Aleksander Ceferin is right about Infantino, but UEFA has no plan B

Aleksander Ceferin did not pick Copenhagen by accident on September 29, 2026. Speaking at the European Football Clubs general assembly, the UEFA president launched a direct attack on Gianni Infantino. He never uttered Infantino’s name, but everyone in the room knew who was being fitted for transparent robes.

Ceferin declared that the emperor is naked. He urged European club executives to draw a line after a series of governance scandals at FIFA. It was a sharp performance delivered with calculated precision.

Yet behind the Denmark theater lies a stark reality. Ceferin can mock the emperor’s bare chest all afternoon, but UEFA has no candidate to put on the ballot. Shouting from the sidelines will not unseat Infantino without a plan for the voting booth.

The Copenhagen Accusations and the Balogun Incident

Ceferin focused his speech on three major flashpoints. The first was the collapse of the FIFA Forward Enterprise scheme, a commercial project pushed through behind closed doors. Ceferin framed it as an attempt to sell off the game’s future under the guise of development.

"Selling part of football’s future does not become development because you call it development," Ceferin told the assembly. "Putting a fait accompli in front of national associations does not become democratisation because you call it democratisation, however big the cheque is."

The second trigger was political vanity. Ceferin highlighted the creation of a peace prize specifically created for Donald Trump. FIFA leadership executed the award without board approval or committee consultation during an election cycle.

The third and most damaging accusation involved the Folarin Balogun affair during last summer's major international tournament. According to Ceferin, Trump placed a direct phone call to FIFA leadership mid-competition to complain about an on-pitch officiating decision involving the American striker.

The rules said one thing. The telephone rang. Then the decision changed.

Ceferin asked club executives to translate that sequence to their own boardrooms. If a corporate officer secretly negotiated away crown assets, invented political awards, and altered sporting decisions following calls from politicians, they would be fired by nightfall.

It was a blunt, effective comparison grounded in corporate accountability.

"How many times would this have to happen at your club before the board says: ‘enough’? I think it is time to say ‘enough’. No office, no title and no amount of power gives anyone the right to sell the future of football."

For club owners accustomed to strict fiduciary standards, the message landed hard. Diagnosing governance failure, however, is only half the battle.

Legal Warfare in American Courts

The conflict between Nyon and Zurich is no longer restricted to podium speeches. It has migrated directly into the American legal system.

UEFA is pursuing documents through a US court to build a criminal complaint against Infantino. The legal maneuver targets internal records regarding executive decisions and financial deals tied to FIFA Forward Enterprise.

FIFA fired back in court on Tuesday, accusing UEFA of launching a misinformation campaign designed to disrupt FIFA’s political calendar. Zurich urged the US judge to reject UEFA's application outright.

As The Guardian reported from Copenhagen, the battle between European football and FIFA’s governing council has turned into open legal warfare.

This goes beyond standard political posturing. When one governing body files court motions in foreign jurisdictions to gather evidence for criminal prosecution against another, diplomatic bridges are burned.

Infantino’s allies view the lawsuit as a stunt to weaken him before nominations close. Ceferin’s camp treats it as a necessary step to expose secret deals.

Both views contain truth. UEFA is using discovery to dig up paper trails that FIFA kept hidden from its own council.

However, legal discovery is a slow weapon. Criminal complaints take months or years to move through courts, while FIFA's election clock keeps ticking.

The Nomination Clock and an Empty Ballot Line

The core problem for UEFA is simple arithmetic. FIFA’s presidential election takes place next March, but the nomination deadline is November 18.

That leaves less than seven weeks for UEFA to find, vet, and rally behind a candidate capable of winning votes across Africa, Asia, and the Americas.

Infantino built his power base by distributing FIFA Forward funds to smaller national associations. Those 211 member votes do not care about speeches delivered in Denmark.

If UEFA wants to replace Infantino, it needs a candidate who can offer those voting blocs a genuine alternative. Right now, no candidate exists.

