European football's governing class is assembling in Berlin at a moment when the sport's power politics are shifting into sharper focus. UEFA has convened its 55 member federations for a summit that was planned in advance, but the meeting now lands squarely amid renewed European efforts to identify a successor to FIFA president Gianni Infantino and to test whether a coordinated challenge can be mounted against him.
Berlin Power Play
The timing matters. UEFA's summit is not formally a revolt, nor is it expected to produce an immediate declaration of war on FIFA's leadership. But in football governance, the setting and the attendance often matter as much as the agenda. A room filled with national federation leaders offers Europe a rare opportunity to align its messaging, gauge loyalty, and assess whether there is enough appetite for a serious succession strategy before the next FIFA election cycle becomes unavoidable.
Infantino has remained a dominant figure in global football politics since taking office, and his position has been strengthened by FIFA's broad international coalition, which extends well beyond Europe. That makes any European attempt to dislodge him inherently difficult. Yet UEFA remains the most influential regional bloc in the sport, and when its members move in relative unison, they can shape the debate around legitimacy, governance, and football's future direction. The Berlin summit is therefore being watched not for a formal vote, but for signs of whether Europe can turn private dissatisfaction into a practical plan.
The political challenge for UEFA is straightforward but formidable: it must decide whether it wants merely to express unease with FIFA's current leadership or to build the machinery required to replace it. That distinction is crucial. In global football, opposition without organisation rarely changes outcomes. A credible alternative would require consensus across federations with different priorities, different domestic pressures, and different relationships with FIFA's current administration.
Infantino's Global Base
Infantino's strength lies in the structure of FIFA itself. The organisation's voting geography gives considerable weight to federations outside Europe, many of which have benefited from development funding, expanded tournament access, and a more globally distributed football calendar. That has helped the FIFA president cultivate support in regions where European criticism can be portrayed as elitist or self-interested.
For European leaders, that reality creates a strategic dilemma. A campaign to remove or replace Infantino cannot be built solely on opposition to his style or his concentration of power. It would need to offer a persuasive alternative vision for governance, commercial growth, and the balance between elite and grassroots football. Without that, Europe risks looking divided and reactive rather than reformist.
The Berlin meeting also underscores a broader tension that has defined football politics for years: Europe remains the commercial and competitive centre of the sport, but FIFA's authority is global, not continental. UEFA can influence the conversation, but it cannot dictate the outcome on its own. Any serious bid to reshape FIFA leadership would require outreach beyond Europe, including to federations that may have little incentive to abandon the status quo.
What Comes Next
For now, the summit is best understood as a strategic sounding board. It gives UEFA members a chance to compare notes, identify possible allies, and determine whether there is a realistic route to building momentum around a new leader for world football. Even if no public confrontation emerges from Berlin, the meeting may still mark an important stage in the slow construction of an anti-Infantino coalition.
The stakes extend beyond one presidency. FIFA's leadership influences the distribution of power, money, and tournament access across the global game. Any change at the top would reverberate through confederations, national associations, and club football alike. That is why European leaders are treating the question not as a personal dispute, but as a test of whether football's governance can be redirected by collective action.
Still, the path ahead remains uncertain. European federations have often struggled to maintain a united front when confronted with FIFA's global arithmetic. If Berlin produces only broad criticism without a concrete succession plan, Infantino's position may emerge unchanged. If, however, the summit helps Europeans settle on a candidate, a message, and a timetable, it could become the first meaningful step in a longer campaign to reshape football's top office.