UEFA’s secret plans to create a new tournament to rival the World Cup have been leaked this week after Wales, England, and Serbia became the first three nations to withdraw their support for seemingly doomed FIFA president Gianni Infantino.

Since announcing plans to sell stakes in football’s showpiece tournament, the latest edition of which concluded just two weeks ago with Spain crowned champions for a second time following a 1-0 win over Argentina, Infantino has come under increasing pressure to resign.

European football’s governing body has been the most vocal opponent of the 56-year-old’s money-grabbing scheme, issuing a series of explosive statements. The backlash has become so intense that Infantino reportedly called close friend Donald Trump for help on Monday afternoon, only to be completely snubbed by the US president.

It now looks increasingly likely that the Swiss millionaire will either step down or lose his position in March’s elections. But with five nations still backing him, UEFA are leaving nothing to chance, and their plans to create a breakaway tournament have come to light this week.

UEFA’s Secret Plan To Create New Tournament That Would Rival World Cup

REUTERS/Gonzalo Fuentes

According to Sky Sports, UEFA is in a position to launch its own World Cup-style competition to challenge Infantino’s vision if the embattled FIFA president manages to survive the current crisis and remain in office.

The proposal, put forward by Aleksander Ceferin, centred on a Global Nations League featuring eight-team finals tournaments after regional qualifying competitions. The concept was originally designed to take place in odd-numbered years when there is no men’s European Championship or World Cup.

The plans were first drawn up in 2017, just a year after Infantino left his role as UEFA’s General Secretary to replace Sepp Blatter as FIFA president, but they were never put into practice. The format included seven separate finals competitions, each made up of eight teams divided into different tiers based on rankings.

Alongside the main tournament, mini World Cups would have been staged across multiple host countries, with each competition beginning at the quarter-final stage. In Europe, qualification would have come through the Nations League format that UEFA ultimately introduced in 2018, featuring four-team finals.

Under the proposal, each top-tier Global Nations League finals would include three European teams, two from South America, and one each from Africa, Asia and North America. Oceania, the smallest and weakest confederation, would only have been represented in the fourth-tier finals. However, the project never progressed after Infantino pressed ahead with FIFA’s expanded Club World Cup.

Infantino’s Chances of Being Dethroned Continue To Increase

REUTERS/Brian Snyder

Although UEFA and CONCACAF have enough backing to trigger a vote of no confidence, they currently fall short of the numbers needed to remove Infantino from his position ahead of March’s elections.

As things stand, public opposition accounts for 43 per cent of FIFA’s membership, below the majority required to unseat him. That said, the undeclared associations are under no obligation to vote in line with their confederations.

If just 16 nations were to break ranks and side with the opposition, Infantino’s presidency would suddenly be hanging by a thread. The trio of nations that have withdrawn their support is a good start to a campaign that could rage on for weeks, if not months, before a resolution is made.

One of the biggest debates in football has raged on for decades now. Who is the better player, Cristiano Ronaldo or Lionel Messi?

For many, the argument should have ended when the Argentine led his nation to glory at the 2022 World Cup, winning the one prize his Portuguese counterpart could never get his hands on. Add to that Messi’s eight Ballon d’Or wins – the most of any footballer, and three more than Ronaldo managed – and the answer seems clear.

However, many (including some football legends) will argue that Ronaldo is better, or at least that they prefer the former Manchester United goal machine. With that in mind, it’s always interesting to hear where past teammates of the duo stand on the debate.

Casemiro Solves GOAT Debate

Casemiro spent many of his best years playing for Real Madrid, as he won three La Liga titles, one Copa del Rey, three FIFA Club World Cups, and the Champions League on five occasions. He then joined Man Utd and spent four seasons in England, from 2022 to 2026. In his time at both clubs, he shared the pitch with Ronaldo on 122 occasions.

Fast forward to 2026, and the Brazilian has now joined MLS team Inter Miami, making Messi a new teammate. During a 2-2 draw against Columbus Crew, the Argentine came off the bench, thus sharing the pitch with Casemiro for the first time in his career.

