FIFA Paid Millions in Gianni Infantino's Taxes
Left 50%
Center 0%
Right 50%
1 left · 0 center · 1 right
What happened
In 2024, a three-person FIFA committee approved covering U.S. taxes for the organization’s president, Gianni Infantino, after he relocated from Switzerland to Miami, Florida; the decision was not disclosed in public filings. One member, FIFA chief of governance, audit and compliance Bruno Chiomento, argued the payments matched tax coverage already provided to about a dozen staffers moving to the United States ahead of the World Cup, and he sought advice from Infantino’s personal attorney, David Zollinger. FIFA is expected to pay about $4 million in U.S. taxes for Infantino by the end of his three-year American stay and has also covered $600,000 in annual rent for his Miami home as well as residences in Switzerland and Paris. The New York Times first reported the story on 2026-11-02, citing people familiar with the payments and documents reviewed by The Times; FIFA was the first on-record source, stating via the New York Post on 2026-11-02 that all internal regulations, processes, and applicable laws had been followed and that reporting and taxation requirements were met. FIFA had adopted new transparency rules after a 2015 corruption scandal in which the U.S. Justice Department charged more than 40 soccer officials, and Infantino took power in that aftermath.
Sourcing check · Mostly on the record · 2 articles
1 of 2 articles cite a named source for the story. It started with unnamed sources; a named source appeared 13 hours later. Most articles credit New York Times rather than reporting it themselves.
What these terms mean and how they're counted
- On the record · names a source 1 of 2
- On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: FIFA
- Primary evidence · cites a document or data 0 of 2
- Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: None cited.
- Credits another outlet 1 of 2
- The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: New York Times
- Unnamed sources 2 of 2
- The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this. Here: e.g. “people familiar with the payments”, “documents reviewed by The Times”
- How it developed
- When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Nov 2, 05:01 UTC by New York Times, with no named source. First named source 13 hours later, from New York Post.
- Not counted 0
- Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out
Unpacked
Right-leaning coverage is simply more complete on the size of the payments and who signed off. Left-leaning coverage says only that FIFA's president received "tax benefits that were never made public" after a promise to disclose executive compensation. Right-leaning coverage puts the expected U.S. tax bill at about $4 million. It also describes a three-person committee that included a friend of Infantino agreeing to cover the taxes without disclosing the choice in filings.
Left-leaning coverage headlines that FIFA "Quietly Paid." Right-leaning coverage instead opens on an embattled chief whose American taxes the organization is covering.
Do FIFA's own disclosure rules treat a president's personal tax payments as compensation that must appear in public filings?
Bottom line
If you stayed with left-leaning coverage, you would not learn that FIFA expects to cover about $4 million of Infantino's U.S. taxes after a friend sat on the committee that approved it.
The receipts — 1 fact one side's coverage lacks
- FIFA said all internal regulations, processes, and applicable laws have been followed
The Left View
The New York Times frames the episode as a hidden exception to FIFA’s own disclosure pledge, stating that FIFA “promises to disclose its executives’ compensation” while its “under-fire president received tax benefits that were never made public.” The paper presents the arrangement as having been made “quietly,” established through documents and interviews rather than through FIFA’s public reporting.
The Right View
The New York Post frames Infantino as an “embattled” FIFA chief whose U.S. taxes were paid “without publicly disclosing the funds — despite promises of transparency.” It stresses that a friend sat on the approving committee, that advice was sought from Infantino’s personal attorney, and that senior officials questioned a conflict of interest, while also carrying FIFA’s statement that all regulations and laws were followed and that senior-management pay is independently audited.
Our Take (balanced)
The left’s strongest argument is that FIFA’s compensation-disclosure promise was hollow if the president’s tax benefits never appeared in public filings, a claim the Times anchors in documents and interviews. The right’s strongest argument is that the approval process was compromised by a friend of Infantino on the committee and by consultation with his personal attorney, even as FIFA insists every internal rule and applicable law was followed and that senior pay is independently audited. The central unresolved tension is whether those undisclosed tax payments are compatible with FIFA’s post-2015 transparency regime, or whether, as FIFA asserts, that regime was fully complied with.
2 sources
More stories
The week's bottom lines, in your inbox
One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.