England and Wales FA turn on Infantino, Scottish FA's Silence Raises Questions
England and Wales dump Infantino support; why won’t Scotland - and do Hampden’s FIFA roles create a conflict of interest?
The English and Welsh football associations have formally withdrawn their support for Gianni Infantino’s re‑election as FIFA president, marking a decisive rupture in European football’s relationship with the world game’s governing body. Their move follows Infantino’s aborted plan to sell stakes in a company that would run FIFA competitions - including the World Cup - to private investors, a proposal that triggered a boycott threat from UEFA and a cascade of criticism from across the continent.
Yet as the pressure mounts, one question hangs over Hampden Park - why has the Scottish FA not followed suit?
With Scottish FA President, Mike Mulraney, chair of FIFA’s Finance Committee, and chief executive, Ian Maxwell, sitting on a key FIFA stakeholders committee, the silence invites scrutiny over potential conflicts of interest and whether Scotland’s place inside FIFA’s inner circle is shaping its public stance.
England & Wales Withdraw Support
Wales was first off the mark. The Football Association of Wales (FAW) confirmed it was withdrawing support for Infantino’s candicacy for the 2027–2031 Presidential term, citing “recent failures in good governance, processes, leadership, values, stakeholder management, communications and sound judgement”.
Its statement was blunt: “Mr Infantino has lost the confidence of the FAW to remain at the helm of world football. Failing to put the best interests of football first is a failure we cannot accept.”
England are reportedly followed suit. The FA is understood to be writing to FIFA to make clear that Infantino no longer has its support, having previously backed his re‑election. It also issued a statement fully supporting UEFA’s position and calling for “a full and robust review of FIFA’s leadership and governance” to ensure the global game is run transparently and for the benefit of all 211 member nations.
The timing is significant. Infantino had already been forced into a U‑turn, announcing that plans to sell stakes in a company running FIFA competitions had been scrapped after opposition from three continents and a boycott threat from UEFA. But UEFA’s statement went further than welcoming the retreat, it declared a loss of confidence in Infantino’s leadership and said “no option should be off the table” in reviewing FIFA’s future direction. That opened the door, at least in theory, to a vote of no confidence that could trigger an Extraordinary FIFA Congress - though such a move would likely only be pursued if there were a strong belief that a majority of FIFA’s 211 members could be persuaded to unseat him.
The stakes are not merely rhetorical. UEFA and CONCACAF - representing 96 associations between them - have called for a “full review” of Infantino’s leadership, and sources have indicated that CONCACAF president Victor Montagliani, a current FIFA vice‑president, would be prepared to run for football’s top position if the door opened.
Meanwhile, UEFA has confirmed it is “actively considering” legal action in relation to the FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE) plan, signalling that the dispute could move from political pressure to the courts.
Scottish FA agreed with UEFA’s concerns, but have not withdrawn support
The Scottish FA has publicly aligned itself with UEFA’s concerns. Its board stated it “agrees unequivocally” with the concerns raised over the manner in which the proposals were issued and the deadline set, “without a full consultation process or consideration to good governance”. It also expressed full support for UEFA’s statement after an emergency summit of European associations, and its president and chief executive attended that meeting.
But agreeing with UEFA’s concerns is not the same as withdrawing support for Infantino’s re‑election. While Wales and England have moved from opposing the plan to formally retracting their backing for the man at the top, the Scottish FA has stopped short of that step. Why is that?
That gap between endorsing UEFA’s stance and withholding endorsement of Infantino matters because it leaves the Scottish FA in a different political space. It can claim to be defending good governance while avoiding the full consequences of turning on the FIFA President. But in a moment when European football is testing whether Infantino can survive, neutrality begins to look like a choice in itself.
The conflict‑of‑interest question
This is where the question of conflict of interest becomes unavoidable. In October 2025, Scottish FA President Mike Mulraney was named chairperson of FIFA’s Finance Committee, one of the most influential committees in the organisation. The committee advises on and assists with FIFA’s financial management, including analysing and preparing the budget and consolidated financial statements, supervising implementation of financial and asset‑management policies, and advising on strategic financial matters.
At the time, Mulraney framed the appointment as an opportunity for Scotland - “the architects of the game, and one of FIFA’s longest‑standing members” - to be better represented internationally, and pledged to support “the economic growth of the game for all members of FIFA”. But the role also places him at the centre of the very issues that have inflamed the current crisis - the financial architecture of FIFA, the management of its commercial assets, and the oversight of proposals like FFE that touch directly on revenue streams and ownership structures.
Alongside that, Scottish FA Chief Executive Ian Maxwell joined FIFA’s Men’s Football Stakeholders Committee, while other senior SFA figures - Chief Operating Officer Rucelle Soutar and Chief Medical Officer Jonny Gordon - were appointed to FIFA’s Football Technology, Innovation and Digital Transformation Committee and Medical Committee respectively.