Now that the 34-year-old has played with the two football legends, he has offered a verdict on which man he believes to be a ‘god of football’. As quoted by ESPN, Casemiro revealed just how highly he thinks of Messi, dubbing him as ‘the best player of all time.’ In full, he said:

Casemiro ‘Could Never Stop’ Messi

The comments might not go down too well with Ronaldo. After all, former England striker Gary Lineker once claimed the Portuguese striker stopped talking to him after he publicly claimed that Messi was the better player.

With that in mind, Ronaldo might have enjoyed Casemiro scoring an embarrassing own goal during the draw against Columbus Crew, with Messi only able to look on in disappointment from the bench. At least the new Inter Miami star doesn’t have to worry about trying to stop the Argentine, as he often did during Clasico matches between Barcelona and Madrid.

Casemiro explained how that was a relief, saying: “The amount of problems Messi gave me, of course I dreamed of playing with him.

“I always wanted to play with the best. I could never stop him, I always needed help from my teammates. I am very happy that I am now with him, and I want to keep winning with him.”

As one of the rare footballers to have played with both Messi and Ronaldo, Casemiro’s assertion that the former is the ‘best’ certainly helps finally solve the GOAT debate.

When WWE announced Brock Lesnar vs Oba Femi as a Hell in a Cell match for SummerSlam, fans expected carnage against steel, the kind of chaos that made the stipulation legendary.

From The Undertaker throwing Mankind off the top of the cell at King of the Ring 1998 to Shane McMahon jumping off the structure at WrestleMania 32, the Hell in a Cell match has provided some of the most jaw-dropping moments in WWE history.

While Lesnar and Femi produced one of the best-received matches of the entire SummerSlam weekend, their Hell in a Cell encounter, which headlined night one of the two-night card, delivered none of the advertised brutality. Instead, the Cell stood around the ring like a prop, barely touched, never climbed or used as a weapon.

Brock Lesnar’s Bizarre Stance on Hell in a Cell Match at SummerSlam

Insiders say WWE crafted the stipulation around Lesnar’s preferences, turning the encounter into a hardcore‑style brawl that respected his veteran limitations rather than a full‑scale Cell spectacle.

According to Ringside News, Lesnar didn’t want to interact with the Cell at all. Lesnar told WWE, “‘I want to be in one more of these, but I don’t want to touch the cage.’ So all those things combined, they put them in the Cell and had them have a regular match, and that’s what they did.“

Although the match was a rubber match between Lesnar and Femi, who were previously tied at one bout apiece in their rivalry, the idea of having it take place inside Hell in a Cell didn’t solely come from WWE.

Why WWE Really Booked A Hell in a Cell Match at SummerSlam

While WWE arguably needed the Hell in a Cell branding as a ticket-selling attraction, the real push for the Hell in a Cell match is said to have come from the promotion’s US broadcast partner ESPN, who were keen to have the legendary stipulation as part of the SummerSlam event.

Lesnar’s refusal to lean into the nature of the match rendered the stipulation as little more than marketing. Rather than the usual brutality against steel, or the mantra, “this match takes years out of your career,” the match unfolded almost entirely inside the ropes, with Lesnar and Femi wrestling as if the cage wasn’t even there.

Lesnar dominated his 2002 main‑roster debut on SmackDown, winning King of the Ring and crushing The Undertaker inside Hell in a Cell. This time, the roles flipped — Lesnar played the part of the veteran falling to Femi, WWE’s new “next big thing.” The parallel became even sharper when Lesnar delivered The Undertaker’s Tombstone Piledriver on the exposed wood beneath the canvas.

Femi survived, making him feel superhuman kicking out of a finisher of that caliber, and ultimately scored the biggest victory of his career. Lesnar embraced Femi afterward, calling him “the future of WWE” in a moment that instantly became a SummerSlam highlight.

For many fans, however, the debate wasn’t about the finish. It was about the stipulation: can a match truly be called Hell in a Cell when the cell itself is never part of the match? The structure has defined some of WWE’s most iconic moments, but at SummerSlam it was just scenery.

WWE’s decision came down to a multitude of business needs and Lesnar’s personal boundaries. The company wanted the Hell in a Cell name on the marquee that headlined night one of SummerSlam. ESPN wanted a major attraction. Lesnar wanted the match, but without the danger that comes with it. Those factors ultimately collided, producing a match that looked like Hell in a Cell but didn’t feel like one.