsement last month from the head of Asian football.

Moreover, support across continental confederations appears to have strengthened his position among FIFA’s 211 voting member associations.

That backing could give the incumbent a considerable advantage if he remains eligible to contest the election. However, the unresolved dispute over the statutes could force FIFA’s leadership and member associations to confront the legal basis of his candidacy.

Former Official Warns of Weak Accountability

Maduro has also questioned the broader effectiveness of FIFA’s governance arrangements. He argues that the organisation’s oversight institutions have lost the independence required to scrutinise presidential authority.

In his assessment, the bodies responsible for checking the president have failed to provide effective accountability. He further suggested that the current structure allows the president considerable freedom to make decisions, even when those decisions affect his own political interests.

Maduro linked this weakness to a wider “climate of fear” that discourages member associations from challenging FIFA’s leadership.

His criticism carries additional institutional significance because FIFA removed him from his governance position in 2017. That followed his decision to block Russian Deputy Prime Minister Vitaly Mutko from being re-elected to FIFA’s top committee.

Norway Pressed to Lead Wider Governance Response

Meanwhile, FairSquare hopes Norway will use its previous involvement in the complaints against Infantino to encourage a broader response from other national associations.

McGeehan argued that football associations must take greater responsibility for enforcing the organisation’s rules. He maintained that Norway should not be left to challenge governance concerns on its own.

Ultimately, the controversy goes beyond Infantino’s personal re-election ambition. It raises fundamental questions about the interpretation of FIFA’s statutes, the independence of its oversight bodies and the ability of member associations to hold the organisation’s leadership accountable.

With the March 2027 election approaching, the dispute could become a major test of FIFA’s commitment to transparent governance and the enforcement of its own presidential term limits.