Fifpro demands Fifa Council probe amid Infantino World Cup sell-off row

In response, Fifa issued a statement acknowledging that "mistakes" had been made in the plans to create Fifa Forward Enterprise (FFE). However, the organisation maintained that Mr Infantino had the "full support" of the members of its management board present at a meeting in Morocco on Wednesday.

Fifpro noted the tone of that statement with “deep concern” in a communication issued on Thursday, adding: “The withdrawal of FFE was inevitable. But withdrawing the proposal does not erase what it revealed. A plan capable of permanently altering the ownership and governance of the Fifa World Cup, and commercialising the competitions built by generations of players, was conceived in secrecy, negotiated behind closed doors and brought to the brink of agreement before the Fifa Council, the member associations, players and football’s recognised stakeholders even knew it existed.

"That is not merely a governance failure. It is a profound abuse of presidential power. The withdrawal of FFE prevented an irreversible decision. It did not restore the confidence that made such a proposal possible in the first place. That confidence has now been fundamentally broken.

"It cannot be rebuilt through carefully drafted statements, internal reviews or promises to improve processes. Nor can it be restored simply by announcing governance and structural reforms that should always have existed. These reforms are now indispensable. But they are the responsibility of the future, not an absolution of the past. The players did not create this crisis. They will insist that football emerges from it with stronger institutions, stronger safeguards and leadership worthy of the trust the game demands.”

Fifpro has also written to Fifa secretary general Mattias Grafstrom outlining its demands for governance reform. Its letter, seen by the Press Association, stated: “The role of Fifa president exists to protect institutions, not to circumvent them. The World Cup is not the personal asset of any president. Nor is Fifa itself. They are held in trust for football.”

Fifpro’s letter said the FFE proposal’s handling was part of a “broader pattern” of decisions being taken without proper consultation – citing the introduction of hydration breaks as another example. Fifpro said the breaks had been “presented under the banner of player health” but appeared in reality to be “closer to a proof-of-concept for future commercial exploitation by FFE-type investors than a genuine welfare measure”. The players’ body signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Fifa the day before the World Cup kicked off, but wrote in its letter to Grafstrom: “The FFE episode demonstrated that commitments, however welcome, are of little value if they can be circumvented whenever one individual chooses to act outside the institutional framework.”