Serbia withdraws support for Infantino as FIFA leadership crisis grows
Serbia's football association revoked its backing for Gianni Infantino's re-election 70 days after pledging it
MediaBias Comparison Desk
AI-assisted coverage comparison, editor-supervised
This article was written at the MediaBias News desk from the one-paragraph digests an aggregator publishes for each of the outlets listed below it, together with 2 of those outlets' own reports read in full. How we do it
Fifa je želela zasebnim vlagateljem prodati približno 20-odstotni delež v novi družbi, ki bi upravljala njena največja tekmovanja, vključno s svetovnimi prvenstvi. S poslom je nameravala zbrati do 4,2 milijarde dolarjev, a je načrt po ostrem nasprotovanju Uefe in drugih deležnikov propadel. FOTO: Brendan Smialowski/AFP
Photograph: delo.si (embedded from source)
What this story says
- Serbia's football association withdrew support for Gianni Infantino's re-election as FIFA president 70 days after initially backing him.
- The withdrawal follows FIFA's failed attempt to raise up to $4.2 billion by selling a stake in a new company managing major tournaments.
- UEFA and several European football associations had already opposed Infantino, with Serbia now joining the growing dissent.
- Infantino's next term, if re-elected, would run from 2027 to 2031, with the vote scheduled for 18 March 2027 in Morocco.
Serbia's football association revoked its support for Gianni Infantino's bid to remain FIFA president on 4 August 2026. The association had pledged its backing in writing on 25 May 2026, making the reversal a sharp turnaround in 70 days. In a statement, the association said recent events had damaged FIFA's reputation and that withdrawing support was the only logical decision.
The withdrawal adds to growing opposition within European football. UEFA and several national associations, including those of Wales, Finland, and Sweden, had already withdrawn support for Infantino. England's football association was also reported to be considering a similar move. The dissent follows the collapse of FIFA's plan to sell a stake in a new company that would manage its major tournaments, a project aimed at raising billions.
FIFA had sought to raise funds through the sale, with reports indicating the target was up to $4.2 billion. The plan faced strong opposition from UEFA and other stakeholders, leading to its failure. Serbia's association stated that future decisions in football must be made with broad consensus and open consultation among all key stakeholders.
Infantino, first elected FIFA president in 2016, has since been re-elected twice without opposition. He announced in April 2026 that he would seek a fourth term, running from 2027 to 2031. The vote is scheduled for 18 March 2027 in Morocco, with candidates required to be nominated by 18 November 2026.
What the coverage left out
No centre- or right-rated reports on this story were published. The omission is a finding: the story was not covered by outlets in those categories.
How each side covered it
Our own reading of the reporting listed below, written from the outlets’ articles rather than quoted from them. The reasoning is set out on our methodology page.
Left
- The report by delo.si led on Serbia's withdrawal of support for Gianni Infantino, framing it as part of a broader European revolt against his leadership. It highlighted the 70-day reversal from initial backing to sharp criticism, quoting the Serbian football association's statement that FIFA needs new leadership to restore trust and unity. The report also detailed the failed FIFA plan to raise funds, specifying the $4.2 billion target.
- delo.si included the timeline of Infantino's previous elections and his announcement of a fourth term. It noted the growing speculation about potential challengers for the presidency, citing the upcoming vote in March 2027. The report quoted the Serbian association's call for transparency and mutual respect in football governance.
Centre
We hold no leaning breakdown for this story, so there is nothing to report about the centre.
Right
We hold no leaning breakdown for this story, so there is nothing to report about the right.
Read it at the source
1 outlet, grouped by the leaning a published rating gives them. Every headline links to the original; an underlined outlet name opens our profile of that publisher.
Left
1Centre
0No outlet in this group ran the story.
Right
0No outlet in this group ran the story.
Not rated
0No outlet in this group ran the story.
How did this read?
About the coverage, not about the story. We do not ask whether you agree with what happened — we have no honest use for that answer.
