The Times Apologises to FIFA President Gianni Infantino After Retracting Claims
The Times has apologised to FIFA president Gianni Infantino after withdrawing several claims published in an article earlier this month. The British newspaper acknowledged that key allegations concerning the football administrator’s income and property dealings were inaccurate, bringing a public correction to a dispute that had drawn attention across the international game.
The controversy began with a report published on 13 October. It included claims about Infantino’s compensation from football’s world governing body and the purchase of a property in Miami. Following its review, the newspaper retracted the assertion that the FIFA president received an undeclared second salary and corrected its account of the property transaction.
Newspaper retracts claim about a second salary
The most prominent allegation was that Infantino was receiving an additional salary from FIFA that had not been formally disclosed. The Times later said there was no second salary. It explained that the payments in question were expenses and reimbursements, rather than remuneration, and therefore did not need to be listed as salary in FIFA’s annual report under Swiss law.
The distinction matters because expenses are intended to cover costs incurred while carrying out professional duties, whereas a salary is compensation for a person’s work. Reporting about senior officials’ finances can raise legitimate questions about transparency, but those questions depend on accurately identifying what a payment represents and how it is treated under the applicable rules.
The newspaper also corrected its claim that Infantino had acquired a Miami property for an unusually low price. In its apology, The Times said: “We apologise to Mr Infantino and FIFA for these errors.” The correction addressed the specific claims in the original article, rather than suggesting that scrutiny of FIFA or its leadership should end.
FIFA says inaccurate reporting harms trust
FIFA responded by describing the episode as part of what it called a continuing effort to damage the reputation of the organisation and its president. The governing body referred to a statement it had issued in August, saying that it believed some parties were engaged in a coordinated campaign to discredit FIFA and Infantino.
The organisation also urged news outlets to verify information carefully before publication. FIFA said it welcomes constructive criticism, but argued that criticism must be based on established facts and cannot excuse the publication of false claims. Its position reflects a wider debate in football: governing bodies need to answer serious questions about their decisions, while journalists must ensure that allegations are supported by reliable evidence.
That balance is particularly important in a sport followed by billions of people and shaped by influential institutions. Reports involving FIFA leadership can quickly influence public discussion, sponsor confidence and perceptions among national associations, players and supporters. Corrections and apologies therefore carry significance beyond the individuals directly involved.
Why the correction matters to football audiences
For football fans, the dispute is a reminder to distinguish between confirmed information, allegations and subsequent corrections. A headline can travel widely before a retraction receives the same attention. Readers assessing claims about the sport’s administration should consider whether a report has been updated, whether the relevant parties have responded and whether the evidence supports the conclusions being presented.
It also highlights the importance of clear financial reporting. FIFA operates under Swiss law, and the treatment of salary, expenses and reimbursements can depend on legal definitions and disclosure requirements. Understanding those categories is essential when evaluating claims about compensation. At the same time, public interest in how football’s governing bodies are run remains strong, making accurate and accessible explanations especially valuable.
FIFA has faced sustained scrutiny over governance and leadership in recent years. That broader context helps explain why financial claims can attract intense attention, but it does not settle the accuracy of any particular report. Each allegation must be judged on its own evidence. In this case, The Times’ retraction and apology mark a clear acknowledgment that parts of its coverage were wrong.
Infantino’s position and the road to re-election
FIFA’s statement also connected the dispute to Infantino’s political future, warning that the organisation would continue to challenge publications it considers inaccurate or defamatory. The governing body’s response came as Infantino prepares to stand for re-election as FIFA president, making public confidence and media coverage especially consequential.
Leadership contests in international football often bring renewed attention to candidates’ records, policies and relationships with member associations. Supporters and critics may use different measures to assess a president’s performance, from the organisation’s commercial growth and global competitions to governance standards and accountability. In that environment, reliable reporting is vital: accurate information allows debate to focus on decisions and evidence rather than claims that have been withdrawn.
The Times’ apology does not resolve every debate surrounding FIFA, nor does it remove the media’s responsibility to investigate matters of public interest. Instead, it draws a line under the specific errors identified by the newspaper and reinforces the need for careful verification when reporting on powerful figures in football.
For now, the central facts are straightforward: The Times withdrew its claim that Infantino received a second salary, corrected its reporting about a Miami property and apologised to him and FIFA. The governing body has welcomed criticism in principle while insisting that it must be grounded in truth. As the re-election period approaches, the episode is likely to keep questions of accuracy, transparency and accountability in the spotlight—issues that will shape how football supporters assess both FIFA and the media covering it.
For readers following the latest football news, this story offers a useful prediction of the debates likely to continue around the sport’s leadership: scrutiny will remain intense, but credibility will depend on facts, clear corrections and a willingness to distinguish proven information from allegation.
