A document spanning a dozen pages was crafted to safeguard the soccer authority, FIFA, during its time of critical challenge.

Bringing forth suggestions for change and compiled by a group of more than a dozen soccer insiders in December 2015, the document stood as FIFA’s prime opportunity to demonstrate to business associates, U.S. investigators, and billions of fans that it could regain trust following one of the most significant corruption scandals in sports history.

Contained within bullet points and numbered sections, the document advocated noble concepts such as answerability and modesty. It also recommended tangible and, for FIFA, groundbreaking alterations: visibility in how major decisions were made; limitations on the tenures of top executives and restrictions on presidential authority; and the elimination of well-supported committees widely known as a system of institutional corruption.

And within the list of authors on the last page of the document was the name of the individual positioning himself as FIFA’s rescuer: Gianni Infantino.

Mr. Infantino, a bureaucrat at the governing body of European soccer, had been recruited to help delineate the reforms. By the time these changes were disclosed, he had emerged as a contender for the role of FIFA president. Picturing himself as a sharp deviation from the past, he assumed office a few months later and swiftly commenced implementing many of the adjustments. The six regional soccer confederations pledged to revamp their practices as well.

Less than ten years later, the sport’s eagerness for transformation seems to have diminished. An external audit of the African soccer governing body, conducted subsequent to FIFA taking over the organization, hinted at tens of millions of misallocated funds. The governing bodies for Europe and for North and Central America have withdrawn support from reforms or disregarded commitments made, according to an assessment of public assurances and actual actions. The soccer confederation of Asia is set to decide this week on eliminating term limits for its principal leadership.

On Friday in Bangkok, Mr. Infantino and FIFA will request its members to ratify a series of modifications to its statutes that would reverse more of the changes he previously embraced and reinstate structures that he had endeavored to eliminate.

Critics contend that this would steer soccer away from the sound principles of good governance it had adopted during the scandal. “FIFA,” said the organization in response, “is in complete disagreement with this viewpoint.”

FIFA as an entity, along with Mr. Infantino personally, often cites a robust endorsement of its reforms whenever concerns about business integrity are raised. While Mr. Infantino seldom agrees to interviews, FIFA stated in response to queries about the reversal of reforms that the changes enacted since the scandals of 2015 have metamorphosed it “from a toxic establishment to a reputable, dependable, and contemporary governing body.”

This shift to exemplary governance has been recognized by multiple external bodies, including the Department of Justice of the United States, it mentioned.

However, American officials confirmed last week that they had never scrutinized FIFA’s regulations or governance standards, and the prosecutor’s office that initiated many of the corruption cases refused to support the federation’s modifications.

“Our office has not given its stamp of approval to the efficacy of any of FIFA’s present reform endeavors,” stated John Marzulli, a spokesperson for the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York.

FIFA, alongside two of its regional confederations, has been acknowledged as a victim by the Justice Department, implying an acknowledgment that it had been victimized by its own leaders. This classification could enable it to regain possession of tens of millions of dollars seized from defendants in the case.

However, indicating the reluctance of the Justice Department to endorse FIFA’s assertion of being a reformed institution, U.S. officials opted not to transfer $201 million in restitution funds granted to FIFA or its affiliated federations directly. Instead, they mandated the establishment of a U.S.-based bank account for a special fund to receive the proceeds, an unconventional move.

Simultaneously, FIFA has begun to amend statutes revised following the scandal. In the analysis from 2015, for instance, Mr. Infantino and other authors of the report proposed the dismantling of an inflated committee system that had long been one of FIFA’s most glaring excesses: a scheme of favoritism assignments where soccer officials worldwide could relish extravagant air travel, luxurious accommodations, and substantial annual salaries, all funded by FIFA, in exchange for their allegiance and votes.

At that time, FIFA had 26 such standing committees. The 2015 report suggested slashing them to nine “for enhanced efficiency.” Currently, there are only seven.

However, as per the proposed modfications under scrutiny this week in Bangkok, Mr. Infantino will seek members’ ratification for a fivefold increase to 35 commissions and the authority to establish new ones — and appoint members — at his discretion.

FIFA argued that the additional committees were necessary due to a significant expansion in its operations and suggested that these roles would enable more opportunities for women. It noted that some meetings would be conducted via teleconference. The process for selecting committee members was not specified, although there is already interest in these roles.

A sports official, currently associated with another prominent sports organization but having served on FIFA committees previously, expressed positivity upon hearing about their reinstatement. The official opted for anonymity

due to his ongoing affiliation with the institution. Nevertheless, he expressed a desire to be considered for a role as the advantages traditionally involved receiving coveted tickets for the World Cup.

Changes that were promised regionally have started to lose their impact. The recent decision by the Asian soccer confederation to eliminate term limits means that its president and board members can now remain in their positions indefinitely. (The A.F.C. stated that four member associations had requested this alteration.) Similarly, the attempt by the president of European soccer to extend his tenure beyond the 12-year limit was granted but turned insignificant when he confirmed he would not seek reelection. (He clarified that his intention was not to prolong his term but to assess the loyalty of members.) On the other hand, Concacaf, the North American soccer organization that faced near collapse due to the corruption scandal in 2015, has not followed through on promised reforms such as the hiring of independent board members. (No response was provided to a request for comment on Tuesday.)

Meanwhile, the cultures of highly-paid positions and authoritative presidents have, in some aspects, been reinforced. Members of FIFA’s top board, known as the Council, receive an annual compensation ranging from $250,000 to $350,000 for a role that may require attending as few as three meetings per year. Since assuming office, Mr. Infantino has observed his salary more than double, reaching close to $5 million, and he recently oversaw a modification to term limits — tailored specifically for him — potentially enabling him to serve in his position for 15 years instead of the designated 12 in FIFA’s regulations.