Rui Pinto has again placed FIFA President Gianni Infantino under intense scrutiny, reviving accusations tied to the long-running Manchester City case and accusing him of shielding the club from harsher punishment.

The Portuguese hacker, whose leaked material helped trigger the Premier League investigation into Manchester City, described Infantino as “a cancer on football.” In a social media post, Pinto argued that Infantino was already aware of the issues around the club in 2014, when he was UEFA General Secretary.

“Back in 2014, there was a man who was already aware of the irregularities involving Manchester City,” the activist wrote on social media . “That man now runs FIFA.

“The infamous Gianni Infantino, then UEFA General Secretary, abused his authority, shared confidential documents and, in short, outmaneuvered the Investigatory Chamber, doing everything in his power to ensure that both Manchester City and PSG would merely receive a fine, avoiding a deeper investigation that could have led to a Champions League ban. All of these details were also revealed through Football Leaks.

“Given his actions as UEFA General Secretary and, more recently, as FIFA President, I can only say, in my humble opinion, that Gianni Infantino has become a cancer on football and should have no place in the future of the game.”

The comments revisit UEFA’s 2014 examination of Manchester City and Paris Saint-Germain, when both clubs avoided competition bans and were instead fined. Pinto and Der Spiegel later claimed that Infantino “circumvented” normal procedure and helped steer the matter toward that outcome.

Among the documents cited in the report was an email allegedly sent by Infantino to Khaldoon Al Mubarak in May 2014. It included the line: “Sorry for my ‘late-Friday-night email,’” along with the phrase, “You know you can trust me. … Let’s be positive!”

Der Spiegel also reported that UEFA’s Investigatory Chamber found City had accumulated a deficit of at least €188 million during a period when only €45 million could be lost. The same report said Infantino had held “secret talks, even supplying them with confidential materials” and made “compromises that he was unauthorized to propose.”

City’s dissatisfaction was also highlighted through a hacked email allegedly written by Simon Cliff, in which Al Mubarak was quoted as saying: “Khaldoon said he would rather spend 30 million on the 50 best lawyers in the world to sue them for the next 10 years.”

Infantino has not responded publicly while touring Asian soccer associations.

Premier League rivals are said to be split over what punishment should follow the findings against Manchester City, with opinions ranging from a severe sporting sanction to a ruling that would still allow the club to remain in the division.

City could lose the three titles won during the period under scrutiny, from 2009 to 2018, although any punishment is expected to shape the present or future rather than rewrite the past. The matter now rests with an independent panel, while City prepare an appeal.

According to The Guardian, after discussions with executives from rival clubs, there is a strong push for a penalty heavy enough to keep City out of the top flight for the foreseeable future. A straight relegation is not available in the normal sense, as the English Football League is a separate body and would not be bound to accept anything beyond the three clubs traditionally sent down. Even so, a significant points deduction could leave City anchored near the bottom of the table.

Those quoted in the report do not want a sanction that feels temporary. Their concern is that a one-season absence would simply allow City to return and continue as before. One executive said: “Relegation to the Championship for one season would be insufficient,” one executive is quoted as saying. “The commission has to arrive at a punishment that is proportionate for years of sustained and deliberate cheating, as well as providing a strong deterrent to it happening again.”

The panel does have the power to remove City from the top flight altogether. Yet Sky Sports News reported that two senior executives from unnamed Premier League clubs would be “staggered” and “amazed” if enough clubs truly backed expulsion.

Commercial concerns are central to that reluctance. City remain one of the league’s biggest attractions, and their removal would create problems for scheduling and television rights. Fewer fixtures would mean reduced broadcast value, with possible refunds affecting money distributed across the division. “If Man City were expelled, that would have massive commercial consequences for everyone in the league, and ultimately it would cost the other clubs an awful lot of money,” one executive said.

The Independent Football Regulator, introduced in September 2025, is also watching closely. Its chair, David Kogan, said: “The independent commission’s decision raises serious issues,” Kogan said. “The IFR has powers to assess the suitability of owners, directors and executives and we will use these powers where appropriate, in the interests of protecting the sustainability, honesty and integrity of English football where there is clear evidence of wrongdoing by individuals.

“This includes taking account of findings made by the Leagues. However, as the proceedings remain ongoing between Manchester City and the Premier League we will await further developments.

“We hope it can be resolved quickly for the sake of fans. For now, we have no further comment.”

Jürgen Klopp has stepped back from his earlier stance on Manchester City’s Premier League charges, saying he is “not really interested” in the idea of the club being stripped of titles.

The former Liverpool manager had previously joked in January 2025 that he would host a private parade in Mallorca, Spain, if City’s titles were taken away. His latest comments, however, show a more measured position.

“I haven’t given it much thought,” the current boss of the Germany national team said. “I also know that I said that if there’s ever a parade, I’d come. I can only wait and see.

“I have big respect for Pep Guardiola and City’s style of football. They played fantastic football and were a top-class opponent for us. If any sanctions are handed out, I have nothing to do with it. I’ll wait and see.

“I don’t really have any strong feelings about it. It’s not like I need to have won the English title a few more times. I’m far from preparing for a title or anything like that. I’m absolutely fine with what we achieved in Liverpool. We fought hard on the pitch.

“I can’t say more about that because I don’t know the details. To be honest, I’m also not really interested in it.”

The Premier League’s rules do include a broad range of possible sanctions for clubs found guilty of breaches. Financial punishments and point deductions are standard tools in the modern game, while the regulations also conclude with the option of “such other penalty as it shall think fit.”

That wording leaves the league with the power to remove titles if it chooses, although whether that would happen is another matter entirely. When the guilty verdict against City first became public, reporting suggested any punishment would likely not be retrospective. BBC Sport also said there was “little appetite” from the league or rival clubs for titles to be stripped.

If the issue ever moved further, the debate would centre on which honours could be affected. City’s punished period runs from 2009 to 2018, when they won three Premier League titles: 2011-12, 2013-14 and 2017-18.