For most of Gianni Infantino's decade as FIFA president, the direction of travel has been clear.
FIFA has grown richer. Its tournaments have grown bigger. More money has been distributed to national associations, and Infantino has repeatedly presented himself as the man who can make football more global by giving smaller nations a larger share of the game's wealth.
That record has helped make him a difficult president to challenge.
But the argument surrounding his leadership has changed.
What began as a row over one commercial proposal has developed into a much broader fight about how FIFA is governed, how decisions are made and how much authority should sit with its president.
And this time, the criticism is not coming from one federation or one corner of European football.
The Nordic countries join the revolt
The latest blow came on Sunday.
The football associations of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and the Faroe Islands issued a joint statement saying they had lost confidence in the FIFA president.
That language matters.
Disagreement between FIFA and national associations is nothing new. Publicly declaring a loss of confidence in the president is something else entirely.
The six associations also raised serious concerns about governance and decision-making at FIFA and backed demands from UEFA, the Asian Football Confederation and Concacaf for an independent investigation into the events that triggered the current crisis.
Their focus was not simply Infantino himself. They called for a wider examination of whether FIFA's system of checks and balances, transparency and accountability is actually working as intended.
The dispute has therefore moved beyond one failed idea.
It is now about the way FIFA is run.
The proposal that started it
At the centre of the crisis is FIFA Forward Enterprise.
The idea was to create a new commercial subsidiary bringing together rights connected to FIFA competitions, including broadcasting, sponsorship, licensing, ticketing and hospitality.
Infantino argued that outside investment could unlock much more value from FIFA's competitions and allow far greater sums to be distributed around world football.
Under the proposal, private investors could have acquired a 20 per cent stake in the new commercial structure, raising around $4.2 billion.
FIFA said the increased revenues could ultimately allow individual member associations to access as much as $40 million during the 2027-2030 cycle.
For many smaller football nations, that is an enormous amount of money.
Infantino called the plan a "golden opportunity".
The problem was not simply the amount of money involved.
Opponents questioned whether private investors should be allowed anywhere near a commercial structure built around assets such as the World Cup. Just as importantly, they questioned how the proposal had been developed and how much meaningful scrutiny it had received before being presented.
The reaction was fierce enough that Infantino withdrew the proposal at the end of July.
But withdrawing it did not end the argument.
FIFA says mistakes were made. Its critics say it goes much deeper
After a crisis meeting in Morocco earlier this month, FIFA acknowledged that mistakes had been made.
Its leadership said the process should have been handled differently and apologised for making the FIFA Council and member associations feel excluded.
FIFA also stressed that the proposal had remained subject to approval and said everything had been done within its regulatory framework.
From FIFA's perspective, the lesson appeared to be that the process and communication needed improvement.
UEFA, the AFC and Concacaf rejected that explanation.
In an extraordinary joint open letter, the three confederations argued that this was not merely a communication failure. They described it as a failure of judgement and demanded that any investigation be carried out by a fully independent third party.
That distinction is now at the heart of the dispute.
Was FIFA Forward Enterprise fundamentally a legitimate idea handled badly?
Or did the proposal expose a deeper problem in which too much power has become concentrated around the presidency?
Those are very different diagnoses.
Then came the internal fallout
The pressure increased again when FIFA chief operating officer Kevin Lamour left the organisation.
Lamour had publicly criticised the investment proposal and said FIFA staff had been deceived over how it had been developed.
His departure prompted FIFA vice-president Sandor Csanyi to withdraw his support for Infantino, describing Lamour's dismissal as the "final straw".
Other associations have also withdrawn previous backing for Infantino.
The significance is not any one name on that list. It is the pattern.
Criticism is coming from national associations, confederation leaders and figures inside FIFA's own structures.
UEFA president Aleksander Ceferin has now openly suggested that Infantino has two choices: recognise that he has lost significant support, or contest next year's FIFA election and face an opponent.
Ceferin says he will not be that opponent.
For now, nobody else has formally emerged.
That may prove important.
Infantino still has a powerful argument
It would be a mistake to assume that Infantino is already beaten.
His political strength has always rested partly on FIFA's 211 national associations, especially those for whom development funding can transform what is possible domestically.
Speaking in the Dominican Republic at the weekend, Infantino returned directly to that message.
He argued that FIFA's job is to narrow the financial gap between the biggest football countries and everybody else.
That is more than a defence of his record. It is also the foundation of his case for remaining president.
The original investment proposal may be dead, but the promise behind it remains politically powerful: FIFA can generate more money, distribute more money and give smaller nations opportunities they would never receive from the richest parts of the football world.
Infantino also retains important support.
The African confederation CAF and South America's CONMEBOL have continued to back him, even as UEFA, the AFC and Concacaf have become increasingly critical.
A FIFA presidential election is decided by the member associations themselves. European opposition alone cannot remove him.
That is why this is not yet a story about the fall of Gianni Infantino.
It is a story about whether a serious enough coalition can be built to challenge him.
The 2027 election suddenly matters
Until recently, another Infantino victory in 2027 looked far easier to imagine than a genuine contest.
That assumption can no longer be taken for granted.
Ceferin believes there will be an opposition candidate if Infantino stands again. Senior football figures have also discussed the possibility of a vote of no confidence before the election.
Whether either route gathers enough support remains uncertain.
Infantino still controls a formidable political network, and the promise of greater investment in developing football remains attractive to many federations.
His opponents have another problem: opposing a president is easier than agreeing on who should replace him.
A credible challenger would need to build support across continents, offer a convincing development programme and persuade smaller associations that changing leadership would not mean losing financial support.
That is a much harder task than issuing statements of concern.
This has become bigger than Infantino
There is also a danger in reducing everything to one man's future.
FIFA introduced major governance reforms in 2016 after years of scandal. The current dispute is now testing whether those safeguards are strong enough when powerful figures inside the organisation disagree.
Who should control FIFA's most valuable commercial assets?
How much freedom should its president have to develop major proposals?
When something goes wrong, can FIFA investigate itself?
And how independent are the people and structures that are supposed to hold its leadership accountable?
Those questions will remain even if Infantino eventually leaves.
For the moment, he is still FIFA president. He still has major allies. He is showing no sign of voluntarily stepping aside.
But something has changed.
The argument is no longer confined to critics shouting at FIFA from the outside. Some of the organisations and individuals that helped sustain Infantino's presidency are now openly questioning his leadership.
For the first time in years, the next FIFA presidential election looks like it could become a genuine contest.
And whatever happens to Gianni Infantino, the larger question facing world football may be even more important:
Is FIFA's governance strong enough to control its president, whoever that president happens to be?
Have your say: Should Gianni Infantino resign as FIFA president?