"We are in a worse situation now than when Blatter resigned." That's not a protest banner outside FIFA headquarters — that's the president of FIFPRO Europe, David Terrier, speaking to Reuters. And when the head of the players' union is drawing comparisons to the corruption era that destroyed Sepp Blatter, football's governing body has a problem that goes well beyond one man's job title.
Terrier's argument cuts through the noise of the last two weeks: the question of whether Gianni Infantino stays or goes is almost beside the point now. Three confederations — UEFA, AFC, and CONCACAF — have already called for Infantino to quit, following his botched attempt to sell off commercial rights to the World Cup. FIFA apologised. Its leadership reaffirmed support for Infantino. Business as usual, or so the statement suggested.
Terrier doesn't buy it.
A system that protects itself
"This style of governance is no longer possible or acceptable," he said, adding that FIFA's administration is structurally incapable of acting as a check on its own president. That's the core of the problem. It's not about one bad proposal or a communications blunder. It's about a concentration of power that makes bad decisions structurally inevitable.
Terrier was pointed about what reform actually needs to look like: a president who is "a guarantor, but who does not hold all the power." Shared authority. Institutional counter-weights. The kind of basic governance architecture that most organisations take for granted.
FIFA, after the 2015 scandal, was supposed to have fixed this. The fact that a players' union chief is now using Blatter-era language to describe 2025 FIFA tells you how far those reforms actually went.
What this means for football's future
Infantino is seeking reelection in March. FIFA has warned that any challenge to his leadership must follow its own statutes and democratic procedures — a line that reads less like a commitment to process and more like a warning to critics.
Terrier called this moment "the last opportunity to change the system." Whether that's accurate or just rhetoric, the structural argument underneath it is hard to dismiss. Football's global commercial value is enormous, and the governance framework managing it looks increasingly unfit for purpose. Any World Cup-related commercial deal — or dispute over one — carries real implications for how the sport is organised and monetised at every level.
"The FIFA president should be the one to drive and support them," Terrier said of the necessary reforms. "In such a case, he must be willing to put his mandate on the line. Without that, whatever happens will be a defeat for football."
That's the challenge sitting on Infantino's desk. Not just surviving a vote in March, but deciding whether he actually wants to be the president who fixes the institution — or simply the one who outlasts the latest crisis.
