FIFA President Gianni Infantino is facing renewed questions over financial transparency after US tax filings reportedly revealed that he received an additional £1.3 million ($1.76 million) in 2024 from the company established to organise the 2026 FIFA World Cup.
The payment, made by FWC2026, the company responsible for organising and running this summer’s tournament, was not publicly disclosed in FIFA’s annual report for 2024, according to a report by The Times. FIFA’s report listed Infantino’s annual salary at £3.88 million ($5.1 million), but the separate payment has raised questions about whether his total compensation was fully disclosed.
The issue centres on FIFA’s own rules on financial transparency. Article 43, paragraph 13 of the organisation’s statutes states: “The individual compensation of the FIFA president, the members of the council and the FIFA secretary general shall be made public.”
FIFA has published details of the president’s salary, bonuses and allowances in its annual reports since 2016. The reported payment from FWC2026 has therefore prompted questions about how compensation linked to the World Cup organising company is reported and whether the disclosure meets the requirements set out in FIFA’s statutes.
FIFA has rejected the suggestion that Infantino received a second salary and said its compensation arrangements comply with the relevant reporting requirements. In a statement, a spokesperson said the president’s annual compensation and other contractual benefits are determined by an independent compensation sub-committee.
“FIFA does not pay a second salary to the FIFA president and complies with all reporting requirements in relation to compensation,” the spokesperson said.
The organisation also said it remained focused on an upcoming FIFA Council meeting, where members were expected to discuss the development of football globally. FIFA did not acknowledge a breach of its disclosure rules in the response provided.
The reported payment also raises questions about how compensation paid through companies established for major tournaments is accounted for in the governing body’s public financial disclosures. Although the payment was identified in US tax filings, its absence from FIFA’s published compensation figures has drawn attention to the distinction between the president’s reported FIFA earnings and payments made by the World Cup organising company. The available information does not, by itself, establish whether FIFA’s reporting breached its statutes.
The Times report also indicated that FIFA Secretary General Mattias Grafstrom did not receive an additional payment from FWC2026. The reported difference adds to questions about how the organising company handled payments to senior football officials and how those payments were reflected in public reporting.
