Gianni Infantino looked every bit the “King of Soccer,” as U.S. President Donald Trump likes to call him, when the two allies sat together watching the World Cup final less than two weeks ago.

There were boos inside MetLife Stadium near New York when the two men walked across the turf on July 19 to present the trophy and medals to Spain and Argentina players. Even so, the 104th and final game capped a record-setting tournament that was widely seen as a vindication for the FIFA president: a consensus success on the field and a financial windfall for global soccer. At the time, Infantino appeared headed toward a likely reelection coronation next March.

That optimistic backdrop now feels distant. Infantino has triggered a major rupture in world soccer, and the fallout has intensified to the point that his position is being questioned after he seemed untouchable until this week.

The backlash began after Infantino invited private investors, led by Joshua Kushner, to buy a stake in future profits from World Cups and all FIFA events. European nations threatened to boycott FIFA competitions, and senior staff accused Infantino of deceiving them. Early Saturday, speaking from FIFA headquarters in Switzerland, Infantino said he was abandoning the plan.

“Having listened carefully to all the views, it has become clear that the project has created divisions of a nature that, regardless of the level of support, are no longer in the interest of the objective set out in the first place,” he said in a statement.

Infantino left New York last week with letters pledging election support from about 200 of FIFA’s 211 national member federations, which elect their leader every four years. Even so, after shelving the divisive investment proposal, his support now appears uncertain at best.

The plan would have created a subsidiary called FIFA Forward Enterprise, or FFE, for the money-making parts of the nonprofit soccer body’s work, including running tournaments such as the World Cup and selling broadcasting rights, sponsorship, tickets and hospitality.

Private equity and sovereign wealth money from petrostate investors has become routine in European club soccer, where Gulf-linked funds now control major clubs like Manchester City, Paris Saint-Germain and Newcastle United, and firms like CVC Capital Partners have bought stakes in league commercial rights. But many observers consider such investment incompatible with the World Cup, where the tournament is viewed as the sport’s ultimate prize and fans have long believed it belongs to them.

FIFA proposed raising $4.2 billion from investors buying about a 20% stake in FFE, based on an equity valuation of $20 billion. The planned anchor investor was Thrive Eternal, the firm launched by Joshua Kushner, whose brother Jared Kushner is a son-in-law of Trump.

FIFA’s 211 member federations — already effective owners of the governing body under Swiss nonprofit law — were offered $20 million each. The deadline to accept was Sept. 19.

The federations are already due $10 million each from FIFA over the next four years, funded largely by the governing body’s record $15 billion in revenue from 2023-26 tied to the World Cup that just ended. Under FFE, FIFA said that amount would have doubled to $20 million each, then increased to $22 million each through 2034 and $24 million each to 2038.

That is a substantial sum for smaller federations in places such as Andorra, Montserrat and Papua New Guinea. Wealthier soccer powers such as England, Spain and France have different priorities.

Resistance spread quickly. Some FIFA vice presidents, some of FIFA’s top executives, all European federations, the soccer bodies of Asia and North America, Britain’s prime minister, the global group of national leagues and many fans worldwide opposed the plan.

By Friday, Infantino appeared increasingly isolated. His senior adviser, former Goldman Sachs banker Carlos Cordeiro, resigned and called the proposal a bad deal. FIFA chief operating officer Kevin Lamour issued a sharply worded statement to The Associated Press in defense of colleagues that appeared to challenge his boss directly.

A decisive step came Thursday when UEFA said it would boycott all FIFA competitions until Infantino dropped the plan. Europe’s teams regularly dominate FIFA’s marquee tournaments, including the men’s World Cup and Club World Cup, which are among its biggest revenue sources.

Critics feared private investors would push for more games and larger competitions in search of returns, potentially upsetting the balance of global soccer and harming club football revenue, including the Champions League. The match calendar is already congested — FIFA has expanded the men’s World Cup from 32 to 48 teams and launched a new 32-team Club World Cup format, while continental competitions have also grown — leaving elite players stretched to their limits in an environment where broadcast and sponsorship money is not unlimited.

Many opponents also objected that Infantino appeared to have planned the project over the past year without meaningful consultation, while spending significant time in Trump’s orbit. Trump said Friday that he had not spoken with the FIFA chief about the proposal to sell stakes in the tournament.

Infantino’s traditional base of support in Africa, which holds 54 of FIFA’s 211 votes, had largely stayed neutral despite the promise of major funding for many federations.

On Friday, the 10-nation South American confederation CONMEBOL said it had received the proposal and would examine it “with the rigor it demands.” CONMEBOL is led by FIFA vice president Alejandro Dominguez of Paraguay, who is counting on Infantino’s push to expand the 2030 World Cup to 64 teams. That expansion would give more matches to minority co-hosts Argentina, Paraguay and original 1930 World Cup host Uruguay, who are currently scheduled to receive one game each of the 104-match tournament. The rest would be staged in Spain, Portugal and Morocco.

The UEFA-led resistance succeeded in stopping the sell-off plan, but it remains unclear whether that will be enough to preserve Infantino’s position.

Does Infantino still have the credibility to remain in office after Friday’s interventions from Lamour and Cordeiro, developments that would likely be untenable for most presidencies?

On Saturday, UEFA said in a scathing statement that it had lost confidence in Infantino and that “no option should be off the table” as it conducts a full review of the abandoned plan.

The deadline for candidates to enter the next FIFA presidential race is Nov. 18, exactly four months before the vote in Rabat, Morocco, where FIFA has its African headquarters.

Infantino was reelected unopposed in Paris in 2019 and in Kigali, Rwanda, in 2023. FIFA statutes allow him one more four-year term. The FFE spinoff appeared designed to create a commissioner-like role for him beyond 2031, likely with compensation well above his current annual salary and bonus package of more than $6 million.

A contested election would require 106 votes for a majority. Continents do not vote uniformly, but a coalition of most of Europe’s 55 members, along with CONCACAF’s 35 and Asia’s 46, would form a formidable base.

Potential direct challengers are often said to include Paris Saint-Germain’s Qatari president Nasser al-Khelaïfi and Canadian FIFA vice president Victor Montagliani.

Until this week, that speculation seemed fanciful, despite longstanding unease with Infantino’s style and his previous attempts to force through unpopular initiatives. Now, the prospect looks more plausible than ever.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com