A central question about Infantino’s proposal is intertwined with another crucial factor behind this week’s collapse.
Fifa is a non-profit with substantial reserves exceeding $2bn (£1.48bn) and is expected to post record revenues of around $15bn (£11.13bn) from this summer’s World Cup.
Given that context — and the fact some countries did not need the additional $40m (£29.67m) offered for development if they signed up by 19 September — many questioned why private investment was required at all.
It was a fair question, but it wasn’t raised publicly — nor, it now appears, within Fifa’s own corridors of power.
Numerous senior Fifa figures — from vice-presidents to special advisers and executives — had no chance to challenge the idea because they didn’t know it was being developed.
Uefa opposed the plan from the outset, and when it was scrapped, its reaction was scathing.
Uefa said Fifa’s current leadership has lost its confidence, along with that of many across the football community.
It noted that when Gianni Infantino sought the presidency in 2016, he pledged transparency.
He also said Fifa’s money belongs to the national associations and must be used to develop the game, not for other purposes.
Uefa concluded he has not delivered on those commitments.
This was not the first time Fifa’s transparency had been questioned.
Sheikh Salman bin Ebrahim Al Khalifa — the AFC president and one of Fifa’s eight vice-presidents — raised similar concerns.
He said any future proposals affecting global football should be presented to members in a timely, transparent, and meaningful way.
He added that the game’s future must be shaped through proper consultation, collective dialogue, and respect for established governance structures.
Football Australia chair Anter Isaac said trust is built not only on good outcomes but on the integrity of the processes that produce them.
Football should keep evolving, he said.
But certain principles must remain constant: integrity, independence, good governance, transparency, meaningful consultation, and due process — none of which impede progress.