These appointments are, on one reading, a recognition of Scottish football’s administrative strength and a chance to amplify its voice. On another, they create a set of incentives and dependencies that make it harder for the Scottish FA to take a hard line against Infantino. Committee chairs and members gain access, influence, and status within FIFA’s hierarchy. They are part of the machine. That does not automatically mean they are compromised; it does mean their institutional interests are more closely intertwined with the continuity of the current leadership.
When Wales and England withdraw support, they are, in effect, betting that the future of European football is better served by a change at the top, even if that brings short‑term turbulence. When Scotland shys away, it raises the question is the SFA thinking about the same strategy, or is it factoring in the value of its newly elevated roles inside FIFA?
What “conflict of interest” means in this context
A formal conflict of interest usually arises when an individual or body has a personal or institutional interest that could improperly influence their judgment or actions. In sport governance, the concept is often extended to cover situations where an association’s leaders hold significant roles within the very body they are supposed to hold to account.
In the Scottish FA’s case, the potential conflict is structural rather than necessarily personal. Mulraney’s position as chair of the Finance Committee does not mean he personally profits from FIFA’s decisions, but it does embed him in FIFA’s financial governance at a time when the central controversy is about how FIFA’s commercial assets are managed and whether they should be open to private investment. Maxwell’s seat on a key stakeholders committee similarly places him inside FIFA’s decision‑making ecosystem.
That creates a tension, where the SFA is expected to represent the interests of Scottish football, including its clubs, players, and fans, and to act as a guardian of good governance. At the same time, its most senior figures are now part of FIFA’s internal governance machinery, with a stake both reputational and institutional in the stability and direction of that machinery. When the question becomes whether Infantino should continue as president, that tension sharpens.
It is clearly possible for individuals in such roles to act with integrity and to recuse themselves from specific decisions where a direct conflict arises. But the broader political question remains, can an association whose leaders are deeply integrated into FIFA’s hierarchy be as willing as its peers to withdraw support for the president when governance failures occur?
Why the Scottish FA’s silence is politically costly
There is a pragmatic argument for caution. Triggering a leadership crisis at FIFA is not a small step. It risks destabilising the global game, jeopardising relationships with other confederations, and potentially harming Scotland’s influence if it ends up on the wrong side of a power struggle. Some may argue that the Scottish FA is right to keep its options open, to push for reform from within, and to avoid being seen as part of a European faction that could be outvoted or isolated if the broader FIFA membership rallies behind Infantino.
But there is a cost to that caution. First, it undermines the moral clarity of the Scottish FA’s own governance message. If the board “unequivocally” agrees with UEFA’s concerns about process, consultation, and good governance, yet will not withdraw support for the leader associated with those failures, it risks appearing inconsistent. Second, it exposes the Scottish FA to accusations that its new roles inside FIFA are shaping its public posture, whether or not that is actually the case.
Third, and perhaps most importantly, it leaves Scottish football out of step with its closest neighbours. Wales and England have made a clear statement about the standards they expect from the world body. Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland will be watching closely. If Scotland is seen as lagging behind, it may find its voice diminished in future European coalitions on governance issues.
For the SFA, the cleanest path is also the most demanding - a transparent, board‑level discussion about whether the principles set out in its statement - now require the withdrawal of support for Infantino’s re‑election. That discussion should explicitly address the question of perceived conflicts of interest, setting out how Mulraney’s and Maxwell’s roles within FIFA are being managed, and whether any recusal or additional safeguards are needed when FIFA leadership matters are debated.
For Scottish football’s wider community, the moment calls for informed pressure. This is not about personal attacks on individuals; it is about the integrity of the system. If the Scottish FA believes its current course best serves Scottish football, it should say so clearly and explain why. If it believes Infantino can no longer command the confidence of the game’s guardians, it should act accordingly.
For FIFA, the broader lesson is already evident. The revolt over FFE was not just about a single proposal; it was about a pattern of behaviour from Infantino that many now see as incompatible with the stewardship model football needs. The return of confidence will require more than scrapping one plan. It will require demonstrable change in how decisions are made, how stakeholders are consulted, and how power is distributed.
Scotland’s position is pivotal. As one of the game’s oldest associations, it carries symbolic weight. Its senior figures now sit at the heart of FIFA’s financial and stakeholder governance. That gives it both influence and responsibility. If it chooses to remain silent on Infantino’s future while endorsing UEFA’s concerns, it will be seen as choosing influence over principle. If it chooses principle, it will test whether its place inside FIFA’s inner circle can coexist with the role of independent guardian.
In the end, this is not just about one President. It is about what kind of institution FIFA is, and who it serves.
Who do the Scottish FA’s current custodians serve?