Nasser al-Khelaifi was widely discussed as the potential figurehead for an opposition campaign. The Paris Saint-Germain president and EFC chair holds immense political influence across European and Middle Eastern football.

Al-Khelaifi put an abrupt end to that speculation in Copenhagen by ruling out a run for Zurich.

"I have zero interest in Fifa, zero agenda or ambition to be there," Al-Khelaifi declared to reporters. "I don’t think I’m the right guy for this position."

"I’m enjoying what I’m doing, having fun," Al-Khelaifi added. "Fifa, not for me."

With Al-Khelaifi stepping back, UEFA’s strategy looks hollow. You cannot beat an incumbent with an empty ballot line.

Ceferin himself has ruled out a run, preferring to protect his UEFA presidency rather than gamble on a high-stakes FIFA campaign.

Without a candidate ready to declare before the November deadline, Infantino could walk into next March's congress unopposed.

Al-Khelaifi’s Shadow Empire and UEFA’s Hypocrisy

While Al-Khelaifi rejected FIFA, he unveiled an ambitious project of his own in Copenhagen. He announced plans to form World Football Clubs, an organization designed to unite clubs outside Europe.

"Now is the time to create World Football Clubs," Al-Khelaifi told the assembly. "We are more than proud and happy if we can help and contribute outside of Europe."

This expansionist move exposes the hypocrisy of European football’s critique. Ceferin condemns Infantino for centralizing power, yet UEFA and the EFC are building rival structures to control club revenues globally.

Look at how governance is dividing across the sport:

• FIFA relies on 211 national associations where every country holds one vote.
• The EFC represents elite European clubs driving television ratings and player wages.
• UEFA acts as the regulatory shield protecting European dominance against FIFA's expanded Club World Cup.

Al-Khelaifi’s World Football Clubs concept is a direct strike against FIFA’s Club World Cup framework. By building a global club union under EFC influence, European elite clubs bypass FIFA to negotiate directly with global teams.

This is not a battle between reformers and autocrats. It is a territorial war between two commercial machines fighting for calendar control.

Ceferin’s attack on Infantino’s secrecy with FFE is justified. But UEFA’s own expanded Champions League format was pushed through to appease wealthy clubs threatening a Super League breakaway.

When UEFA complains about Infantino handing out fait accomplis, European mid-table clubs can point to Nyon doing the exact same thing when splitting prize money.

Replacing Infantino’s FIFA with a cartel led by state-backed European clubs merely swaps one centralized power structure for another.

The Tactical Endgame for Nyon and Zurich

Tactically, Ceferin’s speech was an attempt to shift momentum and pressure FIFA council members into breaking ranks.

By invoking Andersen's fairytale, Ceferin tried to make supporting Infantino socially embarrassing for European federations. No association chief wants to look like the courtier praising imaginary robes.

However, moral embarrassment is rarely decisive in FIFA politics. Votes are secured with grant allocations, tournament hosting rights, and committee appointments.

Infantino understands that math better than anyone in Nyon. While Ceferin speaks to club executives in Denmark, Infantino is locking down pledges from regional confederations in Africa and South America.

If UEFA fails to field a candidate by November 18, Infantino will frame Ceferin’s speech as bitter noise from a defeated rival.

The criminal complaint in US courts remains UEFA's only active pressure point. If American prosecutors open a formal investigation into FFE contracts before March, Infantino's position could fracture.

If the courts decline to act or delay proceedings, Infantino will cruise to re-election without facing an opponent on the ballot.

Ceferin delivered a sharp performance in Copenhagen. He laid out Infantino’s governance failures with precision, citing FFE secrecy, political medals, and phone calls that overrode refereeing standards.

Yet rhetoric without an alternative candidate is just noise. Ceferin called the emperor naked, but unless UEFA finds someone willing to run for office, Infantino will keep wearing the crown.